[ralish]

It's not inherently bad, but choice for choice's sake is generally not a good thing for security software in my view.

Saying you support more features in non-security software might be a great thing but saying you support more ciphers, encryption algorithms, etc... than the competition just means a higher probability you're supporting weak/broken security algorithms and/or that the implementations are not well audited.

That, and the overwhelming majority of users are going to have no idea what the actual difference is between all the options nor are going to take the time to investigate what exactly is the difference between RIPEMD-320 & SHA-512. Nor should they have to for that matter.

The goal here is to implement high quality security software. The more features you support, the more code is in your product, and the harder it is to ensure that your code is in fact delivering the security you're aiming for.

[tdk]

> Nor should they have to for that matter.

They don't, they can just leave the defaults.