4 ms·
I'm interested to hear more about why changing syntax is such a huge deal in this particular space. Computer security evolves over time, and we have to cope wi
by jfindley 6y ago
I'm interested to hear more about why changing syntax is such a huge deal in this particular space.
Computer security evolves over time, and we have to cope with APIs and workflows which change to keep pace. Nothing supports SSLv1 anymore. Telnet is (largely) a thing of the past. Yes these migrations can be painful, and place some burden on users to change their practices. I get that there are a large number of scripts out there which may need to be adapted to work in this new world - but how is that different to any API change? Major breaking changes like this are rare, because the cost to users is high, but even so I don't recall seeing this insistence that things must _never_ change in, for example, glibc.
- toyg 6y agoScp is a very low-level, basic building block in the sysadmin world. The reasons for being conservatives are the same reasons for not changing the syntax of if() in C.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoYeah it will break a lot of old scripts, I'm guessing someone would just come up with equivalent commands for rsync and build an executable/script around it to use the old scp flags and semantics.
- _jal 6y agoA syntax change here is probably roughly comparable to changing the semantics of `accept` or similar in glibc. It would generate a ton of what feels like make-work, completely aside from whether or not it is a good idea. This is very similar to GUI revamps. Users always hate them, even if they're super well-executed. People just don't like change, and asking them not to grumble works about as well as asking them not to breathe.