Dear Paul-

This is quite correct. I pointed out that for commercial applications GNuPG
was available, though I mangled the addresses. My main gripe against GPG is
that its attitude of pushing the edges while not worrying about
compatibility.  Also while being in development for about 3 years, none of
the authors feel its necessary for a consistent, official, average user
friendly GUI.  There are several front ends available, but their reliability
in various operating environments differ, as do the openness of their source
code.

While many have grown up or have learned comandline, the vast majority of
users came after DOS.  What is the reason for reverting back to 1992 and
looking for a front end that will work on your machine?  Many other programs
have had much less lead time and provide perfectly good GUIs for Windows and
Linux.  Is it a techno attitude saying "If you don't know commandline, you
should not use strong crypto." ?.  I don't know, but it seems purposely
designed to be intimidating or inaccessible to the average user.  If
commandline is your thing, then there are 6.5.8 versions for Linux along
with 2.6.3 ia multi 05 which has larger key sizes and the same option
choices as GPG.

Yours-
Ridge



----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Hosking" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tom Geldner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, April 08, 2002 5:13 AM
Subject: Re: Alternative to PGP solutions


> On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 14:01, Tom Geldner wrote:
> > PGP in open source form exists at:
> >
> > http://www.ipgpp.com/
>
> Just to clarify - that is the CKT build of PGP.  While very cool, I
> believe the CKT builds are based off of the PGPi source code.  This is
> under a restrictive license.  While the source code is available, it is
> not Open Source (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.html).
> The most notable restriction is probably its limitation to
> non-commercial use only.
>
> --
>
> .: Paul Hosking . [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> .: InfoSec
>
> .: PGP KeyID: 0x42F93AE9
> .: 7B86 4F79 E496 2775 7945  FA81 8D94 196D 42F9 3AE9
>
>
>

Reply via email to