WireGuard Releases New Snapshot While Not Expected For Linux 5.4 Mainline

[jo-erlend]

Then I really hope there will be a 1.0 someday...

Well, if they were using my made-up scheme, then you would be hoping for 1.1, not 1.0, as the latter would imply an unstable implementation of a stable protocol. Personally, I don't really care all that much about versioning schemes, because the developers are able to tell me what stage their software is in using words.

[timofonic]

Well, if they were using my made-up scheme, then you would be hoping for 1.1, not 1.0, as the latter would imply an unstable implementation of a stable protocol. Personally, I don't really care all that much about versioning schemes, because the developers are able to tell me what stage their software is in using words.

Words are inaccurate most of the time.

And WireGuard is becoming a big joke full of ridicule promises and buzzwords. Seriously, please put more developers on it and stabilize it to merge it faster. And please add P2P and anonimization

[jo-erlend]

Words are inaccurate most of the time.

And WireGuard is becoming a big joke full of ridicule promises and buzzwords. Seriously, please put more developers on it and stabilize it to merge it faster. And please add P2P and anonimization

How would you make it more p2p?

[timofonic]

How would you make it more p2p?

Make features of IPSEC, WireHub, ipvpn, WireGuard-P2P, wesher, wg-dynamic, autowire, Project V (V2 Ray), n2n, OnionCat, cjdns, ShadowSocks... essential part of WireGuard core protocol in Linux kernel code?

Or does it have to exist zillions of implementations and lots of userspace shit?