14 ms·
1. Easy is good. Example: The entire purpose of Noise is to simplify and make things easier for people. 2. I am not "slapping some kind of encryption" on tun/
by feelin_googley 9y ago
1. Easy is good. Example: The entire purpose of Noise is to simplify and make things easier for people.
2. I am not "slapping some kind of encryption" on tun/tap devices. Though it would be easy to do so, I have not required "bulk encryption" for this software to be useful. IMO, the flexibility to add this, easily, is indeed a feature worth mentioning (some users might need it), but not one I need right now.
3. Small, fast, flexible and portable are software virtues most useful and therefore most important to me. What I see here in this cheap, senseless comment is the act of trying to superimpose someone other user's virtues, e.g. encryption protocols. It is trying to impose one persons goals onto another persons goals without even knowing what are the other persons goals. The usual nerd web forum nonsense.
Not all users need, or value, the same things.
The authors of Curve25519 and the peer-to-peer software I use, both academics whose software is used by security consultants, do not spend time reading and interacting with the HN peanut gallery. In fact this is true of the authors of most software I use. I think there is a reason for that. Why do I waste my time reading this garbage? (Every time I respond to it I feel like I have been suckered/duped into playing a time-wasting game.)
Because despite the garbage comments there are some interesting, unconventional end users who read HN. Not sure where else one would find this audience all checking the same website.
How "easy" it was for any of these authors I mentioned to write the software I value is mildly intriguing but truthfully not something I really care about. The fact is that they were the only ones to write it and publish it. That is what is important to me.
All of this is tangential to the question: Is Wireguard portable to BSD, Minix, Plan9, etc.?
But I guess the fact that whatever I am using, for almost 10 years before WireGuard appeared, is smaller than WireGuard has irked someone into trying to dismiss that prior software. The reason apparently is that it might have been "easy" to avoid writing a large amount of code.
It might have been easy to do for the original author, but for those 10 years, no one else did it. The alternatives chose significantly different (IMO, inferior) designs and were all much larger, stacked with "features" and complexity I did not need.
The temptation to make things complicated and larger than they need to be is irresistable for most people writing software. It takes serious effort to find authors who can resist this temptation, effort most users will not make. I make that effort and reap the rewards.
The author of the parent comment exploits that temptation and the larger number of undetected mistakes it produces as a business.
It is easy to see the competing interests and inherent biases between a user that values relatively small, simple software and a security consultant who needs relatively large, complex software (the norm) to continue to exist in order to stay in business.
- tptacek 9y agoI really don't care about any of this. I would only push back on the idea that you might want to choose VPN software by first verifying that it somehow can take advantage of Curve25519 and then counting lines of code (whether or not you choose to include OpenSSL's line count). No, that would get you to some bad places.
- feelin_googley 9y agoThe problem with your comments is they assume things about other users. You have no idea what software I use, how I verify it, how I modify it or how I use it. You have no idea what I am doing. Stop making assumptions. If you really dont care (as would be expected) then dont downvote and comment. If you want to use this forum to give unsolicited "advice" to readers then you can do that (easy for me to filter this out). But please do not use my comments as a launching pad for your free "advice" and "guidance". If you want to change what software people use, why not write some software yourself and publish it?
- sbierwagen 9y agoThomas couldn't have downvoted you there: HN doesn't let users downvote replies to their own comments.
- feelin_googley 9y agoI meant the downvote and accompanying reply I got on the initial comment I made where I asked the question "How portable is WireGuard to BSD, Minix, Plan9, etc.". Even if he did not do the downvote, a comment like the one he left triggers an automatic flurry of downvotes. He claims something about "bad security advice". But really what is going on is he is telling people what software to use again, and what software not to use. I mention I am using some software, for a purpose he does not know (no encryption in fact required for my use) without naming the software, and he posts some inane comment about writing such software being "easy". I am not the author of the software in question, I believe he is talented software author, and I really dont care how easy it was for him to write. What I care about is that being small in size, I can work with the source code easier. What I care about, the things about software I value, is not "security advice". Its what I care about. Of course what he cares about, the software he chooses to endorse, is security advice. I do not care what software he likes or doesnt like. But he will not spare us his opinions. Because he is here to "give advice". I do not endorse software. I rarely name the software I am using. I might describe it generally. While I may have different preferences and make different choices, I certainly do not try to put down other users choices in software. Other users specify software by name, providing links and wax poetic about it. The "security expert" says nothing. I make a comment about software I am using, and the qualities of software I care about (small, portable, fast, flexible), without naming the software, and suddenly we have (as he claims) a "bad security advice" alert. Never mind that the point of the comment is to ask if WireGuard is portable, so I can try using it. I find the idea that someone is actively trying to indiscriminately control what software HN readers use to be insulting. If advice or recommendatons are sought, then requests for advice or recommendations will be made. But when someone is trying to supress or discredit the informed choices of users who are neither seeking (nor giving) advice then that is truly pathetic. One would hope that reasonable persons would be above this sort of behavior.