Bad debates...

[dwomack@runner.utsa.edu (David L Womack)]

Mr. May wrote an excellent piece regarding the lack
of in-depth discussion of code...and, I believe he's
put his finger on the problem when he mentions that
the majority don't feel capable of adding to the post;
indeed, I fear I may be guilty of hubris for commenting
on the posting of someone who clearly knows far more 
than do I about crypto.

Continuing the theme, I've just bought a copy of
applied crypto...and even after Data Structures II
and Assembly Language I, it's tough sledding.  I
still can't fix the PGP makefile to compile for the 
Sun4 machine at the university (although, thanks to
this list, I was able to find an already compiled
version).  The problem, if I may say so, is that
code at this level of complexity 
may be achievable for full-fledged
cypherpunks...but it is not yet for those of us who
remain mere "wanna-be's".  This is, I suspect, why
cryptography is not spreading as rapidly as we would
prefer.  Keep in mind that the better programs, while
technically elegant, just aren't user friendly.  As
as example of what is being dealt with, I have a
friend with a new 486DX 50Mhz machine with a 300 Meg
drive...and he only uses it for one application.  Word
Perfect 5.0.  I just installed Compuserve for him.  And,
this is a really intelligent person, he's just not 
computer oriented.  He needs PGP, SecureDrive, and so
forth, but he doesn't understand how to use them.  How
many others are out there, just like him?  I suspect a
bunch.  To get crypto 'out there' it is going to have
to be very, very easy to use...and with instructions
equal to a single double spaced page (or less) ...
all of this is just MHO. 

So, I probably won't be reasonably able to make
intelligent comments on the in-depth posts for
*_at-least_* a year;  but, I DO know how to delete
the more tedious posters!  ;-)  Since I do pick up
a lot from the posts, I do hope Mr. May (and others)
won't get TOO discouraged...

Regards