Bernhard Reiter bernhard at intevation.de
Tue Mar 22 09:56:28 CET 2016

Hi Dashamir,

On Monday 21 March 2016 at 16:49:41, Dashamir Hoxha wrote:
> Hi Bernhard, thanks for having a look at it.

you are welcome! I appreciate all efforts to make GnuPG more accessible,
this is why I am taking a little bit of time to write up some feedback.

> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Bernhard Reiter <bernhard at intevation.de>
> > Most of these commands are not much easier than the direct gpg2
> > commands they are aiming to replace.
> Yes, but the overall number of commands and options supported
> is 10 times smaller than those of gpg2. Tutorials about egpg are also
> much shorter. 

Just like Peter wrote I think that a user would usually not
encounter all bells and wistles. You can get along with just a few 
commands. This is why I suggest of trying to approach this from
the documentation angle and for the remaining options that are still too hard: 
Suggest improvements directly to gpg2.

> And the default values of the options are more suitable 
> for a beginner (at least in my opinion).

Just like Peter I do not fully understand the rationale behind those
choices and would probably choose different ones.
A good path forward would be to try to measure this with 
groups of users in a usability test. This is a lot of effort I guess,
so instead we could try to develop a few personas (example user types)
and try to argu from their point of view.

> > * shell scripts will not work on plattforms without a shell
> >   (e.g. Windows)
> I have heard that you can use shell scripts on Windows (with cygwin).

Using Cygwin is not a good approach because it is lik a second operating 
system within windows. Windows users would prefer a more windows like 

> > Ideas for improvements:
> > * I you must, write wrappers code it in something more plattform
> > indepentent,
> >   e.g. in python3 (using pyme or pygpgme where appropriate)
> The problem with Python is that I am not familar with it (and there may be
> other problems too, that I don't know).
> But if you could fork egpg and re-implement it in Python, it could be
> great.

Any cross plattform approach would work. Python has the advantage
that the source code can be changed by an editor an immedeately run
and that it works fairly well cross-plattform.

What is even more important is that you should use the official API to
GnuPG which is Gpgme. https://wiki.gnupg.org/APIs

> > * Suggest and improve the original gpg2 command line interface, so that
> >   usage is easier and the more esotheric options will not be seen or used
> >   by default.
> > * Write a beginners man page for the original gpg2, which covers only the
> > main
> >   use cases.
> I guess these two are suggestions for EasyGpg2016.

The goals of out EasyGpg206 are different: We will add some new trust and cert 
distribution methods to GnuPG and some selected email applications. Users 
shall never needs to go to the command line.


www.intevation.de/~bernhard (CEO)    www.fsfe.org (Founding GA Member)
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, Germany; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Owned and run by Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20160322/086f3dc0/attachment.sig>

More information about the Gnupg-users mailing list