3 ms·

High security hardware/software is such an awful market. You get open source fanatics that will cut you down any chance they get. Nothing is ever good enough a

by rapsey 6y ago

High security hardware/software is such an awful market. You get open source fanatics that will cut you down any chance they get. Nothing is ever good enough and god forbid you want to charge money for anything. Most actually don’t know anything and cant distinguish good products from bad. They are just paranoid. People who actually want to buy security products listen to the loud mouth fanatics so nothing can actually get made because the fanatics will ensure that only free is good. The ensure the market is dead. Copperhead tried to make a good run for it. But in the end when you try to tame a fanatic you are going to get hurt. And then there are mediocre-to-bad products that are suspiciously successful and get deals easily. It is like someone powerful makes sure they become widespread.

gradeless 6y ago
This is what CopperheadOS has become. Trading off the reputation they gained from before the split. When they were still publishing their sources they were often lagging months behind with basic AOSP security updates. Still not updated to Android 11 yet, 2 months since it was launched, which, as they support Pixels, means they now have 3 monthly updates worth of device specific security patches that can't of been applied. GrapheneOS moved to 11 in September, not so long after it was released by Google
randomhydrosol 6y ago
Copperhead is just selling a reskinned version of the open source project. They are also not secure as you can see from their website. There is no android 11 release and it's at least 3 months behind in security patches. That is not secure. If you check grapheneos it is using the most recent security patch and android version available Grapheneos has been around far longer than the commercial project. The commercial project was set up to fund the open source project however James Donaldson, the current copperhead CEO has a criminal background and tried to turn it into something completely different I encourage you to read https://github.com/Peter-Easton/GrapheneOS-Knowledge/blob/master/Twitter%20and%20Reddit/README.md https://github.com/Peter-Easton/GrapheneOS-Knowledge/blob/ma... to understand what really happened
judeka 6y ago
This is such a flawed argument. All of the above is based on a composition/division fallacy. You're assuming a part applies to the whole or majority, when in reality, this isn't the case. Your bias shows in the way you describe this, and your argument makes a presupposition involving the other side where their argument MUST somehow follow a sort of nirvana fallacy. The other side's argument are all invalid because they MUST be based on rejection of an idea because it isn't perfect. Again, this isn't the case, and it only applies to a minority within the open source community involving themselves in security.This isn't even taking into account you calling them fanatics as if its valid; it is on the verge of being ad hominem depending on what your intention was and wether you're aware of what you're implying in the first place. Also, what market? You mean the market that some companies try create where one of the main concerns is the open sourcing of some products so there's no need for audit requests? Is this not a valid concern to you, or does this tie into your aforementioned bias? I understand the concept you try push, but if you want to make an argument, at least make sure it's put out there in a valid way with solid points. Doing otherwise is only a disservice to your side.

by rapsey 6y ago

gradeless 6y ago

This is what CopperheadOS has become. Trading off the reputation they gained from before the split. When they were still publishing their sources they were often lagging months behind with basic AOSP security updates. Still not updated to Android 11 yet, 2 months since it was launched, which, as they support Pixels, means they now have 3 monthly updates worth of device specific security patches that can't of been applied. GrapheneOS moved to 11 in September, not so long after it was released by Google

randomhydrosol 6y ago

Copperhead is just selling a reskinned version of the open source project. They are also not secure as you can see from their website. There is no android 11 release and it's at least 3 months behind in security patches. That is not secure. If you check grapheneos it is using the most recent security patch and android version available Grapheneos has been around far longer than the commercial project. The commercial project was set up to fund the open source project however James Donaldson, the current copperhead CEO has a criminal background and tried to turn it into something completely different I encourage you to read https://github.com/Peter-Easton/GrapheneOS-Knowledge/blob/master/Twitter%20and%20Reddit/README.md https://github.com/Peter-Easton/GrapheneOS-Knowledge/blob/ma... to understand what really happened

judeka 6y ago

This is such a flawed argument. All of the above is based on a composition/division fallacy. You're assuming a part applies to the whole or majority, when in reality, this isn't the case. Your bias shows in the way you describe this, and your argument makes a presupposition involving the other side where their argument MUST somehow follow a sort of nirvana fallacy. The other side's argument are all invalid because they MUST be based on rejection of an idea because it isn't perfect. Again, this isn't the case, and it only applies to a minority within the open source community involving themselves in security.This isn't even taking into account you calling them fanatics as if its valid; it is on the verge of being ad hominem depending on what your intention was and wether you're aware of what you're implying in the first place. Also, what market? You mean the market that some companies try create where one of the main concerns is the open sourcing of some products so there's no need for audit requests? Is this not a valid concern to you, or does this tie into your aforementioned bias? I understand the concept you try push, but if you want to make an argument, at least make sure it's put out there in a valid way with solid points. Doing otherwise is only a disservice to your side.