[Swan] Before considering how Libreswan can be better coded

[Philippe Vouters]

Paul,

I shall keep refusing modifying my broken test because I keep thinking 
that upward compatibility is the most important thing to ANY end-user if 
end-users matter for you. I did not work at DEC for nuts.

The very truth is that which such a philosophy summarized by its famous 
"Customers satisfaction" which was all DEC's employees constant focus, 
DEC's work has been so appreciated that it finished to threaten IBM in 
its own land. This was at DEC's founder times. It lasted until an 
incompetent financial guy who forced the founder to dismiss broke 
everything including the so famous DEC's spirit.

The only result this pure financial guy got is that DEC was bought by 
Compaq who also lost its initial spirit and was bought by HP which I 
also predict bankrupt or best bought by another comer. When "Customers 
satisfaction" no longer matters a company, the company's story can't be 
otherwise than end. It is just a matter of time.

As an example near you, just consider the very reasons why a US giant 
such GM went bankrupt. If you follow companies story, think about Dell 
who was the leader in the PC market and how it had to warn its 
shareholders with profit warnings. The very reason for these two cases 
near you is that customers were disgusted and looked at other providers.

For an information which is currently your business and seen from my Web 
site, the truth is that you are threatened by Shrew VPN client which 
keeps upward compatibility in mind. Carefully look at 
http://vouters.dyndns.org/awstats/awstats.pl and navigate through months 
and you'll see the audience you loose over the months in profit of Shrew 
and how Shrew climbs up in my Web traffic.

Philippe Vouters (Fontainebleau/France)
URL: http://vouters.dyndns.org/
SIP: sip:Vouters at sip.linphone.org

On 05/24/2013 08:10 PM, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Fri, 24 May 2013, Philippe Vouters wrote:
>
>> Look first at your bug I cured many times instead of hurrying to 
>> criticize others.
>
> I and others looked at it and showed you it was the wrong fix for your
> problem. It caused significant damage and broke dozens of test cases.
>
>> This configuration worked with Openswan 2.6.38 and below and works 
>> with Libreswan 3.0 as well. Libreswan 3.1 and onward broke this 
>> configuration.
>
> Yes, I admit we broke your broken configuration that you keep refusing
> to fix. We will get to fixing bug #102, as I states before, hopefully
> for the 3.5 release.
>
> Paul
>