"Zooko O'Whielacronx" <zo...@zooko.com> writes: > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:03 AM, <travis+ml-tahoe-...@subspacefield.org> > wrote: >> >> My first impression on reading about the project is, "redundancy and >> crypto in the same tool? I wonder if they couldn't be separated". > > Actually I've been wondering the same thing recently. The encryption > and the creation of ciphertext-integrity-checks is performed before > the erasure-coding, so in principle it would be possible to make those > separately usable or allow composition of alternate implementations of > them, etc.
As a dependency crank, I should say that I'm not bothered by crypto and erasure coding being combined. They work together to make it rational to use untrusted servers. I'm also not bothered by the sftp frontend (although FUSE is the right answer :-). Basically, depending on things that are clearly necessary for the main task is fine. Pulling in things that aren't necessary for core functions is best avoided. Also, I'm ambivalent about the WUI. I think it's fine that it's there, but it should be possible/reasonable to use the command-line client for everything and totally ignore the WUI. That seems almost true, but not realy.
pgpGf6JAWTMe6.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
