3 ms·

What about libreSSL, the other fork? https://www.libressl.org/ https://www.libressl.org/ https://github.com/libressl/portable#compatibility-with-openssl https

• tialaramex 3y ago
  Initially the idea seemed to be Libressl has better development practices => fewer bugs. The idea was this pays for a compatibility price. I think that didn't pan out very well longer term.
  • viraptor 3y ago
    I think it did in absolute terms, but didn't relatively - as a response to all the noise and forks, openssl did improve a lot as well.
    • ori_b 3y ago
      Can you be specific about what improved? After peeking at the repo, the biggest improvement seems to have been reindenting it.
  • SoftTalker 3y ago
    It's also not finished, and that is constrained by developer time and availability. https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168674593912952&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168674593912952&w=2 and the reply: https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168675478419177&w=2 https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=168675478419177&w=2 Edit: certainly, if you don't need what isn't there, LibreSSL could be a viable replacement.
  • aomix 3y ago
    I think the idea of using their new libTLS api alongside it was there early on. Adding "easier, foolproof api => even fewer bugs" to the mix. But that didn't seem to get much uptake.