On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 10:29 PM Eugene Grosbein <eu...@grosbein.net> wrote:
> On 05.04.2021 06:25, Dave Cottlehuber wrote: > > > Eugene mentioned the convenience of ftpd in the same sentence as ipsec. > > I'm willing to bet those systems have ports installed too. > > Ports/packages are great but they are not replacement for solid operating > system > with bundled software tested and proven with time. > > > If speed is an issue, HTTP supports pipelining, compression, chunked > > encoding, & parallel connections. I'm not sure ftpd is even in the same > > game anymore. > > Compression and various encodings of raw data are not good for speed. > sendfile(2) system call used by ftpd to send raw data is good for speed. > Unlimited CPU power should not be assumed. > > > The more code we hang onto in base, the larger the millstone around our > > necks when moving forwards. Each individual opportunity to slim down > > base *in itself* is not significant, but cumulatively they represent > > gridlock. > > > > For each removal or deprecation, please consider, is this worth holding > > the project back for? > > Our ftpd code does not hold the project back in any way. It's here, it > works, it's very good. > > High quality bundled software is what we love FreeBSD for. > Unfortunately, ports tend to rot more quick due to some known reasons. > I wouldn't say that anything is "very good" when it has no test suite whatsoever. If you want to help, you could write one. You might take a look at libexec/tftpd/tests/ to get started. -Alan _______________________________________________ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
