OT: PGP, commercial product vs opensource stuff - viability/usability

[Fairlight]

John,

True, I've helped people use it on SuSE and other linux systems as a
complete solution for encrypting to/from ftp.  However, GPG is GPG.  If
it executes without crashing, and the same options are compiled in,
the platform makes no difference, even between different endian platforms. 

I personally use it on both Linux and Solaris all the time.
Interchangeably, and they're opposite endian to boot.

I just tried it on Bob's SCO 5.6 box to get the version (something that
makes me think it's either distributed already with 5.6, or it comes
with SkunkWare, as Bob doesn't tend to compile things like that (to my
knowledge).  Bob, care to comment on how it got there?

Just now, I took the time to test the following functionality of GPG 1.4.0
on SCO 5.6 for the following functions:

--gen-key
--import
--export
--recv-keys
--send-keys
--keyserver
--encrypt
--decrypt
--armor
--sign
--clearsign
--detach-sign
--passphrase-fd

All tests I ran were 100% successful.  I'm not seeing -any- issues with the
binary.  (The amusing thing that people will note is that this lists itself
as GPG 1.4.0 (UnixWare).  I kid you not.  :)  

I know how the integration fits together.  I've done it on other platforms.
I just tested pretty much everything you'd need to use it with the SCO 5.6
binary on Bob's box.  All functionality checks out.  When you add those
factors, I believe I can honestly say, "Yes, this -will- work on SCO 5.6."

I'll address the other mail separately, as I honestly read it but can't
remember exactly what you said/asked.  I hope this helps somewhat, at
least.  If you need further tests, let me know, and I'll try to accomodate
them.

mark->


When asked his whereabouts on Sun, Oct 30, 2005 at 09:56:51PM -0500,
John Esak took the fifth, drank it, and then slurred:
> > I've helped people use GPG automatedly with their software before.  Piece
> > of cake.
> >
> > It -should- work just fine.  I'd save the money, personally.
> >
> > mark->
> 
> I'm going to assume that you mean you've helped people use it on something
> other than the version you found available on SCO 6. I would also assume
> that it was NOT SCO 5.6, but probably Linux? If it was SCO 5.6, which source
> di you use to compile and put in place for them. If it was anything other
> than SCO 5.6, the question is moot.
> 
> John
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Filepro-list mailing list
> Filepro-list at lists.celestial.com
> http://mailman.celestial.com/mailman/listinfo/filepro-list

-- 
There is no "I" in TEAM.
This would be the primary reason I've chosen not to join one.