lmt VS git-crypt

One more tool to accomplish this is lmt [0] which, despite minimal documentation, is quite pleasing to use.

[0] https://github.com/driusan/lmt

I personally use literate programming to maintain my "dotfiles", mainly NixOS [1], and I _love_ it. I like to describe all possible alternative tools, why I don't use them, possible tools that look nice, random ideas and blog posts that describe parts of my config, add TODOs and screenshots, ... in short everything that is really ugly to do inside source code comments. Also I gain structure; adding headings to a 3000 LOC config is very nice.

For tangling I use lmt [2], as it works with Markdown and also play nice with Emanote [3] (full syntax highlighting inside the code blocks.). That means all my "dotfiles" are inside my Zettelkasten [4] and can be navigated like any other note I have.

[1]: https://nixos.org/

[2]: https://github.com/driusan/lmt

[3]: https://github.com/srid/emanote

[4]: https://zettelkasten.de/

I switched to NixOS half a year ago. The reason? I fell in love with literate programming (I use [1]); being able to write (and read) your whole OS configuration is the dream!

There are few bad sides to NixOS though.

The community consists mostly of programmers, which means I am missing some creative tools (mockups, mindmaps, ..). In the future I will be able to provide/build them myself, but it is not a smooth transition from my previous arch setup.

Also the whole documentation sucks: There are three (!) official manuals + the home-manager manual + Nix pills + YT + random blogs where I have to piece everything together.

Still I find NixOS superior to every other OS (windows, linux) I have tried so far. I just feel free and am not afraid to fuck up anything [2], as I can just go to a previous generation when it doesn't boot.

Lastly, as my config is in git, I am free to try new tools -- If I don't like them, I just remove their line in my config. No more chasing after random install folders!

[1]: https://github.com/driusan/lmt

https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt

And occasionally to encrypt files, or receive encrypted files.

These are practical things which are non-theoretical.

> Using multiple keys don't offer added security or secrecy.

Depends on how careful you are or want to be, with your private key. My house key isn't the same as my car key isn't the same as my bike key.

> This is nothing like data harvesting

Alright fair, bad example. What I was grumbling about was more the lack of any clear communication that you've been auto-opted-in to a feature on protonmail, with no user interface signal indicating so, leading to confusion for a couple months like in TFA. I definitely wasn't casting shade on the opengpg keyserver, nor protonmail. It's the "hey! I didn't check a box for this, and it's not mentioned anywhere in the protonmail docs" hidden functionality which could do with some clarification.

I'm a forgetful creature. If I intentionally put my key on a keyserver, because I'm playing around and learning about PGP, will I make the connection between it and protonmail a few months down the line if I move my email account to them? Unlikely.

It's a nice automated feature. Protonmail-to-protonmail e2e encryption makes a lot of sense. I just think protonmail-to-non-protonmail e2e needs a tooltip in the UI, and the option to opt out, potentially with the ability to opt out for specific email addresses. I wouldn't at all assume it would be on by default even IF I've been actively using PGP in my email clients, because it's something you usually have to manually set up yourself, very explicitly. That, and 99.9% of emails are plaintext.

Anyhoo, one thing I forgot which kind of negates the "what if I have multiple encryption keys tied to my email" is the fact that the opengpg keyserver does tie 1 email address to 1 key so you can't publish multiple encryption keys, fair enough. Git-crypt and file encryption, I set my associated email address to use +tags eg [email protected], so as far as protonmail etc are concerned there's only one key per logical email address.

Apart from a few exceptions (like ansible for example, which supports native encryption), we moved away from encrypted secrets in git repos and use external things, depending on the platform (like parameter store / secrets manager for AWS or keyvault for Azure - both of these do track changes, btw), so I haven't looked for quite a while. Back in ye olden days we used https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt which worked quite nicely, but the key management is cumbersome and it's based on GPG, which in itself is a bit of a light redish flag these days.

How about encryption?

https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt has been solid for me

You might want to check out git-crypt. It allows you to encrypt and decrypt files in a git repo without needing an external account, and supports .env files. That said, trying your hand at making one as a personal project could be a fun and rewarding experience!

I hesitate to append this but one option I have seen thrown around and also debated is git-crypt [1] There are many caveats to doing this as any integrations that would need to read the file contents would also need to be able to decrypt the files so this may not be entirely useful and may add many levels of complexity and fragility.

[1] - https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt

The most interesting approach I've seen for this is https://github.com/AGWA/git-crypt

Here is the Makefile.

I use git-crypt to encrypt files in git repositories quite a lot and I find that it doesn't work on RHEL-based distros because of some missing or out-of-date library. I need to build a statically linked binary.

Store the Secrets in a repo using gitcrypt or another encryption tool.

Consider using git-crypt for transparent encryption instead.