On 02/04/2006 01:05:17 AM, veins wrote:
I think you are missing the point, cgd and salting are two different
and
unrelated things. It's not because cgd isn't making it into OpenBSD,
that salting won't make it into svnd. I'd explain, but frankly after a
night at work i'd rather go and sleep while you google :-)
I know cgd and salting are two different things, but cgd salts
and svnd does not. IMO, what the thread is about is the criticisms
that came up of svnd, compared with "the goodness of CGD",
in the interview about CGD. So, people are
suddenly wanting CGD... Or maybe I am OT, it is late. :)
The svnd salting patch did come up in the CGD thread, which
sorta changed the subject to whether or not svnd _should_ salt.
ps. tedu just said that he got no comments about his diff, if you
really
think the idea is valuable, you should be testing the diff.
You are right. But
another point of my post was to indicate that yes, tedu is right
in that most people _won't_ run CGD (or svnd) but people _still_
appreciate having the option open. I, like IMO a lot of
people, have only enough interest to kibbutz in the hope
of slowly collecting enough information to make an informed
choice should the time come to exercise the option.
The only apology I make regards this aspect of
my post is cluttering up the list in the
hopes that what I say will make the people actually doing
the work feel appreciated rather than put-upon,
by pointing out that the clueless questions
are an indication of the large breadth (but not depth) of
desire for a crypto fs. It seems tough working on something
complex a whole lot of people sorta think they want a
little bit. Crypto fs seems to fit that bill
more than most. So in way of support I thought I'd
try to point this out and give encouragement.
Again, sorry if it's a distraction.
Regardless, thanks for hitting me with a clue-stick even if I did
not need it, because sometimes I do. :-)
Karl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Free Software: "You don't pay back, you pay forward."
-- Robert A. Heinlein
