| 1 |
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 09:31:45 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > I wasn't suggesting that. But when the main reason for sticking with |
| 4 |
> > the |
| 5 |
> > older option is that you have a working system with data in it, the |
| 6 |
> > loss |
| 7 |
> > of both of those is a good time to investigate the newer |
| 8 |
> > alternative. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I see. I guess I don't consider one as "older". They are rather |
| 11 |
> alternatives to one another (like openssl and gnutls). |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
Well, encfs was around for a while before ecryptfs. Otherwise there'd have |
| 14 |
been no reason for anyone to write a FUSE filesystem to do it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Generally speaking I'm usually discouraged by "I currently have a |
| 17 |
> problem A, so I'll switch to B".. the old adage "Now you have two |
| 18 |
> problems." |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I wasn't suggesting it as a solution so much as an opportune time to try |
| 21 |
the alternative. I too am against fixing things by throwing them away, |
| 22 |
it's like reinstalling - it my get rid of the problem temporarily but you |
| 23 |
still have no idea of what the problem was or what to do should it |
| 24 |
reoccur. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Barnum was wrong....it's more like every 30 seconds! |
Archives