On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 10:29 PM Eugene Grosbein <eugen at 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