[pessimizer]

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."

?

[Y0nash]

And you consider this a proper answer? Have you actually read the whole email? My personal opinion remains the same, but maybe let's just agree to disagree?

[verbatim]

It seems like a pretty good answer to me. If he feels that the code is bad enough that newcomers are unlikely to efficiently be able to work with it and not make it unsafe by making mistakes, he's probably correct.

[Y0nash]

I understand your point, but in that case why not to make that information public? All they had to do was to say on the website "We gonna rewrite TrueCrypt, stay tuned". Instead, we have this: "WARNING: Using TrueCrypt is not secure" or "use BitLocker" (really?) They chose to completely destroy the reputation of TrueCrypt. They are spreading FUD. They don't want a fork. I just find it really hard to believe that a 'normal' person with good intentions would do such a thing...

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.

[pessimizer]

>"We gonna rewrite TrueCrypt, stay tuned"

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.