top | item 13635489 (no title) jvdh | 9 years ago The author probably exaggerates, but identifies a very valid point. You really don't want to have this kind of confusion about something that you are planning to trust your secrets to. discuss order hn newest Raed667|9 years ago The naming confusion is legitimate (PGP, GPG, openPGP) but it literally takes one Google query "PGP GPG" to answer that question in 30 seconds. jvdh|9 years ago The naming of "private key" versus "secring.pgp" is very valid criticism.Also the fact that it crashes on first use, and that it is all not very user-friendly are all valid criticisms (still!).PS. please don't down vote because you disagree.
Raed667|9 years ago The naming confusion is legitimate (PGP, GPG, openPGP) but it literally takes one Google query "PGP GPG" to answer that question in 30 seconds. jvdh|9 years ago The naming of "private key" versus "secring.pgp" is very valid criticism.Also the fact that it crashes on first use, and that it is all not very user-friendly are all valid criticisms (still!).PS. please don't down vote because you disagree.
jvdh|9 years ago The naming of "private key" versus "secring.pgp" is very valid criticism.Also the fact that it crashes on first use, and that it is all not very user-friendly are all valid criticisms (still!).PS. please don't down vote because you disagree.
Raed667|9 years ago
jvdh|9 years ago
Also the fact that it crashes on first use, and that it is all not very user-friendly are all valid criticisms (still!).
PS. please don't down vote because you disagree.