> Why? I still use 1.4. It is easily usable through the command line if > needed, while 2.x has a very complicated setup with lots of external > dependencies and has a feature bloat most users will never need.
The 2.x branch is the future of GnuPG development, has been for some years now, and is what the GnuPG developers recommend for new users. Further, a good part of the GnuPG ecosystem is moving to 2.0-only (e.g., Enigmail). Given this, it would only make sense to tell new users about the 1.4 branch if the 1.4 branch offered the average user something that 2.x doesn't or couldn't. As near as I can tell, it doesn't. > I would certainly include a discussion of the incompatabilities that > exist between 1.4 and 2.1: the dropped V3 keys support and ECC keys > in 2.1. PGP 2.6 has been obsolete since before I could legally drink, and now I'm on the wrong side of forty. You have to draw the line somewhere. With respect to the FAQ, I'm drawing it here. I applaud the decision to drop V3 support and MD5, and I don't plan on making mention of a PGP version that's been obsolete for longer than a lot of our users have been alive.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
