On 17/08/14 23:14, Robert J. Hansen wrote: > But let's be real careful about thinking we are in any way better > than other people. We're not.
I completely agree with that statement but never read any disrespect in the mail you are replying to. It /can/ be read that way, I agree. So it might be good to point it out, as you did. > If a new email cryptography standard comes out that's significantly > better than GnuPG, do you think Werner is going to sit around > drinking Tanqueray straight out of the bottle because nobody's using > GnuPG anymore? I don't. I think he'll cheerfully send GnuPG off > into maintenance, applaud the new standard, and volunteer to help > with a free implementation of the new standard. > > [...] > > When (not if) GnuPG dies out, the only question will be, "is this on > balance good for people?" If so, then let's be thankful GnuPG > existed, celebrate its passing, and cheerfully move on. Thank you for that! It was something that bothered me about the blog post. If the writer then and there came with a great new successor to OpenPGP and put the title "OpenPGP needs to die" above his article that then goes on "... because here is my killer application", then I would congratulate him. Now it's nothing but hot air. OpenPGP doesn't need to die; who is it bothering by merely existing? What has OpenPGP ever done to him? Present large blocks of base64 at the bottom of a mail? :) Something better needs to live. That's the opposite of what he is saying. What a negative Nancy. -- I use the GNU Privacy Guard (GnuPG) in combination with Enigmail. You can send me encrypted mail if you want some privacy. My key is available at <http://digitalbrains.com/2012/openpgp-key-peter> _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
