So if I understand you correctly, Graphene OS does everything it says it does but overhypes its differences with other forks. That doesn’t sound like snakeoil, only effective marketing.
Why shouldn’t I use it over the other forks then, particularly because useful features like hardened_malloc are only avalible on Graphene despite being widely ported to linux distros?
They also do not shill for Big Tech or Google/Apple.
What’s the story behind this? I’m genuinely curious.
I will say I strongly dislike how the developer has handled criticism, but that seems to be more a failing of the dev then a problem with the OS.
Saddly no it’s not, its a component embedded by the compiler that can be separately installed to replace the programs default allocator implementation. Also I can’t find a fork of android I know of that supports it.
If I understand you correctly, graphene OS is bad because:
The developer is using his fans to market the software he helps make, resulting in more people using it.
Arguably that’s a good thing as it at least makes people aware that other android forks exist, encouraging people to switch to one of the more private forks of android.
The developer hates Mozilla and unfairly hates TOR because he sees them as Mozilla shills.
How does the developer having bad takes effect a piece of software? Firefox in mine and others experience, still works well on the device. Yes I am aware of his vanadium project, if he wants to waste time, power to him.
By default the OS complies with government laws both defacto and official.
Why is that a bad thing, especially since it sounds like the alternative is breaking said laws? Yes there are often moral arguments against laws such as that, but the advantage of open source is that you can switch to something that gives you the freedom to break the law if you want.
The only thing you have shown me (which I already agreed with) is the lead developer (who is not the only one working on the project) is immature and paranoid, you have not showed why I should not use the software that he helped make, only that other forks support more hardware.
Thanks for being willing to discuss this stuff, I appreciate you are willing to take the time to write a detailed response.
At the very least, you have adequately shown me that the developer is too unstable to be able to guarantee the OS remains secure. Next time I’ll use Calyx OS since they are pretty much the sane anyway.
I do want to point out that:
No, he hates them because he was mocked deservedly by Tor devs
Technically the email you linked showed that he hated TOR beforehand, then the devs (rightly) mocked his reasoning, we were both right.
[by your logic] He should make it maximum compliant with governments and spying agencies
Please do not twist my words, though I understand once you assume someone is a bad actor you (quite understandably) give up. My point is that software should not be configured to break the law by default. Why would a user want something that breaks the law when first installed, when most users want to follow the law? Ideally software like this should have separate “legally compliment” and “freedom” branches but I argue having the first one is better then the second one in most cases.
So if I understand you correctly, Graphene OS does everything it says it does but overhypes its differences with other forks. That doesn’t sound like snakeoil, only effective marketing.
Why shouldn’t I use it over the other forks then, particularly because useful features like hardened_malloc are only avalible on Graphene despite being widely ported to linux distros?
What’s the story behind this? I’m genuinely curious.
I will say I strongly dislike how the developer has handled criticism, but that seems to be more a failing of the dev then a problem with the OS.
Removed by mod
Saddly no it’s not, its a component embedded by the compiler that can be separately installed to replace the programs default allocator implementation. Also I can’t find a fork of android I know of that supports it.
If I understand you correctly, graphene OS is bad because:
Arguably that’s a good thing as it at least makes people aware that other android forks exist, encouraging people to switch to one of the more private forks of android.
How does the developer having bad takes effect a piece of software? Firefox in mine and others experience, still works well on the device. Yes I am aware of his vanadium project, if he wants to waste time, power to him.
Why is that a bad thing, especially since it sounds like the alternative is breaking said laws? Yes there are often moral arguments against laws such as that, but the advantage of open source is that you can switch to something that gives you the freedom to break the law if you want.
The only thing you have shown me (which I already agreed with) is the lead developer (who is not the only one working on the project) is immature and paranoid, you have not showed why I should not use the software that he helped make, only that other forks support more hardware.
Thanks for being willing to discuss this stuff, I appreciate you are willing to take the time to write a detailed response.
Removed by mod
At the very least, you have adequately shown me that the developer is too unstable to be able to guarantee the OS remains secure. Next time I’ll use Calyx OS since they are pretty much the sane anyway.
I do want to point out that:
Technically the email you linked showed that he hated TOR beforehand, then the devs (rightly) mocked his reasoning, we were both right.
Please do not twist my words, though I understand once you assume someone is a bad actor you (quite understandably) give up. My point is that software should not be configured to break the law by default. Why would a user want something that breaks the law when first installed, when most users want to follow the law? Ideally software like this should have separate “legally compliment” and “freedom” branches but I argue having the first one is better then the second one in most cases.
All that being said, enjoy your day
Removed by mod