| 1 |
On Tue, 2020-12-29 at 22:41 +0000, Peter Stuge wrote: |
| 2 |
> Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > > I would be happier if some other developers were able and willing |
| 4 |
> > > to |
| 5 |
> > > participate actively in the LibreSSL project. |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > But why would they do that? What I'm really missing in all the |
| 8 |
> > replies |
| 9 |
> > is a single reason why LibreSSL would be better for anyone. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Maybe because it is so well-known that monoculture is harmful per se, |
| 12 |
> which is why the commitment to choice in Gentoo is very valuable. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Further, LibreSSL comes out of the OpenBSD project, which has a good |
| 15 |
> reputation on code quality. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Like strong-arming 99% of the users of OpenSSH because they were |
| 18 |
unwilling to port to the OpenSSL 1.1 API, fully well knowing that most |
| 19 |
of the OpenSSH consuming world doesn't actually use libressl? How is |
| 20 |
explicitly tying OpenSSH to libressl not a form of monoculture? |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
If you want to provide an alternative, you have to subsume the API, not |
| 23 |
make it superficially compatible, only to find out that the you need to |
| 24 |
mask out a ton of stuff with macros. Case in point: Have you tried using |
| 25 |
the official libjpeg package instead of libjpeg-turbo? Go ahead, give it |
| 26 |
a try. "Monoculture"s are mostly a coincidence, not some sinister |
| 27 |
conspiracy. Implementation-diversity-but-API-compatibility is mostly a |
| 28 |
pipe dream, as libav, imagemagick, libjpeg have shown. |
Archives