-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
| On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 02:20 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
| I'd like to see GPG remain the name for only 1.4.
|
| GnuPG 2.x introduces a lot of new crypto support that is not related
| to
| OpenPGP. The original
Robert J. Hansen wrote on 26.04.2008 9:20 Uhr:
(...)
I'd like to see GPG remain the name for only 1.4.
GnuPG 2.x introduces a lot of new crypto support that is not related to
OpenPGP. The original metonymy is no longer appropriate.
Call it GnuPS, for the GNU Privacy Suite. If
Am 21 Apr 2008 um 9:43 hat David Shaw geschrieben:
On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Mark H. Wood wrote:
So, GnuPG 1.4 implements OpenPGP. GnuPG 2.0 implements OpenPGP
and S/MIME.
So 2.0 is better than 1.4 if you need S/MIME, otherwise not.
So, perhaps 1.4 should be GnuPG and 2.0
Am 26 Apr 2008 um 2:20 hat Robert J. Hansen geschrieben:
Dirk Traulsen wrote:
gpg == GnuPG == GnuPG Classic
gpgs == GnuPG+S == GnuPG+S/MIME
My own two cents' worth:
(...)
Call it GnuPS, for the GNU Privacy Suite. If additional tools,
technologies, etc., are added to GnuPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
David Shaw wrote:
| Do people find the 1.4.x / 2.0.x thing confusing?
I can only speak for myself. I don't find the 1.4.x / 2.0.x version numbering
thing confusing at all. They each serve a different purpose and a different
audience. I note
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 16:51, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Any proposal of well, we should phase out GnuPG 1.4 needs to address
both of those reasons why phasing it out is impractical.
Nobody would suggest to remove Awk from Unix because everyone uses perl
these days. Well, almost everyone but tehre
Do people find the 1.4.x / 2.0.x thing confusing?
Speaking as a regular Joe, who can do very little cli stuff and just uses
Linux (e-mail, web surfing, and an rpg game) because it looks and performs
better than winblows and is safer, I'd simply just 'ask' what the difference
was if I was
So, GnuPG 1.4 implements OpenPGP. GnuPG 2.0 implements OpenPGP and
S/MIME.
So 2.0 is better than 1.4 if you need S/MIME, otherwise not.
So, perhaps 1.4 should be GnuPG and 2.0 should be GnuPG-Plus.
(Please, no ++!)
--
Mark H. Wood, Lead System Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Typically when a
On Apr 21, 2008, at 9:30 AM, Mark H. Wood wrote:
So, GnuPG 1.4 implements OpenPGP. GnuPG 2.0 implements OpenPGP and
S/MIME.
So 2.0 is better than 1.4 if you need S/MIME, otherwise not.
So, perhaps 1.4 should be GnuPG and 2.0 should be GnuPG-Plus.
(Please, no ++!)
How about:
1.4 == GnuPG
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:30 -0400, Mark H. Wood wrote:
So, perhaps 1.4 should be GnuPG and 2.0 should be GnuPG-Plus.
(Please, no ++!)
I think that renaming would actually increase the confusion.
It would be better to consider to slowly phase out the 1.4x branch.
Chris-
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
I think that renaming would actually increase the confusion. It would
be better to consider to slowly phase out the 1.4x branch.
I imagine this idea would get a lot of pushback from 1.4 users. I know
that I'd be bothered by it.
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 08:59 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
I imagine this idea would get a lot of pushback from 1.4 users. I know
that I'd be bothered by it.
What's the reason?
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
Gnupg-users@gnupg.org
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
What's the reason?
My reason, or the general reason?
The general reason... pick your poison, really. There are a lot of them.
1. The paranoids.
Read alt.security.pgp sometime and you'll find a bunch of people who are
in critical need of getting their
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:43 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
How about:
1.4 == GnuPG Classic
2.0 == GnuPG Plus
If both should continue to develop (on a long time view) why not:
1.4 == GnuPG Classic
2.0 == GnuPG
Chris.
___
Gnupg-users mailing list
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 15:42,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I think that renaming would actually increase the confusion.
It would be better to consider to slowly phase out the 1.4x branch.
This will not happen. 1.4. builds on a wide variety of platforms
whereas 2.0 requires a decent POSIX or Windows
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 09:21 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
If GnuPG 1.4.x suddenly gets marked deprecated and begins to be phased
out, a whole lot of people are going to start asking why? Official
word on the GnuPG list was that GnuPG 1.4 was still perfectly safe and
would be maintained
On Mon, 2008-04-21 at 16:33 +0200, Werner Koch wrote:
This will not happen. 1.4. builds on a wide variety of platforms
whereas 2.0 requires a decent POSIX or Windows platform.
I've already thought that...
Frankly, I do not see the problem. The BInd folks are running Bind 8
and Bind 9 for a
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
Well I did not ask to mark it deprecated... it's also ok to maintain it
for some time (probably one or two years?).
You said to phase it out. The engineering term for that is
deprecation. When something is marked deprecated, that means it works
now but there
On Mon, 21 Apr 2008, Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
. . .
- Set up some place (perhaps in the FAQ and even in the download area)
where you just say all that, namely: New features will probably go to
2.x, both will have the same security support, for the places where both
provide the same stuff
John W. Moore III wrote:
Additionally, I have no use for the S/MIME capabilities contained within the
2.0.x Trunk.
