Subject: Re: FUD about CGD and GBDE
To: Poul-Henning Kamp <email@example.com>
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/03/2005 11:37:31
On Thu, Mar 03, 2005 at 05:31:34PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <200503021910.j22JAGCH081224@marlena.vvi.at>, "ALeine" writes:
> >Not necessarily, if one were to implement the ideas I proposed
> >I believe the performance could be kept at the same level as now.
> I gave up on journalling myself because IMO it complicates
> things a lot and the problem it solves is very very small.
> The impact in disk seeks is non-trivial to predict, but it is
> very hard to argue that it will not lead to an increase in
> disk seeks. (This is really a variant of the age old argument
> between jounaling filesystems and "traditional" filesystems)
> I can only recommend that you try :-)
> We need more ideas and more people trying out ideas.
I could not disagree more. When it comes to nonstandard homebrewed
cryptosystems foisted off on unsuspecting users with a bundle of
claims of algorithm strength that they're not competent to evaluate
for themselves, we do not need more ideas, nor more people trying
out ideas; we need less.
Standard, widely analyzed cryptographic algorithms are good.
Thor Lancelot Simon email@example.com
"The inconsistency is startling, though admittedly, if consistency is to be
abandoned or transcended, there is no problem." - Noam Chomsky