User talk:Indigo

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Feel free to leave comments about my wiki edits or other points of interest. Please note I have changed preferences so that the account does not automatically watch articles I edit. --Indigo (talk) 23:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)



I disagree with archival of AIF. There is no history in that page and archived AIF-NG was not original AIF. Having search engines point to ArchWiki article and then to ArchWiki Archive is pointless as there was nothing here about AIF in the first place but about its unrelated fork. -- Svito (talk) 21:46, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I see your point, just that AIF-NG was not totally unrelated; the main original aif developer started it. Also some follow-up projects as aif-gitAUR [1] are still been worked on. I left the redirect because I found it odd that we don't have a single wiki hint for the official aif project, that was guiding arch installation on all ISOs for years. Do you still disagree? --Indigo (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Original AIF is done by Dieter Plaetinck and AIF-NG is by Brent Saner. I redirected AIF to relevant section: Arch Linux#Arch Install Scripts which has link to news post about original AIF deprecation. -- Svito (talk) 23:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Very good find/idea. (I could have sworn I read a BBS post by Dieter Plaetnick about working on AIF-NG, but of course I can't find it now...probably my bad memory & it was the one by Brent Saner.) Anyhow, added [2]. Thanks! Closing. --Indigo (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


Trust is not arbitrary. You trust the CAs you have on your system, and the people controlling those CA can do almost anything regarding MITM. Archange (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment referring to [3], though I am not sure what you imply. My main reason to call it 'arbitrary' for CA certificates is that concepts underlying gpg directly refer to 'trust' as configurable parameters. So, its usage for a CA certificate is mixing apples and pears to me. Do you prefer the previous version, because it addresses the reader directly with a presumption about which certificates are trusted? Or something else? -- Indigo (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I don’t know either what I would prefer actually. The CA world is a bit shady, what I for sure would prefer is ODNS+DNSSEC+DANE everywhere. ;) Archange (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok. Well, on the other hand TLS is a protocol and a lot is relying on it.. Let me share a blog post that I found inpiring on topic. If you don't know it, you will like it. I close this, you're welcome to reopen. Cheers. -- Indigo (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)