Re: TODO: GNU TLS

On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 10:32:34AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Currently there has not been one technical argument that is valid to
> have us include GNU TLS.

1) The normal freedom that not being tied down to a single product
provides. The same reason somebody might build MySQL + PostgreSQL
support into their product. It usually forces a generic abstraction
to be used, which may be a long term investment into a better code
base within PostgreSQL.

2) Documentation is much better in GNUTLS. When using OpenSSL, I find
myself frequently referring to the source code itself, as the best
documentation available is for the now-possibly-out-of-date SSLeay.

3) Due to various political agendas, and legal confusion, GNUTLS has
been steadily growing in popularity. One day it may be that GNUTLS
is better maintained and well known than OpenSSL, at which point
it might be a practical choice to only support GNUTLS, and drop
support for OpenSSL entirely.

4) GNUTLS development seems more active? OpenSSL has been in a frozen/mature
state for a while. I don't understand why OpenSSL is still labelled as
0.9.x, which might indicate alpha quality, under heavy development.

I don't find the reasons too compelling - but they are points to
consider.

Cheers,
mark

--
mark(at)mielke(dot)cc / markm(at)ncf(dot)ca / markm(at)nortel(dot)com __________________________
. . _ ._ . . .__ . . ._. .__ . . . .__ | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/ |_ |\/| | |_ | |/ |_ |
| | | | | \ | \ |__ . | | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__ | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them...

http://mark.mielke.cc/