| 1 |
On Sat, 09 Jul 2011 12:56:42 -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by |
| 4 |
> > reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the |
| 5 |
> > in-kernel ecryptfs these days? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> Are you using ecryptfs? I started looking around and thinking exactly |
| 8 |
> what Albert says is not a proper response, and wondering if ecryptfs |
| 9 |
> might be a better choice. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Not at the moment, although I have used it from time to time and it does |
| 12 |
what it should without fuss. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> Also after seeing no responses or any posts at all on the encfs group, |
| 15 |
> I wondered if ecryptfs is under active development, as it appears |
| 16 |
> encfs is not. So, for that reason alone, (assuming there is current |
| 17 |
> active devel going on with ecryptfs) it might be good to switch. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Ubuntu use it for encrypting home directories, so it should have active |
| 20 |
attention. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
... "Yummy," said Pooh, as he hilted his paw into the "honeypot". |
Archives