He added in the positive comments about TrueCrypt. Previously, his comments read as if he were completely opposed to all forms of TrueCrypt's use.
He also removed quite a bit of negativity and snark from his comments. Without those, the tone of the conversation shifts considerably.
What I'm trying to get at here is that there's a need for a TrueCrypt like product, and Thomas seems to think there isn't, or didn't last time I read his comments. He was suggesting that anyone who wants to actually encrypt their code should use PGP. I was arguing that such a strategy isn't realistic given the UX/workflow that TrueCrypt gave.
As I said earlier, what do you think the function of this comment is?
Of course you'd say something to this effect. The purpose of a comment would be to elaborate on why what I said was wrong; providing examples or evidence to the contrary is a great way to further any conversation.
I, unfortunately, have no evidence. So it's just my word. I realize that's not super valuable, but that's what I've got.
The point is that you were worsening the quality of HN by prosecuting an off-topic and seemingly personal agenda and taking the thread way into the weeds. Please don't do that. To steal a phrase from the HN guidelines, it never does any good and makes for boring reading.
If you have concerns about other things on HN, we'd be happy to look into them for you, but the way to make that happen is to email hn@ycombinator.com as the guidelines ask.
