Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WireGuard Didn't Make It Into Linux 5.2 Due To Windows Port, But That Is Now Available

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • WireGuard Didn't Make It Into Linux 5.2 Due To Windows Port, But That Is Now Available

    Phoronix: WireGuard Didn't Make It Into Linux 5.2 Due To Windows Port, But That Is Now Available

    As for WireGuard not making it into the Linux 5.2 kernel, the lead developer of this secure network tunnel explained in an email into Phoronix that it was due to his focus on getting the WireGuard Windows support in order. But as of today that initial Windows port is now available and he'll be returning to focusing on the Linux code...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...dows-Pre-Alpha

  • brad0
    replied
    Originally posted by microcode View Post
    I'm guessing the OpenBSD folks haven't come to do their own WireGuard impl. since IPSec is generally not painful on OpenBSD.
    https://marc.info/?t=154454111900002&r=1&w=2

    IPsec sucks period. As a very long time OpenBSD developer/user I would love to have something other than awful IPsec and crappy OpenVPN.

    Leave a comment:


  • microcode
    replied
    Originally posted by zx2c4 View Post
    Nothing is "a the expense of" anything, really. I wrote code for a different platform for a few weeks. Relax.
    Heheh, I didn't mean to say anything negative and it still goes that way. I meant to say that I appreciate it either way, especially recently since I'm working with some people who are unlikely to stop using Windows, and I'm looking forward to being able to use WireGuard to get them on our network.

    I'm guessing the OpenBSD folks haven't come to do their own WireGuard impl. since IPSec is generally not painful on OpenBSD.
    Last edited by microcode; 05-10-2019, 12:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by ThoreauHD View Post
    Why do I get the feeling that Linus is going to tell this ass dragging dev to F off.
    because you have unsolved daddy issues.

    Torvalds does not give a shit about the time it takes. Whenever it's ready and good enough he will merge it.

    Leave a comment:


  • reavertm
    replied
    Also, Linux support, while not mainlined, exists from the very beginning (in a form of patches on ml at minimum). It makes sense to provide other initial ports meanwhile.

    Leave a comment:


  • Britoid
    replied
    Originally posted by ThoreauHD View Post
    Why do I get the feeling that Linus is going to tell this ass dragging dev to F off.
    Linus has shown nothing but positivity towards Wireguard and its dev.

    Leave a comment:


  • zx2c4
    replied
    Originally posted by microcode View Post
    I don't mind either way. Jason has good instincts, and I think WireGuard is much more useful with broader initial platform support, even at the expense of mainlining.
    Nothing is "a the expense of" anything, really. I wrote code for a different platform for a few weeks. Relax.

    Leave a comment:


  • ThoreauHD
    replied
    Why do I get the feeling that Linus is going to tell this ass dragging dev to F off.

    Leave a comment:


  • microcode
    replied
    I don't mind either way. Jason has good instincts, and I think WireGuard is much more useful with broader initial platform support, even at the expense of mainlining.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Ok....damn, y'all. It's not desktop Linux. Does it make you happy now?

    And name three actual Android phones that run an unmodified mainline kernel or will even run 5.2 with various Android tweaks. Exactly.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X