Could anything be clearer than:
"I don't feel that forking truecrypt would be a good idea,[...]. I believe that starting from scratch wouldn't require much more work than actually learning and understanding all of truecrypts current codebase."
?
"I don't feel that forking truecrypt would be a good idea,[...]. I believe that starting from scratch wouldn't require much more work than actually learning and understanding all of truecrypts current codebase."
?
Last but not least, the audit that took place some time ago went fine so there are no reasons to consider TrueCrypt less secure then anything else (in fact, it's quite the opposite) and no 'rewrite' is necessary.
Because they would be saying that they were going to do something that they had no plans to do?
>there are no reasons to consider TrueCrypt less secure then anything else (in fact, it's quite the opposite) and no 'rewrite' is necessary.
You have a different opinion than the one of the authors, and you're entitled to it. It's not nice to attack someone who has a different opinion, though, especially when it's about a piece of software that they developed, and offered free of use for many years. Their opinion may be more informed than yours, but it's at least as informed as yours.