[OTR-users] OTR key storage

[subharo at hushmail.com]

Hello Tamme,

On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 18:13:25 -0400 "Tamme Schichler" 
<tammeschichler at googlemail.com> wrote:
>Am 10.09.2013 19:48, schrieb subharo at hushmail.com:
>> Hello Tamme,
>>
>> So far I like your approach.  I've never heard of py2exe before,
>> but you seem to have done your research WRT the options for 
>using
>> Python in Windows.  If py2exe is good enough for BitTorrent, 
>then
>> it's good enough for me.
>
>Hello,
>
>I have to look a bit more into the different options before we can 
>
>decide on the Python version. From what I've seen it should be 
>possible 
>to get a reasonable distributable size with either though. I think 
>I 
>would prefer the plain "include parts of Python" option, as that 
>should 
>work without additional dependencies for the build. I really need 
>to 
>look into build automation, with C# VS does everything and it 
>"just 
>works". Maybe someone else reading this can help here.

I personally cringe about the C# idea, as the linux community would 
probably not dig using any solution that makes use of C# or its 
related build tools (even if that code is not used on a Linux 
system).  Using C# also might make things tougher for when the day 
comes to make this solution work on other non-Microsoft OS's, which 
are not linux (and don't come with Python pre-installed).

I also think we shouldn't care about saving a few MB here and there 
when people do downloads of this proposed solution.  Even if our 
solution caused a 20 MB extra download, I, for one, would not 
hesitate to download it, for the tremendous and **timely** value it 
brings to have the greatly-increased security of OTR.  Even $35 
Raspberry Pi's can easily spare that kind of disk space.

Bandwidth and disk space are very cheap these days.  These days, 
most people are downloading "view-once-then-discard" data (like 
much-larger Youtube videos, MP3 podcasts, and torrents) left, right 
and centre, not caring about bandwidth or disk space.