On 2015-10-18 06:36, Yonas Yanfa wrote:
> Hi,
> It seems geli is the standard way of encrypting disks. It's extremely
> flexible and usually recommended by the community over gbde. Moreover,
> geli is mentioned a lot more in the mailing lists and forums.
> gbde's man page explicitly says that gbde is experimental and should be
> considered suspect. That seems reason enough to finally depreciate and
> remove it in favour of geli.
> The Encrypting Disk Partitions page in the Handbook discusses gbde
> first, and describes geli as an alternative. This seems odd, shouldn't
> this be the other way around?
> Is there any objection to removing gbde? How many people use gbde? When
> have you used gbde over geli, and why?
> Cheers,
> Yonas

It is my understanding that GDBE has some different goals, and works in
different circumstances. I know Michael W. Lucas has written about it in
his books.

While I think it isn't a bad idea to put GELI first in the handbook, I
don't see any reason to remove gdbe.

Allan Jude

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to