Fourhundred Thecat <400the...@gmx.ch> wrote: > In fact, gpg epitomizes a perfect anti-UNIX design. (See Eric S. Raymond for > details, what UNIX philosophy means)
> I believe this project is going in the wrong direction, and bad design > decisions are being made. Was not it you who have just complained about introduction of gpg-agent, that is about switching from a solid rock tool to a set of independent programs that are communicating via textual streams — in other words, about GPGv2 be much more UNIX-wayish that GPGv1? > There are more examples of bad design. > For instance, even for basic operations (encrypt, decrypt) ‹…› gpg still > requires my ~/.gnupg/ to be writable (cannot me on read-only filesystem) Heh. Use of files as a temporal storage medium or just unique entities for anything from sockets to boolean flags, and therefore a need for writable FS to store them, is a hallmark of UNIX-way design. You might believe that UNIX-way design is a bad design, of course, and that GPG should have joined the trend of moving _away_ from it before it had became a mainstream (cf. systemd, Wayland, etc); but saying ‘UNIX’ to mean ‘cool’ looks funny as hell.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Gnupg-users mailing list Gnupg-users@gnupg.org http://lists.gnupg.org/mailman/listinfo/gnupg-users
