Naming of GnuPG
cwal989 at comcast.net
Mon Apr 28 21:06:11 CEST 2008
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Christoph Anton Mitterer wrote:
| On Sat, 2008-04-26 at 02:20 -0500, Robert J. Hansen wrote:
|> I'd like to see GPG remain the name for only 1.4.
|> GnuPG 2.x introduces a lot of new crypto support that is not related
|> OpenPGP. The original metonymy is no longer appropriate.
|> Call it GnuPS, for the GNU Privacy Suite. If additional tools,
|> technologies, etc., are added to GnuPG 2.x or a future 3.0, then the
|> GnuPS name can remain unchanged.
| I think renaming gpg would have the disadvantage of breaking with a well
| known and traditional name.
| It could even more confuse users because they might think it's an
| unofficial fork or it's not as good as the "real" GnuPG.
| Despite of this I like you idea, because, as you argue, gpg2 has more
| than just OpenPGP.
| However I would prefer a name like gnucrypt (and perhaps as shortcut gc
| or gnuc).
| "suite" sounds like "more", e.g. including an email client or so ;)
| Best wishes,
Even though I would prefer not renaming anything (except maybe randomly
renaming all of the streets in big cities on a weekly basis...lol), I do have
an idea on what GnuPG 2.0.x could be called.
My idea is to call it GnuPG+ or GnuPG++, as each would show that it has more
capabilities than GnuPG 1.4.x. The executable could be called 'gpg++', though
this would be close to g++ which is the GCC program for compiling c++ files.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Gnupg-users