On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 09:02:32PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> I am appalled by many things about GPG, not least of which are its size,
> its extensive dependencies (which include Perl), and its horrendous user
> interface which betrays an utter lack of understanding of the key role
> that usability plays in the actual secure use of security software.  When
> we already have a program in the base system that can do the job that it
> is being proposed that we use GPG for, and, even better, that program is
> merely a command-line interface to a library which could easily be directly
> linked into the appropriate system/package tools, I am very, very strongly
> opposed to importing GPG into the base system for this purpose.

Interestingly (at least to me) I went from pgp2.6 to gpg and found it
slightly more intuitive, but not greatly.  Then I installed the port
of GPG that someone did to OS-X and it's a much better UI; especially for
someone like me who really doesn't interact with gpg all that frequently.

I find I have to re-learn what I'm doing every time I do it.

Of course I find openssl to be a complete disaster from a user interface
perspective.

Anyway, I'm not really adding any value to this discussion.

---
Real PC Serial console & remote reset - The PC Weasel! http://www.realweasel.com