Name: Anonymous 2009-06-06 11:40
So, I was looking at TrueCrypt's source code. It seems of adequately high quality to me, albeit I don't share some of its design decisions.
OTOH, I find this "TrueCrypt Foundation" unsettling. There is no list of physical persons. I understand they might not want to attract attention, but isn't it better to be public in cases like this, so you can mount a ruckus if the government gets on you? It would also boost public confidence.
The ads in the site are placed in such a way that it seems they want you to click on them unintentionally. That's not very good. They also shipped a version that did dangerous system-wide changes (disabling swap space), but that was quickly removed from the next one.
Overall the product sports a very professional tone which is likable. However, there's too much mystery around.
What's your ENTERPRISE-QUALITY take on this?
OTOH, I find this "TrueCrypt Foundation" unsettling. There is no list of physical persons. I understand they might not want to attract attention, but isn't it better to be public in cases like this, so you can mount a ruckus if the government gets on you? It would also boost public confidence.
The ads in the site are placed in such a way that it seems they want you to click on them unintentionally. That's not very good. They also shipped a version that did dangerous system-wide changes (disabling swap space), but that was quickly removed from the next one.
Overall the product sports a very professional tone which is likable. However, there's too much mystery around.
What's your ENTERPRISE-QUALITY take on this?