5 ms·
I really don't get this attitude, though I think it must be valid, since I seem to be almost alone in disagreement. I use plain old GPG for a lot of purposes,
by JasonFruit 5y ago
I really don't get this attitude, though I think it must be valid, since I seem to be almost alone in disagreement. I use plain old GPG for a lot of purposes, and I don't find its command-line usage difficult at all. Key management, encryption, decryption, signing — all of these operations are pretty straightforward.
What specific tasks have you found difficult?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- sneak 5y agoIt's very hard to simply encrypt a file to a given pubkey (due to the key trust model) compared to, for example, something like age (where it's just `age -r $PUBKEY`). You also have to set GNUPGHOME somewhere and import the key first, you can't easily do it statelessly without tracking mud into the filesystem first.
- KirillPanov 5y agoI agree that age is a huge improvement over PGP, and the rightful heir to its throne. However most people complaining about PGP's UI go on to explain that this is why you should use Telegram or WhatsApp. That line of reasoning is just bogus.
- creamytaco 5y agoHuge improvement? It doesn't even come close. It's yet another half-assed reimplementation of the easiest PGP features to reimplement. There is no web of trust, no smartcard support, not even signing. Which is why age has gone nowhere, and pretty much everyone keeps using PGP.
- yrro 5y agogpg has had a --recipient-file option for a while now... no need to import it.