@morbiuswilters said:
So.. you're just making up the arguments you want to have in your head and then posting the results here? How's that working out for you?
So.. you're just claiming that you have said something, I point out that you didn't, and now I'm the one having arguments in my head?
@morbiuswilters said:
@derari said:I don't think SChannel has the same amount of deprecated code, because they probably never made the effort to support that many older platforms.
And that's supposed to be a point in OpenSSL's favour? Shit, even the OpenBSD people realize that's dumb.
So.. when a company makes the economic decision to not support some weird platforms, it's a good thing, and when a FOSS community makes the economic decision to not support some weird standards, it's purified evil?
And stop whining about not caring about their users. If you consider how many potential users actually need FIPS, and which value they could provide instead for the remaining users, it is a good decision for the users.
@morbiuswilters said:
Now, see, I don't think I've ever seen a commercial product that only works in vim.
Yeah, that was a copy&paste mistake. Replace vim with Java or something.
@morbiuswilters said:
So your coup de grace against commercial software is that it gives you dozens of competing choices?
Well,
you said that's a bad thing.
@morbiuswilters said:
Well, for one, I never said SChannel was bug-free; there you go again, having the argument you want to have in your head.
I wasn't talking about any bug, but about severe bugs. Maybe you should take Reading Comprehension 101. You just claimed that SChannel is superior but so far, nobody has effectively proven that, you've just fabricated
statements I did not make and then tried vainly to argue against them.
The to major arguments against OpenSSL are 1) the bug, which surely has its equivalent in SChannel and 2) the amounts of dead code. But you do realize that dead code, by definition, is nothing that makes a software worse for the end user?