3 ms·

To answer the title: Maybe because they consistently go months without providing basic security updates to their users, phoning home to Google out of the box de

by _rdvw 4y ago

To answer the title: Maybe because they consistently go months without providing basic security updates to their users, phoning home to Google out of the box despite advertising otherwise, selling devices that are already end-of-life, and even leaking user-data to other users as I note in my list with cited sources here: https://divestos.org/misc/e.txt https://divestos.org/misc/e.txt Noting my bias as having my own Android fork.

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
Thank you. I was not aware of DivestOS, but it will be on my radar now as a possible alternative.
palata 4y ago
DivestOS seems like a nice project. However, every single time I read about it, it is from the author. Not by explaining why I should like DivestOS, but by explaining over and over again why other Android alternatives are so very very very bad. To me it's a bit like those people who keep telling everyone and their dog that "Signal is ridiculously insecure because they require your phone number". I guess in the hope of converting them to their own secure messaging app that nobody has ever heard about and that requires 17 steps to add a contact. But in reality, I'm pretty sure that they push people back to WhatsApp/Telegram. That is counter-productive IMHO, because they would benefit from people getting open to Signal (if people refuse to install Signal, they probably won't remotely consider those exotic super-secure apps). Same thing here. If my parents can move to /e/ OS, that's great for all the alternative Android flavours, because it means that they moved away from Google/Samsung/etc. But if you go tell my parents that they need GrapheneOS, with a Pixel phone, and that their most important apps don't run there "for security", then my parents will just stay on the Android from Samsung. I guess DivestOS is a nice idea, but honestly the behavior of the author (criticizing all efforts I can see out there) does not make me want to look into it.
- _rdvw 4y ago
  > Not by explaining why I should like DivestOS Because I'm not trying to shill my project, but instead provide factual information about others in a thread about them. > because it means that they moved away from Google/Samsung/etc. But they didn't as my link describes. > most important apps don't run there "for security" But this is just wrong, GrapheneOS has superior compatibility compared to systems shipping microG. > criticizing all efforts I can see out there Yet I have pages dedicated to recommendations of projects, thanking people who made it possible, along with many contributions back: - https://divestos.org/pages/recommended_apps https://divestos.org/pages/recommended_apps - https://divestos.org/pages/patch_levels#secure https://divestos.org/pages/patch_levels#secure - https://divestos.org/pages/about https://divestos.org/pages/about It only happens to seem that way because there are sadly a lot of companies portraying themself as helpful open source projects when they really just want to sell insecure devices to pad their pockets.
  - palata 4y ago
    > Because I'm not trying to shill my project Sure, you just say ("disclaimer, I write divestOS (link)") and then start spitting on the project ("I told them, but they haven't updated their default PDF app in at least 2 months!!!! That's absolutely ridiculous, look at my list of complaints (link)! Note that it's a huuuuge list because I keep all the complaints and just mark them as [FIXED] when they are not relevant anymore"). > But this is just wrong, GrapheneOS has superior compatibility compared to systems shipping microG. Can you install, say, WhatsApp through the store on GrapheneOS? Can I install my public transport app (hint: it's not on F-droid) or my banking app? And can I use GrapheneOS with my Samsung phone? It's great if GrapheneOS fits your needs. But think that other people may have other needs. Which may involve compromising on security/privacy for the sake of convenience. > they really just want to sell insecure devices It's not black and white, is it? There is no such thing as a "secure device" (what would that mean? "Cannot be hacked and will not leak any data ever"?). Devices can be more or less secure, that's a gradient. Maybe you want a more secure device (at some cost, e.g. you don't install a third-party keyboard and you only use a Pixel phone), but others want a more convenient device. The whole point of projects like /e/ OS (which you don't seem to begin to grasp) is to provide more privacy while keeping as much convenience as possible. For "normal" people, not for people who like spending their free time writing lists about when the default PDF app was last updated. Because normal people don't care as much.

by _rdvw 4y ago

A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago

Thank you. I was not aware of DivestOS, but it will be on my radar now as a possible alternative.

palata 4y ago

DivestOS seems like a nice project. However, every single time I read about it, it is from the author. Not by explaining why I should like DivestOS, but by explaining over and over again why other Android alternatives are so very very very bad. To me it's a bit like those people who keep telling everyone and their dog that "Signal is ridiculously insecure because they require your phone number". I guess in the hope of converting them to their own secure messaging app that nobody has ever heard about and that requires 17 steps to add a contact. But in reality, I'm pretty sure that they push people back to WhatsApp/Telegram. That is counter-productive IMHO, because they would benefit from people getting open to Signal (if people refuse to install Signal, they probably won't remotely consider those exotic super-secure apps). Same thing here. If my parents can move to /e/ OS, that's great for all the alternative Android flavours, because it means that they moved away from Google/Samsung/etc. But if you go tell my parents that they need GrapheneOS, with a Pixel phone, and that their most important apps don't run there "for security", then my parents will just stay on the Android from Samsung. I guess DivestOS is a nice idea, but honestly the behavior of the author (criticizing all efforts I can see out there) does not make me want to look into it.

_rdvw 4y ago
> Not by explaining why I should like DivestOS Because I'm not trying to shill my project, but instead provide factual information about others in a thread about them. > because it means that they moved away from Google/Samsung/etc. But they didn't as my link describes. > most important apps don't run there "for security" But this is just wrong, GrapheneOS has superior compatibility compared to systems shipping microG. > criticizing all efforts I can see out there Yet I have pages dedicated to recommendations of projects, thanking people who made it possible, along with many contributions back: - https://divestos.org/pages/recommended_apps https://divestos.org/pages/recommended_apps - https://divestos.org/pages/patch_levels#secure https://divestos.org/pages/patch_levels#secure - https://divestos.org/pages/about https://divestos.org/pages/about It only happens to seem that way because there are sadly a lot of companies portraying themself as helpful open source projects when they really just want to sell insecure devices to pad their pockets.
- palata 4y ago
  > Because I'm not trying to shill my project Sure, you just say ("disclaimer, I write divestOS (link)") and then start spitting on the project ("I told them, but they haven't updated their default PDF app in at least 2 months!!!! That's absolutely ridiculous, look at my list of complaints (link)! Note that it's a huuuuge list because I keep all the complaints and just mark them as [FIXED] when they are not relevant anymore"). > But this is just wrong, GrapheneOS has superior compatibility compared to systems shipping microG. Can you install, say, WhatsApp through the store on GrapheneOS? Can I install my public transport app (hint: it's not on F-droid) or my banking app? And can I use GrapheneOS with my Samsung phone? It's great if GrapheneOS fits your needs. But think that other people may have other needs. Which may involve compromising on security/privacy for the sake of convenience. > they really just want to sell insecure devices It's not black and white, is it? There is no such thing as a "secure device" (what would that mean? "Cannot be hacked and will not leak any data ever"?). Devices can be more or less secure, that's a gradient. Maybe you want a more secure device (at some cost, e.g. you don't install a third-party keyboard and you only use a Pixel phone), but others want a more convenient device. The whole point of projects like /e/ OS (which you don't seem to begin to grasp) is to provide more privacy while keeping as much convenience as possible. For "normal" people, not for people who like spending their free time writing lists about when the default PDF app was last updated. Because normal people don't care as much.