On Dec 19, 11:48pm, David Holland wrote:
} On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 11:06:58PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
} > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:03:19PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
} > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 10:58:14PM +0100, Manuel Bouyer wrote:
} > > > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 09:03:27PM +0000, David Holland wrote:
} > > > > [...]
} > > > > The hope, I think, was that the conclusion would be that we don't
} > > > > really need one.
} > > >
} > > > We really need one, and the one we have does the job. I really don't
see
} > > > why we shoud rewrite something that works.
} > >
} > > Have you looked at the code?
} >
} > no but I do use it quite often.
}
} If you value your sanity, don't. But, also, you might want to rethink
I could say the same thing about OpenSSH, something that is
supposed to use modern coding standards to be secure. At one time,
I maintained SunOS 4.x systems past their "best before" dates. I
ran OpenSSH on them. Every other release, they broke the portability
layer. Looking at that code seriously hurt my head. My point is
that there is a lot of code out there that can hurt your sanity,
and some of it isn't all that old.
} how much you trust it.
If there was a suitable replacement for OpenSSH, I would jump
on it in an instance.
}-- End of excerpt from David Holland
