4 ms·
I dont understand the purpose of this question. The existing purpose is that it works at all?
by castis 7y ago
I dont understand the purpose of this question. The existing purpose is that it works at all?
- ryanlol 7y agoI’m really not convinced that this is a realistic concern. And anyway, what you’re posing certainly isn’t a performance concern, but a “does the software work” concern.
- castis 7y ago"I’m really not convinced". Ok great thanks, neither is anyone else, which is why we'd like numbers.
- FDSGSG 7y agoWhy do you think that this specific change would make ssh not "work at all" as opposed to the hundreds of other changes that happen? Do you even pay close attention to those changes? I for sure don't. Why are you concerned about this in the first place? Obviously there's always a general concern about any changes, but what makes this specific change a big deal to you?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- archgoon 7y agoThis particular change got a hacker news article. It seems to be inherently more noticeable than others. Seems reasonable to ask about the performance (and memory) implications of the change. If they're minimal, than this solution can be easily added to other situations where encryption is being used. If it's heavy, then different solutions would need to be developed on a case by case basis.
- castis 7y agoedit: your annoyance is not worth anyones time
- FDSGSG 7y ago>reading way too far into it Dunno, your earlier comments seem to imply otherwise: >we'd like to know that its not heavily degrading to the existing purpose... which is why we'd like numbers