Old Stuff

[Aaron C. de Bruyn]

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 12:09 PM Robert Simmons <rsimmons0 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, to reduce the code base complexity so that resources can be focused
> on a smaller code base.
>

That seems like several completely different arguments.  Codebase
complexity, available resources, and "a smaller code base".

So why does removing telnet and FTP solve or partially solve codebase
complexity whereas removing sh or curl not solve the problem?

As for available resources, is that currently a problem?  Is there no
telnet or FTP maintainer?  Are they complaining they're overworked with a
flood of changes to the telnet protocol (have there been any changes in the
last 2 decades)?

Why is "a smaller code base" a goal?  Shouldn't it be more along the lines
of "the smallest most efficient code base necessary to support feature x,
use-case y, or project z"?

I'm being a bit snarky with this, but you could solve all the problems you
listed by distributing an OS that simply had an 'ls' command and that's
it.  No login.  No vi.  No video support. No nothing.  It just boots to a
prompt and allows you to type 'ls'.  Much smaller codebase, less
complexity, tons of resources for a very small project.

Maybe I misunderstood based on Stephen's earlier reply though.  If the case
is simply removing it from the base to ports, I would have less of an
issue.  It means a bit more work on my end, but at least the functionality
is available.  I would think it would have a minor impact on users coming
over from Windows, Linux, or other BSDs with the former two being less
inclined to dive in and compile from source or even know/understand ports
initially.

-A