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 - ht...@twofifty.com } BSEE + BSChem + BAEnglish + MSCS + $2.50 = coffee }-- End of excerpt from Hisashi T Fujinaka