4 ms·
The downvotes are likely the result of not adding anything to the conversation. More specifically to your point, I strongly disagree. People should build syste
by chamakits 11y ago
The downvotes are likely the result of not adding anything to the conversation.
More specifically to your point, I strongly disagree. People should build systems in their favorite language if the language fits the use case. And usually, the language chosen isn't as important as being familiar enough with the language that your solution is clear and well written.
However, contradicting myself for a second, bash is probably not a great choice to build complex systems. The problem with bash is that it's easy to write something that works, but it's much harder to change it and keep it working. Bash is very powerful for one liners, but the second your program grows, you start to miss all the nice things that most general purpose languages have. And another problem I've ran into with bash is that not all *nix systems actually have bash, and even those that do have many different versions which make it hard to write a large code base that works without issue across different services. Even more so when people tend to use non-bash binaries, and then you have to write up a script to install the dependent binaries, and have to make it work for different package managers and the complications go on and on.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- la6470 11y agoBash is a very well thought out extensive interface that few other things can rival in this universe. So is Unix. But I wm curious to know how would you do this in bash? Also even though these solutions stored the keys in encrypted format the fact that you have to have the client certificate stored with the client app is similar to storing the passphrase of a pgp encrypted file in a script , and I must say that is not security. However there seems to be no other way to automate secret management.