ben at adversary.org
Tue Mar 22 15:31:07 CET 2016
On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 06:38:31PM +0100, Peter Lebbing wrote:
> On 21/03/16 16:49, Dashamir Hoxha wrote:
> > 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.
> These things can simply be solved through new documentation rather
> than a new interface. The man page is typical reference style: all
> commands and options in a list format. It's not tutorial style,
> omitting all but common options and presenting the material in a
> tutorial form.
The thing about training in GPG is people have to want it. In my
experience everyone in the general public decides that "it's all too
hard" right up until the moment where it is actually their freedom on
on the line or the opportunity to make a buck. Then they can suddenly
learn the basics within 1 to 2 hours and love it. Funny that ...
Mind you, some students are better than others and two of my best
students certainly put it all to good use. One wrote this:
And the other conducted the academic study while shepherding PhD
candidates through the "dark net" (some of which was hilarious).
> > And the default values of the options are more suitable
> > for a beginner (at least in my opinion).
> I had a quick look through the source.
> The only thing I see in that category, IMHO, is automatically naming output
What, you mean like "gpg2 --use-embedded-filename"? The only time
that is null is when the original file was actually from stdin
(usually in the case of an email) in which case you should be able to
generate a unique filename from the message ID.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 630 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Gnupg-users