On 03/10/2013 05:15 PM, Ralph Holz wrote: > In the sentence you quote, he seems to be taking the POV of end-users, > who are unlikely to be able to deal with things such as GnuPG. Which he > cites in exactly that sentence. I agree with him here - GPG is quite > intimidating to the uninitiated.
I love GnuPG, but it is about as far from the state of the art in usable, modern open-source security software, as you can get. It is a low blow to point to that as a representation of "well you can go open-source <snicker, snicker>, or you can use this amazing, shiny polished product over here!". > The rest of the article is, however, very much in favour of open source > as it allows him to have a look at the code, which he seems to > appreciate very much. Yes, obviously, his one statement about "scrounging with messy open-source" was completely confusing because he indicates that both Crypto.cat and Redphone are easy to use. Most of the time I just scan articles like this and don't give them second thought. It just gave me pause when I saw that it was somehow attached to a course at a well respected university, and felt it was a bit lazy in its discourse. +n -- Too many emails? Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at [email protected] or changing your settings at https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
