future proof file encryption

[Robert J. Hansen]

John Clizbe wrote:
> All too often we see folks too overly invested in a creation to accept
> objective criticism of the idea.

There also seems to be a tendency to misread what I think are very
neutral statements as being very dry snark.

E.g., when I said I didn't see the reasoning, and having reread it I
still didn't, it wasn't meant to be insulting: it was meant quite
literally.  If there was a line of reasoning there, I missed it on both
the first and second reads-through.  Maybe that means there was no
reasoning, maybe that means I wasn't astute enough to read it.

With all that said, I have discovered it is generally best to read
people's statements in a way that gives them the benefit of the doubt.

W.r.t. my experiences, I'll just quote Rodney Whitaker again: "Do not
fall into the error of the artisan who boasts of twenty years experience
in his craft while in fact he has only one year of experience -- twenty
times."  I make errors as easily as anyone else.

E.g., I was wrong a couple of weeks ago about why there was no choice #3
in the subkey generation menu; I said that if memory served it belonged
to Elgamal signing keys, which have since been removed -- bzzt, wrong.

A couple of months ago David Shaw and I had a very vigorous argument
about some of the engineering choices in the OpenPGP specification.
After mulling it over for a couple of weeks, I've come around: David's
arguments were more persuasive than mine.  I'm not sure if I was wrong,
per se -- we were arguing about a matter of personal opinion -- but I
certainly had the weaker arguments.

Beware of all experts.  Experts are wrong as much as anybody else.
Experts are just wrong with much greater authority.