Re[4]: A modified version of GnuPG

[Mark Brown]

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, May 27, 2002 at 07:35:21PM +1200, Peter Gutmann wrote:

> You have to make a tradeoff, either be backwards-compatible with NT4 (whi=
ch I
> doubt is still widely used except maybe on a few servers which no-one wan=
ts to
> touch) and face an incredibly difficult task of writing an NT kernel driv=
er to

There's still a reasonable number of deployed NT 4 systems, including
desktops.  Often it's a case of "it's not broken for us" and not/or
wanting to go to the effort of moving off a platform that has been
reliable and stable until the last possible minute.

> do it, or require Win2K and have Microsoft do most of it for you.  Trying=
 to be
> NT4-compatible seems to be an unnecesarily painful way to do things.

I do agree with the conclusion, though.

--=20
"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE88fLEJ2Vo11xhU60RAnZqAJ9cdalOD86O1R9XHso7ORws3ZkyRwCeLdEh
zefwGwEl3R5XV7OanXhSmZc=
=2+Eo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6c2NcOVqGQ03X4Wi--