Adam Back writes:
> And lastly even if they had done it right, GPG went in and fucked it
> up some more by sticking religiously to the "don't use patented
> algorithms" free software mantra to the huge detriment of PGP
> interoperability.
You have to agree that the "not using patented algorithms" thing
solves the problem once and for all, if in a somewhat Gordian way
(partly breaking backwards compatibility). We would never had any
problems if not for PGP screwing it up -- by using potentially
problematic pieces of code. As PGP's track record went from "angelic"
to "distinctly tarnished", I stopped using it. Many other people I
know did as well. I've switched to GPG, which hasn't got any track
record so far, once it became stable. We'll wait and see how they do.
I don't think there is currently any alternative to GPG. (The king is
dead, long live the king). In fact I'm surprised this isn't as evident
as I expected, since it is being discussed here. Please tell me why I
should stop using GPG and go back to using PGP, any version of it.
