Neil Bothwick <n...@digimed.co.uk> writes: > On Fri, 08 Jul 2011 14:35:55 -0400, Albert Hopkins wrote: > >> Having said that: >> One of encfs's Achilles heel is its dependency on the boost C++ library >> which is *very* sensitive wrt to API/ABI changes and the like. It also >> depends on OpenSSL which also shares this notoriety (although, in my >> experience, less so). So there is a possibility that an update to any >> of those packages may have broken encfs and you need to rebuild the >> package. > > Apart from the need to access legacy data, which Harry has resolved by > reformatting, is there any benefit in using encfs rather than the > in-kernel ecryptfs these days?
Are you using ecryptfs? I started looking around and thinking exactly what Albert says is not a proper response, and wondering if ecryptfs might be a better choice. Also after seeing no responses or any posts at all on the encfs group, I wondered if ecryptfs is under active development, as it appears encfs is not. So, for that reason alone, (assuming there is current active devel going on with ecryptfs) it might be good to switch. I will admit though, that I have had several trouble free yrs of use with encfs.. and it appears now that my reported problems may have been largely self inflicted wounds.
