Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> NIH syndrome is strong with both cases.

Seriously. IPFS decided the standard URL format wasn't good enough so invented something worse, which was pretty funny/sad. I never saw reasons for it that made any sense.

See:

https://github.com/ipfs/ipfs/issues/227

[EDIT] here's the original, deeply "LOLWUT?" justification for it, quoted in this comment on another issue. Other justifications were given but this was the motivation. Oh man. Wow.

https://github.com/ipfs/go-ipfs/issues/1678#issuecomment-139...

[EDIT] farther down, same author as the quoted text in the above comment: "wish unix:// wasn't taken by unix sockets." Oh FFS, guys. Hahaha.



IPFS also needlessly rolled their own TLS replacement:

https://github.com/ipfs/specs/issues/29

> I would add that if TLS can be used without all the X.509 nonsense, and with our own choice of pubkeys, including using different signing public keys (not the DHE keys) in the same conn, then we can consider breaking our "not TLS pls" stance.

TLS fit their requirements all along, they just… decided to reinvent it instead of reading about how to use it.


Their scheme as described in #227 would make sense, if they were designing IPFS as a service for Plan 9.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: