Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2019 14:56:47 -0400 From: Robert Simmons <rsimmons0@gmail.com> To: "freebsd-security@freebsd.org" <freebsd-security@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Old Stuff Message-ID: <CA%2BQLa9BeC-g%2Bs-%2B1nVqnkV4xGRUpoeRhopCG87Yz=Du%2B1W4_Eg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <CADWvR2hDs_10hBkUrvOWOEnrZLZjHO3vZY9C%2BHd_zx5Hde4EDw@mail.gmail.com> References: <CA%2BQLa9DnEmC0fK81rHGCsuextpN%2BUjMbraUFKBz0DYeDbz%2BTjg@mail.gmail.com> <CADWvR2hDs_10hBkUrvOWOEnrZLZjHO3vZY9C%2BHd_zx5Hde4EDw@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
The safer part of my speculation is specifically based on being less code to maintain overall. More resources devoted to a smaller code base. On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 1:26 PM Igor Mozolevsky <mozolevsky@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Wednesday, 24 July 2019, Robert Simmons wrote: > > Lolz, right? :- > > > I wonder if FreeBSD should drop support for 32bit? Clean out and remove > all > > of it. It should make the code base easier to maintain, cleaner, and > safer. > > Because nobody has a 32bit computer nowadays??? Similarly, you got any > empirical evidence to back up the "... safer" part of your speculation? > > > In this same vein, let's deprecate and remove things like telnet and ftp. > > > How does the saying go, "if you think that encryption is the solution to > your problem then you don't understand neither encryption nor your > problem"? I would hazard a guess that over 95% of encrypted traffic needn't > be encrypted at all, but no commercial interest developed "integrity over > http" so we all have to suffer "encryption under http" instead. > > > -- > > Igor M.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CA%2BQLa9BeC-g%2Bs-%2B1nVqnkV4xGRUpoeRhopCG87Yz=Du%2B1W4_Eg>