Old Stuff

[Robert Simmons]

You're correct. I did make two separate suggestion in the same email. My
suggestion about ftp and telnet is not based on code base complexity. I'm
only using that argument for dropping 32bit.

On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 4:17 PM Aaron C. de Bruyn <aaron at heyaaron.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>