Which is why I think the name GnuPG-Plus makes sense for 2.0.
2.0 is OpenPGP *plus* S/MIME
--
John P. Clizbe Inet: JPClizbe (a) tx DAWT rr DAHT con
Ginger
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
It would be better to consider to slowly phase out the 1.4x branch.
I disagree! I much prefer using the 1.4.x Branch in static format
because it is faster, smaller and not dependent upon accessing so many
I think this is well appropriate in backend situation, however, GnuPG
intended for general users. I often advocate use of GnuPG, and OpenPGP
to people, and, from that experience, I think making this clear makes it
much easier for people to adopt it. (it won't be necessary showstopper
for them,
Hi!
Am Sonntag, den 20.04.2008, 03:45 +0200 schrieb Christoph Anton
Mitterer:
That's even true for different branches like Apache's http server. One
should probably only use the 1.x branch if using the 2.x is impossible
for some reason.
While it isn't directly true for GnuPG, interpreting the
Hi!
Am Sonntag, den 20.04.2008, 00:40 -0400 schrieb Bill Royds:
the present GNUPG 2.x line should be called GNUPG-SMIME y.x
While the GNUPG 1.x line should be GNUPG-OpenPGP y.x
This would imply that 2.x could not do OpenPGP anymore, which simply
isn't the case.
cu, Sven
On Sunday 20 April 2008, Jamie Griffin wrote:
now that you've clarified that you're better than us 'normal' folk,
perhaps you'd care to explain it in more detail. For the benefit of
the list of course.
Robert neither wrote nor implied this. The lesson you should learn from
Robert is that you
On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 11:40 +0200, Ingo Klöcker wrote:
On Sunday 20 April 2008, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Windows NT 3.51 -- Windows NT 4.0
Windows 2000 -- Windows 2003 Server
FreeBSD 5.2 -- FreeBSD 6.0
Fedora Core 8 -- Fedora Core 9
GnuPG 1.4 -- GnuPG 2.0
One of those is no operating
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Does it means Enigmail adds to 1.4.x most of the features of 2.0.x?
Now I must check what is gpg-agent (yes, I am so noob)
| John Clizbe escribió:
| Robert J. Hansen wrote:
| Matt Kinni wrote:
| Basically, for a newbie, what is the difference
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 11:56, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
GnuPG comes in two flavours: 1.4.9 is the well known and portable
standalone version, whereas 2.0.9 is the enhanced and somewhat harder
to build version.
This text could be improved. Or it could link to a page explaining the
Anyone
Sven Radde wrote:
Hi!
Am Sonntag, den 20.04.2008, 05:54 -0400 schrieb Faramir:
Does it means Enigmail adds to 1.4.x most of the features of 2.0.x?
Absolutely not. Enigmail is a Frontend/GUI for some of GnuPG's
functions.
True. Enigmail is a security extension to Mozilla Thunderbird and
On Sat, 2008-04-19 at 20:37 -0400, David Shaw wrote:
Do people find the 1.4.x / 2.0.x thing confusing?
Well,.. partly,... (at least when speaking for myself).
Of course it makes sense to provide security fixes for the 1.x branch,
but I always wonder why you don't switch to the 2.x for the main
now that you've clarified that you're better than us 'normal' folk, perhaps
you'd care to explain it in more detail. For the benefit of the list of course.
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 07:45:06PM -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
David Shaw wrote:
Do people find the 1.4.x / 2.0.x thing confusing?
On Sat, 2008-04-19 at 19:45 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Regular users are taught to think that bigger version numbers are
better, more recent, more capable, more bug-free, etc.
Well,.. that's what nearly each version naming model implies.
Of course those examples are different, however for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
So theres already been a lot of arguing over this and bla bla bla.
Basicaly, for a newbie, what is the difference between the two product
lines? Should an average user go with 1.4.x or 2.x?
David Shaw wrote:
| On Apr 18, 2008, at 8:16 PM,
Matt Kinni wrote:
Basicaly, for a newbie, what is the difference between the two product
lines?
GnuPG 2.0 adds S/MIME support, which is a totally different
cryptographic standard than OpenPGP. If you need FOSS S/MIME, then you
need GnuPG 2.0.
Otherwise, I'd stick with 1.4, for reasons I've
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Matt Kinni wrote:
So theres already been a lot of arguing over this and bla bla bla.
Basicaly, for a newbie, what is the difference between the two product
lines? Should an average user go with 1.4.x or 2.x?
Go with the 1.4.x Branch and ignore
Robert J. Hansen wrote:
Matt Kinni wrote:
Basically, for a newbie, what is the difference between the two product
lines?
GnuPG 2.0 adds S/MIME support, which is a totally different
cryptographic standard than OpenPGP. If you need FOSS S/MIME, then you
need GnuPG 2.0.
For those using
On 20-Apr-08, at 24:28 , Robert J. Hansen wrote:
GnuPG 2.0 adds S/MIME support, which is a totally different
cryptographic standard than OpenPGP. If you need FOSS S/MIME, then
you
need GnuPG 2.0.
Which is why they should have different names, rather thtn just
different version
Hello,
How will version number convention will continue, as there are 1.4.x and
2.0.x lines concurrently running?
1.4.x line will be evolving on its own separately from 2.0.x line, right?
Just curious, because now it is at 1.4.9 and 2.0.9...
From user's perspective, I think 1.4.x should be
38 matches
Mail list logo
