cracauer@
Developer
You people are just pathetic.
It was a joke. Jeez.
I agree, and I loved and used rcs a lot back then, but version we had was GNU, so it had to go. Now, we have devel/rcs57 which is:You laugh, but it is a small, usable piece of software that in my opinion deserves to be in base.All went downhill when they removedrcsfrom base (AFAIR after 10?)
/s
and the latest release (5.10.1) in devel/rcs
The kids won't use nano either because "console is old". Should we really ditch the console and editors in general to appease this market? Perhaps an OS should be developed for people who know better than the kids. I feel that pushing back is the better choice than getting used to it.
Not true, it's got a long list of vulnerabilities... Just google for them. One hit that I found in 30 seconds: https://specopssoft.com/blog/tcp-port-21-ftp-vulnerabilities/
The OSes you are thinking of, by now, are NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonflyBSD, and illumos. Just a few years ago FreeBSD would be on that list, but given the recent developer attitudes, sadly it isn't anymore. I can imagine that 25 or so years ago, there was a similar discussion on a Linux forum, mass-appeal types probably won, and look where it is now.
OpenBSD has a BSD version.
That's just FTP in general, which will have the same issues no matter what implementation carries it. Also, that article looks AI generated, or at least heavily AI-assisted.
I use nano because I don't like ed or ee... and vi... well, if need be, I can always google for a cheat sheet of vi commands...
But there are people who will probably suggest removing (i.e. spinning out into ports, but now that pkgbase is coming everything will be a port) ed, ex, and vi simply because "they're difficult". My first text editor was vi, and I didn't beg for mercy. I just read the fucking manual, like everyone with even two braincells should.
My point was, FTP does have vulnerabilities, and they are well known and easy to find, and are usually rectified in up-to-date implementations like sftp. No point reinventing the wheel or being political about things until you're blue in the face.
FreeBSD has ftpd and tftpd. They could just keep it as is, while adding an sftpd. There is no reason to remove things, and then not offer a replacement. ftps is rather undiverged from normal ftp, besides some simple encryption, so that capability might have actually been possible to graft on to the existing ftpd, instead of removing it so there is no ftp at all.
sftp is not an implementation of ftp.
From one retro enthusiast to another, I think dropping i386 is a crime. And to that end, I'm certain that MBR will be on the chopping block soon.
I can deal with a few ports at once, and it is still creates a smaller attack surface than just using normal FTP. I already handle many more ports than that in my home lab. If you don't know what a port is than you shouldn't be running a server.
sftp merely works with firewalls a bit better than ftps... just because the former only needs port 22, while the latter needs multiple ports open to function properly.
So *BSD has always had a GUI component to it? Not sure why you think FreeBSD is solely a "server" O/S? I was running *BSD on GUI based workstations for many many years -- and even today on my PCs. Literally the best "X Windows" experiences in the past were on workstations that were on *BSD hosts.
So I think you might be ... wrong.
But good luck with NetBSD !
And systems research (meaning: operating systems research) died somewhere around 99 or 2000, according to Rob Pike. Strange that he is still employed as a systems researcher, now 25 years later.
