Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>