0 Followers
0 Following
12 Posts

This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
Officialhttps://
Support this servicehttps://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup

Reading what you quoted, no it is not, as long as you contribute to free software or you have projects that are open source. Not just your personal homepage. If you only have a personal homepage and nothing else that is open source, then they have a problem.

My 2 cents.

I would have never become a power user of Linux were I used LLM to do the installation of Gentoo once upon a time. :( So do you guys not know much about the distro you are using, or how does this work? I honestly thought your comment was sarcasm, but apparently it is not.
I do not understand your last paragraph. :/
Why, if I might respectfully ask?

> Did you not read the post I linked upthread?

Oh THAT is why you are steering people away from OpenPGP, gotchu. I have read it a long time ago. I remain to be convinced. The blog post just reeks of "I can't use it, too complex for me therefore it sucks". Yeah, it can be misused, I do not deny that.

(BTW I could not care less about e-mail.)

I understand what you are saying. Can you tell me in what ways OpenPGP is flawed and what the alternative is to achieve everything GPG supports? Legit question. If it does everything GPG does, but does it better, then people (including me) may switch.

Cool, so we got two people here who kept saying "PGP is shit", but when asked for an alternative, they weasel out with "no thanks", or "I will not [say]"? Yeah, okay. Got it. I hope you realize it weakens everything you have said. Hell, there is nothing to weaken to begin with!

> (that the other commenter was simply wrong that the archaisms in PGP/OpenPGP are a mere consequence of GnuPG and avoidable by avoiding GnuPG)

Didn't read it like that though, it read like "OpenPGP is shit", and I could quote you where you are claiming exactly that:

> outmoded fundamentally, not just by one implementation

You said this, about OpenPGP.

Welp.

I would appreciate it if you answered to the rest of my comment. It may be quite useful.

I believe lrvick said that the spec isn't perfect but works fine in practice, and advises against old broken implementations of it. We will see. In any case, imperfection does not imply fundamental flaw.

I might have missed it. Have you elaborated on why you think OpenPGP is fundamentally flawed? Do you know of any GPG replacements (or rather, OpenPGP replacements)? I want encryption, signing, key management, email integration (optional), multiple recipients, subkeys, revocation certificates, web of trust (even if unused), smart card support, and so on.

Are you arguing that OpenPGP itself is fundamentally flawed, or only GnuPG (which is one implementation of OpenPGP, Sequoia is another)?