Re: Seahorse re: 2.4 Proposed Modules

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Mon, 2003-05-05 at 12:48, MArk Finlay wrote:
> > Like Havoc, I think that the UI needs to be aimed at "someone who wants
> > to encrypt files and send them to someone else" instead of "someone who
> > wants to have a graphical front-end to gpg."
> 
> I would disagree to an extent. Encryption is all about keys and anyone who
> uses it knows that. You have to have a key to encrypt and you have to have
> a persons key to decrypt something from them. You don't get very far in
> encryption without that knowledge.
> 
> Thus a key manager makes perfect sense. I agree that the key manager is a
> bad
> place to go if you want to encrypt a file - nautilus is better suited to
> that - but that
> doesn't negate the need to manage keys.

Sure, a key manager makes sense. But I use gpg, and know what a key is,
but don't need all the functionality replicated in a GUI. Most of the
gpg functionality is specialist.

All you need is:

-> List of keys
-> Import/export of keys
-> Who it is; is it valid; sign it with a decent UI explaining what
signing is
-> Ability to create a key

You don't need:

-> The user to decide on "trust" values without an explanation of what
he's trying to do
-> A "User ID" tab with ciphers and widgets to sign and delete
identities when every single widget is insensitive anyway
-> Ability to add/delete subkeys

-- 
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>

"A freudian slip is when you say one thing but you mean your mother." -- unknown