Generation of public key

[Anthony E. Greene]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Nick Andriash wrote:
>Hello Dale Harris,
>
>On Wednesday, October 17 2001 at 12:12 AM PDT, you wrote:
>
>> Why don't you do something about it.  This is FREE software after all,
>> it requires a community, a lot of volunteers, to do the work.
>> Contribute a couple of brain cells to write code, rather than
>> demanding other people do all the work.
>
>No one was *demanding* anything. I was only responding to Tony's
>remarks regarding the options left to a Lady that was wanting to run
>GnuPG on a Win2K Machine:
>
>>  1. Start writing code to make GPG work on Win2000.

Your response to my list of options was rude, which is why I responded to
you the way I did. All Dale did is respond to you the same way I did.

>You talk about *attitude* Dale? This kind of attitude... that Windows
>Users be left to their own avail if they run into problems... seems to
>be prevalent on this List, and most especially from Linux Users.

Try being a Linux user and calling a hardware vendor for assistance. Then
let's continue this discussion about users on a secondary platform being
left to their own avail.

> GPG
>will never become a replacement for PGP unless the GnuPG Development
>Team exacts just as much effort on a Windows version as it does a Linux
>version.

That may be so in the Windows world as long as PGPFreeware is available,
but things change. I take sad satisfaction in the fact that I saw the
reduction in source code availabilty coming more than a year ago when I
first started using GnuPG. I started thinking about the dynamics of
commercial software and knew it was only a matter of time before there
were additioal restrictions put in place. There may come a time when
PGPFreeware is no longer available. Then what?

>I don't mean any disrespect to Werner and his Staff, but I have quite a
>few Members of my PGP-Basics List that are teetering on trying GnuPG,
>but responses like "write your own code" will most definitely turn them
>away from GnuPG.

Nobody here responded like that to a user requesting assistance. You
started this with your rude rhetorical question asking "Why does *she*
have a choice?" That was followed by what sounded awfully like a demand
that the GPG Team do something about this.

The user that requested assistance never got a rude response; you did. If
you re-read what you sent, it should not be hard to figure out why that
is.

No doubt the GnuPG developers are actively interested in maintaining a
version for Windows users. Each update or release include bug fixes. But
as someone who has written and given away some code, no one who is giving
away code likes to listen to recipients make demands or sound ungrateful.

Many Linux users are well aware of this and are sensitive to such
things. Your message touched that sensitive spot. It sounded ungrateful
and demanding.

Tony
- -- 
Anthony E. Greene <agreene@pobox.com> <http://www.pobox.com/~agreene/>
PGP Key: 0x6C94239D/7B3D BD7D 7D91 1B44 BA26  C484 A42A 60DD 6C94 239D
Chat:  AOL/Yahoo: TonyG05
Linux. The choice of a GNU Generation. <http://www.linux.org/>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Anthony E. Greene <agreene@pobox.com> 0x6C94329D

iD8DBQE70LqNpCpg3WyUI50RAozlAJwKjtwpmwHuh8qTgw9JWqqmb8gNywCgzYo0
L7LOPQqdEQI/rW7o+i8N+S4=
=Q2kY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----