On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:09 AM, Robert J. Hansen <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I thought you could point out what is wrong with it, hopefully > > something that can be fixed. But that's OK. > > You're asking people to sign on for a literally never-ending process. > (Peer review never ends, after all. Ask the OpenBSD guys.) There's > nothing wrong with that. You should always feel free to ask other > people to help. But in order to get the best-qualified people on board, > your project should offer something new: a new capability, a new > security guarantee, a new resistance to attacks, a new *something*. > Because without some new improvement, what motivation is there for > anyone to switch? > > It's good to scratch your own itch. If you want to use this tool you've > built, more power to you. But other people probably won't unless you > can give them specific reasons to care. You are right. I don't think that it can satisfy the requirements of everybody because they are sometimes conflicting. But I use it because it is simpler and easier, comand-line based, and scriptable. And I also believe that it is not less secure than the other solutions. Anyway, myself I don't have high security requirements, and, except for trying to use good practices, I am not a security expert. So, I cannot guaranty for everybody. Dashamir
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
