Considering the lead developer of GrapheneOS bans anyone from their chat for asking how an Android phone with GrapheneOS compares to a non-android phone, such as a PinePhone or Librem 5, in terms of security, because, according to said developer, PhonePhone and Librem5 are “scam products” and even asking questions about them is “spreading misinformation” and “promotion of fraud”, I’d be quite, quite vary of the claims GrapheneOS developers make about its security.
The lead dev stepped down months ago, and the main thing with non-Pixel phones are the lack of security which is why only Pixels are currently supported.
Isn’t Librem the one so slow to ship products and do refunds thereafter, it’s basically a scam? Yes, it is. It’s the Purism scam company. I watched a video on it. It was informative and unfortunate.
GrapheneOS is good apparently, even though I’m wary of the idea that a phone that Google sells could ever be secure…
Reviewing the source code of an entire operating system is not a task doable by a single person, particularly when that person is not an expert in the field.
A proper code audit needs to be done by a team of professionals capable of spotting things like actual security vulnerabilities and logic errors that might result in more data being exposed, than advertised.
“Accusing with no concrete proof” is exactly what GrapheneOS developers are doing in regards to other projects. Claiming other products are a scam, particularly when those products somewhat compete with yours, is a pretty big red flag.
Is that so. I don’t known the full story but I did heard something about librem being a scam. Either way both of them seem shady so I’ll look more into it
To be clear, GrapheneOS did not “get rid” of Daniel. Daniel stepped down as lead dev and shifted some of his roles to other devs. He still contributes code to GOS.
I’ve heard that he passed some of his duties onto other people.
However, I’m not aware of anyone within the team criticizing his behavior or statements, which, while might be a bit of a stretch, likely implies that everyone related to the project, at the very least, tolerates, if not outright shares the the views.
I find it practically impossible to trust claims of people like that, to be honest.
Yeah, I’m not sure if you always need to apologize for other people. They have a Code of Conduct and that criticises exactly that. I don’t want to warm up all the internet drama that happened back then. There was harassment involved, in my eyes probably mental health issues and a bit of persecution mania. You’d probably only make it worse. If you don’t like how it turned out… You don’t have to use that project. Just use another smartphone OS.
Considering the lead developer of GrapheneOS bans anyone from their chat for asking how an Android phone with GrapheneOS compares to a non-android phone, such as a PinePhone or Librem 5, in terms of security, because, according to said developer, PhonePhone and Librem5 are “scam products” and even asking questions about them is “spreading misinformation” and “promotion of fraud”, I’d be quite, quite vary of the claims GrapheneOS developers make about its security.
The lead dev stepped down months ago, and the main thing with non-Pixel phones are the lack of security which is why only Pixels are currently supported.
Which chat, the matrix channel?
That is pretty infuriating honestly.
Isn’t Librem the one so slow to ship products and do refunds thereafter, it’s basically a scam? Yes, it is. It’s the Purism scam company. I watched a video on it. It was informative and unfortunate.
GrapheneOS is good apparently, even though I’m wary of the idea that a phone that Google sells could ever be secure…
The only parts of this phone not open source are google proprietary drivers for the hardware. I highly doubt those are compromised.
I’m pretty confident my Pixel 6 is not phoning home to the mother ship.
Edit: and I guess whatever grub/bootloader is on here might also be closed source, not sure.
You can check source code
Reviewing the source code of an entire operating system is not a task doable by a single person, particularly when that person is not an expert in the field.
A proper code audit needs to be done by a team of professionals capable of spotting things like actual security vulnerabilities and logic errors that might result in more data being exposed, than advertised.
Meh. If someones willing to pay to do that it’ll be interesting. Skepticism is good but accusing with no concrete proof is not nice
“Accusing with no concrete proof” is exactly what GrapheneOS developers are doing in regards to other projects. Claiming other products are a scam, particularly when those products somewhat compete with yours, is a pretty big red flag.
Is that so. I don’t known the full story but I did heard something about librem being a scam. Either way both of them seem shady so I’ll look more into it
You missed that GrapheneOS got rid of Daniel Micay 6 months ago. (For the better or worse)
To be clear, GrapheneOS did not “get rid” of Daniel. Daniel stepped down as lead dev and shifted some of his roles to other devs. He still contributes code to GOS.
Thanks for the info. I wasn’t aware of that. I had a look at the commits on Github, you’re right.
I’ve heard that he passed some of his duties onto other people.
However, I’m not aware of anyone within the team criticizing his behavior or statements, which, while might be a bit of a stretch, likely implies that everyone related to the project, at the very least, tolerates, if not outright shares the the views.
I find it practically impossible to trust claims of people like that, to be honest.
Yeah, I’m not sure if you always need to apologize for other people. They have a Code of Conduct and that criticises exactly that. I don’t want to warm up all the internet drama that happened back then. There was harassment involved, in my eyes probably mental health issues and a bit of persecution mania. You’d probably only make it worse. If you don’t like how it turned out… You don’t have to use that project. Just use another smartphone OS.