| 1 |
On Wed, 2020-12-30 at 09:08 +0100, Marcel Schilling wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Dec 29, 2020 at 11:31:32PM +0100, Michał Górny wrote: |
| 3 |
> > What I'm really missing in all the replies is a single reason why |
| 4 |
> > LibreSSL would be better for anyone. Not 'it's an alternative', not |
| 5 |
> > 'I don't trust' but a real proper, verifiable argument 'LibreSSL is |
| 6 |
> > better in this regard'. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I guess that is due the fact that you dismiss arguments that are valid |
| 9 |
> reasons for others (incl. me) but apparently not sufficient for you, |
| 10 |
> like my situation where 'It works on all my systems, and switching would |
| 11 |
> mean work for me and at least a risk of downtimes'. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
I don't dismiss that. If I had, I wouldn't be bothering with the whole |
| 14 |
discussion and just kill it. I just draw a different conclusion than |
| 15 |
you do. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Having systems that do work with LibreSSL today doesn't guarantee |
| 18 |
the same for the foreseeable future. If anything, I prefer to ask |
| 19 |
the existing users to perform a conscious migration today, than wait |
| 20 |
till things become really unusable and more users are forced to migrate |
| 21 |
their systems without realizing the risks. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
It's all nice to say that LibreSSL will be usable in the near future |
| 24 |
but that's just plain lying. We're between LibreSSL upstream that |
| 25 |
explicitly rejects any idea of interoperability with OpenSSL, and other |
| 26 |
upstreams that plain reject the idea of bending their software to work |
| 27 |
with LibreSSL. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
I'm sorry to say but in my opinion LibreSSL's team attitude is to blame |
| 30 |
in the first place here. If someone forks something, deliberately |
| 31 |
breaks compatibility and then tries everyone to use his work, what else |
| 32 |
would you expect to happen? |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Best regards, |
| 36 |
Michał Górny |
Archives