rbitsThe founder of /e/os is anti-security
Another quote from the thread
Their marketing heavily focuses on avoiding Google and gives the impression they believe privacy means avoiding one company. Meanwhile, they add a bunch of Google services not present in the Android Open Source Project and give extensive privileged access to Google apps/services.
From @grapheneos.org
What priveledged access? I only found one call home from MicroG, and it was easily disabled.
They’re two sides of the same coin. Can’t have privacy without security and can’t have security without privacy.
Looking at the post though he’s specifically talking about advanced security as a means of preserving privacy, security you’d need if (based on his model) targeted by a government (whether foreign or your local police forensics team). I don’t think his model is correct though because while extra hardened security is useful to protect privacy in such an instance, it’s also just best practice because it’s better to have too much security than not enough, just to keep your bank account secure at least.
Kind of shameful of /e/ to blatantly disregard user privacy like that. Is Graphene our last stand against Orwellian surveillance?
i honestly dont care much about privacy in the sense that i dont rlly need it to be provided by an OS, just give me max freedom and let me handle privacy myself. That being said I am on grapheneOS atm but still hoping for librephone to enable me to have an arch linux like phone experience that i can customize to hell
That would be really cool.
“anyone who wants privacy from their government is a pedophile” is a hell of a stance…
thatsnomayo [he/him]the privatized western govts & their tech boys literally are the infrastructure of the global pedos it’s asinine & dangerous to tell people to ignore that!
The stereotype of pedophiles in cop shows is that they use desktop computers anyway, not phones. Don’t know how true to reality that is though.
I can’t believes he’s intentionally anti-privacy. Occam’s razor suggests he’s instead a fucking idiot.
Yeah maybe. But whether it’s intentional or not, I would not want to use /e/os.
But also, from the linked thread:
Murena is a for-profit company owned by shareholders including Gaël Duval. /e/ has a non-profit organization which is also led by Gaël Duval. /e/ includes paid services from Murena. /e/ very clearly exists to build products for Murena to sell in order to enrich the shareholders.
Despite being done for profit, /e/ receives millions of euros in funding from the EU on an ongoing basis. /e/ and Murena use extraordinarily inaccurate marketing to not only promote their products/services but also to mislead people about GrapheneOS and scare them away from it.
From @grapheneos.org
Graphene made an OS only for Google phones. I can see what they mean here, but not sure they have room to talk regardless of the security circumstances.
It is shitty if there was a smear campaign against them though.
I think it’s fair they support way more phones than GrapheneOS, even if the security is way worse. But it’s a whole other thing to call people who want secure phones pedophiles.
I think both approaches are too extreme. Supporting every device leads to poor security, poor stability, and therefore a poor user experience, but only supporting just Google devices (while there is a good reason for that) is a step too far for most people.
If I were in the position of e/os I’d just support probably three manufacturers. Going through the major ones that I know of: Motorola and Google are obvious picks. Next would need to be something cheap and popular. Samsung is way out of the question. Xiaomi and Vivo I’ve never seen their phones mentioned outside of China (which is a country that generally doesn’t have the same privacy considerations as people in the west do). That leaves Oneplus and Tecno Mobile for the third model.
Please provide the video with the question included. This looks cut to fit the anti murena narrative that GrapheneOS has been screaming about for years. It’s the same tactic Republicans use against others: cutting only a bit that sounds bad when taken out of context.
Please provide the video with the question included. This looks cut to fit the anti murena narrative that GrapheneOS has been screaming about for years. It’s the same tactic Republicans use against others: cutting only a bit that sounds bad when taken out of context.
BlackbeardInteresting conversation with GrapheneOS. Didn’t know they essentially hate each other. I’m using e/os but just because I cannot run graphene on my device.
GrapheneOS’s leadership hates basically any other ROM. If you say something negative about GrapheneOS, he will probably calle you out as part of CalyxOS team in a hate raid party, or something of the like.
They make an amazing OS, but you’re better off not giving them much attention in their constant drama.
Calling others on their bullshit does not equal hating on them. Why do you think CalyxOS had to ‘take a break’? Why do you think that The only thing these ‘privacy’ focused OSs can do about GrapheneOS is say it’s geared towards criminals? They have no other way to try and smear them because they’re all garbage in comparison.
