Re: deleting telnet/telnetd

[Hisashi T Fujinaka <htodd%twofifty.com@localhost>]

I don't understand your position. Let me explain why.

You're saying, "Write a new one, and it's going to be close to
impossible," at the same time you're saying, "Delete this one."

If it's impossible, and we need one, we'll need to keep the old one no
matter how bad it is, right? And if you can't fix it after all the
experience you have with it, how am I going to be able to fix it?

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, David Holland wrote:

> The previous telnet thread, contentious as it has been, has completely
> missed the critical context, which is that telnet is 14,700 lines
> cutpasted from the Necronomicon and telnetd is only slightly better.
>
> If the conclusion is that we really need a telnet client (I myself
> really don't care if it's in base or not) then we should write a new
> one.
>
> The old one should be deleted, the sooner the better.
>
> Keep in mind that I say this from the perspective of having been the
> upstream maintainer of the linux fork of it for some years and having
> wasted quite a bit of time and sanity points trying to improve it,
> i.e., arguments of the form "it's not that bad" not grounded in
> similar experience aren't going to be very convincing.
>
> Which of y'all who have been vocal on the other thread are willing to
> help write this? Speak up.
>
> Note that there are 50-odd RFCs on telnet and those document only the
> basics. Making it work with the legacy router in your junkheap will
> require that you get off your duff and test it against that router...

--
Hisashi T Fujinaka - htodd%twofifty.com@localhost
BSEE + BSChem + BAEnglish + MSCS + $2.50 = coffee