Re: deleting telnet/telnetd

[John Nemeth <jnemeth%cue.bc.ca@localhost>]

On Dec 19, 12:32pm, Hisashi T Fujinaka wrote:
}
} 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?

     Maybe you're a better programmer.  :->

} 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
}-- End of excerpt from Hisashi T Fujinaka