> On 2020-06-30 13:27, Ralph Seichter via Gnupg-users wrote:
* Fourhundred Thecat:
Show us a body of your work which proves you have the necessary
skills to critique the GnuPG authors' work. Until you do, your
"judgment" is moot.
An idea should be considered on its own merit.
What "idea"
Fourhundred Thecat <400the...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> In fact, gpg epitomizes a perfect anti-UNIX design. (See Eric S. Raymond for
> details, what UNIX philosophy means)
> I believe this project is going in the wrong direction, and bad design
> decisions are being made.
Was not it you who have just
> I am basing my judgment on universal principles, that apply not only to
> gpg or other software, but design of any systems in general.
There is no such universal playbook. It simply does not exist.
In his book _Lila_ the philosopher Robert M. Pirsig wrote that morality
is not a set of
Fourhundred Thecat <400the...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> In case of gpg, there is one mode where you generate your key pair, change
> configuration files, or any other read-write operation.
>
> But for general usage, there is no reason for the key pair to need to be
> writable.
Sure. So there is none:
On 30-06-2020 12:10, Werner Koch via Gnupg-users wrote:
>> Do not break backwards compatibility if you want all people to upgrade.
>
> Do not update so that the bad guys can exploit your legacy software ;-)
>
> There are well documented reasons what we don't support MDC and PGP3
> keys anymore
* Fourhundred Thecat:
>> Show us a body of your work which proves you have the necessary
>> skills to critique the GnuPG authors' work. Until you do, your
>> "judgment" is moot.
>
> An idea should be considered on its own merit.
What "idea" would that be, exactly?
> You should counter my
> On 2020-06-30 12:26, Ralph Seichter via Gnupg-users wrote:
* Fourhundred Thecat:
I am basing my judgment on universal principles, that apply not only
to gpg or other software, but design of any systems in general.
Universal principles, oh my. In other words, you don't know nearly
enough
* Fourhundred Thecat:
> I am basing my judgment on universal principles, that apply not only
> to gpg or other software, but design of any systems in general.
Universal principles, oh my. In other words, you don't know nearly
enough about the finer points of GnuPG design goals, don't know much
On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:55, Johan Wevers said:
>> Do not use 1.4 unless you have to decrypt old non-MDC protected data or
>> data encrypted to a legacy v3 key.
>
> Do not break backwards compatibility if you want all people to upgrade.
Do not update so that the bad guys can exploit your legacy
> On 2020-06-30 08:55, Ralph Seichter via Gnupg-users wrote:
* Fourhundred Thecat:
What insight do you have in the design and development of GnuPG; in its
goals and restrictions? There is a difference between you not liking
something for a personal reason, and objectively "bad design". You
* Fourhundred Thecat:
>> Whining about a design detail of free software? Get a grip.
>
> There are more examples of bad design.
Are there now? GnuPG is software that has evolved since its introduction
in 1997. Can you show me any meaningful software of yours that has been
evolving over 23 years
> In fact, gpg epitomizes a perfect anti-UNIX design. (See Eric S. Raymond
> for details, what UNIX philosophy means)
Mmmhmm.
> For instance, even for basic operations (encrypt, decrypt), where no
> modifications to my key pair are necessary, gpg still requires my
> ~/.gnupg/ to be writable
12 matches
Mail list logo
