Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:05:57 +0100 From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.net> To: Slawa Olhovchenkov <slw@zxy.spb.ru> Cc: "arch@FreeBSD.org" <arch@FreeBSD.org>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Subject: Re: removing bdes.. Message-ID: <964BFD22-E04A-40A4-9F82-BEB1AD97EB5A@keltia.net> In-Reply-To: <20150210191329.GL3698@zxy.spb.ru> References: <20150209181502.GF1953@funkthat.com> <20150210151812.GB67127@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210172039.GA1071@reks> <20150210175240.GD67127@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210175852.GV1953@funkthat.com> <20150210180906.GI3698@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210181916.GY1953@funkthat.com> <20150210183638.GK3698@zxy.spb.ru> <20150210190132.GB1953@funkthat.com> <20150210191329.GL3698@zxy.spb.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Hmm, as I reminder FreeBSD motto is "tools, not policies". > If tools work as expected -- all OK. It is also some lines of code no one want to maintain, providing a false sen= se of security, what's the point? > Deny insecure crypto algorithm? Why don't force to use stong crypto > algorithm in all places (force disk, swap and memory encryption)? > Deny unencrypted network connection? > Deny unencrypted arhive? That's besides the point, we are not here to keep old code for the sake of i= t, esp. Since it will be a port. We obsolete old code all the time you know= . I'd say that uucp was more useful than bdes and we still removed it.=20 Why making so big a fuss? --=20 Ollivier Robert=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?964BFD22-E04A-40A4-9F82-BEB1AD97EB5A>