Jørgen Lysdal wrote: > lol, very cool with the steganography thing... I'll be the bad guy and rain on the parade, and give the reasons why this is very unlikely to come to pass.
0. It is not what GnuPG targets. GnuPG tracks conformance to RFC2440, the OpenPGP standard, and implements additional parts (smartcard drivers, etc.) as needed to give a good user experience for RFC2440 tasks. A cryptographic file system has no relation to RFC2440. Why should GnuPG support it? 1. There are no standards for cryptographic file systems. GnuPG has always focused on conformance to standards. The GnuPG developers probably do not want to come out with yet another incompatible file system. 2. There already exist strong Free Software implementations. On UNIX there are many different Free Software encrypted file systems, from encrypted loopback devices to plug-ins for the ReiserFS file system to TrueCrypt (Linux only) to... etcetera. On Windows, TrueCrypt offers good support for encrypted partitions, much in the same way PGPDisk does today. 3. The GnuPG developers may not find it sexy. Writing good software is work. It's a hell of a lot of work, in fact. The thing that gets most Free Software developers going is their affection for the subject matter. The GnuPG developers like getting their hands dirty with Internet wire protocols like OpenPGP. Do they like getting their hands dirty with filesystem drivers? I don't know, but my guess is no. ... And, of course, the short version of it is this: if you want it done that badly, then grab the source and hack it yourself. It's GPLed for exactly that reason. _______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
