A modified version of GnuPG

Mark Brown broonie at sirena.org.uk
Mon May 27 11:47:01 CEST 2002

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 (which I
> doubt is still widely used except maybe on a few servers which no-one wants to
> touch) and face an incredibly difficult task of writing an NT kernel driver 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.

"You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream - or a fever."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 196 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : /pipermail/attachments/20020527/7d401113/attachment.bin

More information about the Gnupg-devel mailing list