this post was submitted on 16 Jun 2024
290 points (98.7% liked)
Asklemmy
43940 readers
492 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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