Get your shit straight. GrapheneOS is so fucking awesome that they plugged an actual Linux kernel hole within hours of it being found, whereas it took Google weeks, never mind these Murena and Calyx morons.
… bullshit … criminals … smear … garbage … get your shit straight … morons.
more expletives, than sentences; this reads like it was written by micay himself. lol
HominineI wouldn’t be surprised if there is more that one sockpuppet to be quite honest, they just cannot grow tf up.
NebbyI’ve not seen this though GrapheneOS has repeatedly belittled /e/os. As others in this thread have noted the propensity to repeatedly attack other projects is the biggest failing of GOS. As a user it does little more than leave me funding PostmarketOS while biding time for a proper linux solution.
GrapheneOS only points out (very bluntly tbf) the fact that /e/os and other “privacy” focused os don’t keep up with critical security patches and actually makes users less private and secure due to this. I think saying that GrapheneOS belittled /e/os is a little much considering the amount of missinformation/attacks that people from /e/os and Murena have been doing accross social media. I mean you see it here calling “hardened security approach” is for pedos/criminals very extreme language which does genuine harm to projects like GrapheneOS. Their Unified Attestation project is just a way for them (/e/os, murena etc) to control which apps can run on which device when GrapheneOS supports hardware attestation which would allow (afaik) apps to verify on the hardware level to ensure the security of apps. Read this thread on their mastodon, they routinely have to defend themselves on social media from a mountain of misinformation and disinformation you should read some of the other posts on their mastodon.
GrapheneOS (@[email protected])
/e/ and Murena devices are far worse for privacy and security than an iPhone. It's trivial to break into their devices remotely or extract data from them compared to an iPhone. They have weaker privacy protections from apps too. Their main approach to privacy is a DNS blocklist.
Considering I’ve had my own posts deleted during the last round of admin meltdowns here on the fediverse I have seen all I need to of GOS’s leadership antics, thank you very much.
[email protected]
a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/comment/21010858
I spoke out about the persecution complex of the management and got shut down, like-minded sentiment be damned I guess. We can see the sycophancy here also, Stallman save us from such small minds…
a.lemmy.world/lemmy.world/comment/21010858
I spoke out about the persecution complex of the management and got shut down, like-minded sentiment be damned I guess. We can see the sycophancy here also, Stallman save us from such small minds…
Take this with a grain of salt: GrapheneOS is always stirring shit with other players in the privacy space and they try to paint them in the worst light possible.
Andrew100%. I use GrapheneOS but I really don't care about the high level security that much... I just want to avoid being tracked and manipulated. I want the PRIVACY, but the GOS devs purposely conflate privacy and security. They demonize any attempt at privacy that dont also protect against state level attacks. I think /e/os has its place and there's nothing wrong with that!
Anyone telling you the list isn’t graphene -> ios -> good custom android -> aosp-> google stock -> samsung stock is lying to you.
How is iOS - a proprietary OS owned by a big tech company - second in your list?
It can be made very good from a security and privacy perspective.
If you know you know I guess.
There’s good reason to suspect that it’s very terrible from its privacy and security perspective.
Do you think it’s possible for companies or individuals to not comply with court ordered surveillance and search warrants? That’s what prism is, nsa driven data collection ordered by the court system.
Further, on its own and absent any other evidence, the timeline of prism entry corroborates my statement that ios is second to graphene.
Apple is not a good company, there are no good companies. Apple is a company selling security and privacy amongst other things. You have to buy security and privacy because you can’t go out into the backyard, fell a phone tree, carefully choose the section with the strongest, straightest traces and shape it into an optimally private and secure device in the shed using your grandfathers antique phoneworking bench and strap driven phone lathe.
Do you think it’s possible for companies or individuals to not comply with court ordered surveillance and search warrants?
Companies can’t, no. That’s precisely my point. Hence your argument that iOS is more “secure” than any other bar Graphene is disingenuous. iOS is developed by a company which can be (and likely already has been) pressured into compromising its users on behalf of three-letter agencies. The NSA slides are strong evidence of that.
Large collectives of devs spread out all over the world, however, can withstand such pressures since they’re hard to get a hold of. The developers of OSs such as Graphene, Debian or Lineage could easily resist such attempts, simply because they’re not a legal entity incorporated inside a single jurisdiction.
You’re correct in saying that Apple is “selling” privacy and security (as in: marketing, pinky-promising). They may be selling that story, but I ain’t buying it.