Naming of GnuPG

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Sunday 20 April 2008, Jamie Griffin wrote:
> now that you've clarified that you're better than us 'normal' folk,
> perhaps you'd care to explain it in more detail. For the benefit of
> the list of course.

Robert neither wrote nor implied this. The lesson you should learn from 
Robert is that you should not blindly install the version with the 
higher version number, but that you should first get some information 
about the difference between the two versions in order to find out 
whether you really need the one with the higher version number.

With respect to the differences between GnuPG 1.4 and GnuPG 2.0 please 
refer to the archive of this mailing list, e.g. read Werner Koch's 
announcement of GnuPG 2.0 [1].

The website (www.gnupg.org) is pretty cryptic about the difference. All 
it says is

  GnuPG comes in two flavours: 1.4.9 is the well known and portable
  standalone version, whereas 2.0.9 is the enhanced and somewhat harder
  to build version.

This text could be improved. Or it could link to a page explaining the 
difference because this is obviously an FAQ. Unfortunately the FAQ 
hasn't been updated since July 30, 2003.


Regards,
Ingo


[1] http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-announce/2006q4/000239.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20080420/61af713b/attachment.pgp>