@tedu writes:
> There was a PGP usability study conducted a few years ago where a group of technical people were placed in a room with a computer and asked to set up PGP. Two hours later, they were never seen or heard from again.
This argument doesn't hold ground. If "technical people" can not setup a new GnuPG key in 20 minutes, they are obviously not "technical" in this context. I'm 100% sure OpenBSD is absolutely NOT fit for people who find GnuPG confusing enough to avoid usage.
> Or as Prof. Green put it, "Can someone who built GnuPG 2.1.1 on Debian/Ubuntu give me a hint on which libgpg-error you used?" If he doesn't which libgpg-error to use, I doubt I'm going to pick the right one.
I can, here:
$ pkg info|grep libgpg-error
libgpg-error-1.19_1 Common error values for all GnuPG components
Given that this is @tedu, I'm sure I missed the point/joke.
The only real argument here is that it's at least 10 times easier to write code than to read another mans code. So I give him that... Which one is more secure, GPG or signify remains to be seen.
> There was a PGP usability study conducted a few years ago where a group of technical people were placed in a room with a computer and asked to set up PGP. Two hours later, they were never seen or heard from again.
This argument doesn't hold ground. If "technical people" can not setup a new GnuPG key in 20 minutes, they are obviously not "technical" in this context. I'm 100% sure OpenBSD is absolutely NOT fit for people who find GnuPG confusing enough to avoid usage.
> Or as Prof. Green put it, "Can someone who built GnuPG 2.1.1 on Debian/Ubuntu give me a hint on which libgpg-error you used?" If he doesn't which libgpg-error to use, I doubt I'm going to pick the right one.
I can, here:
Given that this is @tedu, I'm sure I missed the point/joke.The only real argument here is that it's at least 10 times easier to write code than to read another mans code. So I give him that... Which one is more secure, GPG or signify remains to be seen.