From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44812) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S5x47-0001n3-Jt for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 05:28:57 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S5x45-0006mL-RB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 05:28:51 -0500 Received: from mail-iy0-f173.google.com ([209.85.210.173]:37200) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S5x45-0006mD-JU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 05:28:49 -0500 Received: by iafj26 with SMTP id j26so2166079iaf.4 for ; Fri, 09 Mar 2012 02:28:47 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4F59DB5A.1020809@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2012 11:28:42 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F4E9E31.50903@storagecraft.com> <4F4F8FCD.7010106@redhat.com> <4F4FD1C9.8050006@storagecraft.com> <4F58CD9A.3000708@redhat.com> <3580B6302539E34585A612F5932C1F2F01A0D97F@STC-EXCH.stc.local> <4F59CBFC.7040906@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F59CBFC.7040906@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Add support for new image type List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Nate Bushman , Kai Meyer , "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" Il 09/03/2012 10:23, Kevin Wolf ha scritto: >> You make really good points on opening up the image file format. >> I see real value there in that it would foster development of >> other solutions around that format. The problem in this case is >> that StorageCraft's backup image format uses proprietary >> compression and encryption, and so, regrettably, we can't >> (currently) open up that code. > > This is an interesting statement. Not so much for compression, for > which I can't know how much better your solution is than common > algorithms. But I always thought that closed encryption algorithms > have to be considered bad, because using them would mean relying on > security by obscurity. Which probably everyone agrees is a bad idea. And even for compression, having an open decompressor is usually a good idea. Some people have no problems with proprietary solutions but do not like lock in (and wonder what to do with their backups if StorageCraft disappears). Paolo