4 ms·

I wouldn't hold up GrapheneOS as a good example of more freedom compared to Apple or Google tbh. Their device depreciation policy is literally just Google, the

I wouldn't hold up GrapheneOS as a good example of more freedom compared to Apple or Google tbh. Their device depreciation policy is literally just Google, they refuse to support anything that isn't a Pixel (because of the security chip, although as I understand it, there's other manufacturers who could probably work as well - Pixel is simply chosen because Google promised to open up the microcode on the security chip, which hasn't happened yet) and their stance on user privacy is so extreme that it gets in the way of user freedom - they literally offer their own SafetyNet implementation and are aggressively against rooting whilst refusing to understand why people root to begin with (the most common reasons is by far hosts based adblocking and their recommendation, VPN based adblocking, gets in the way of a normal day-to-day VPN or something like Tailscale). (Relatedly - the toxicity problems of their community against criticism of GOS or even being interested in non-GrapheneOS privacy projects are well known at this point and with a smaller community, you're bound to run into something that isn't answered on the general internet at some point. This makes that component somewhat unavoidable. I've never seen a non-corporate, non-FSF run community be such extreme NIH types.) For freedom, I'd moreso point towards projects like LineageOS.

throwawayapples 3y ago
> I wouldn't hold up GrapheneOS as a good example of more freedom compared to Apple or Google tbh. I don't see why we can't have both, but this doesn't really a fair criticism of GP's comment. The specific word GP used was 'privacy', not 'freedom', and you are attacking GrapheneOS's stance on the latter, not the former. GrapheneOS is more focused on privacy over freedom, as you said ("their stance on user privacy is so extreme that it gets in the way of user freedom"). They have chosen to prioritize one over the other. > For freedom, I'd moreso point towards projects like LineageOS. This might be true, but LineageOS doesn't have access to microcode either, and certainly GrapheneOS is more 'private' than Lineage, assuming that GrapheneOS hasn't been compromised either internally or at some point in the AOSS supply chain. Except for niche mfgs like PinePhone et al, Google is probably the most free of the major manufacturers (ironically, less private but more free). I agree that we should aim for both freedom (as in free speech, not necessarily as in free beer although it'd be nice!) and privacy. Both are critically important, and the efficacy of the latter depends in large part on the former.
shortsunblack 3y ago
Android security model does not allow root users. If you allow root users, you destroy the security model. GrapheneOS has people working on it that are real security researchers. You can't patch your way up into security out of shit foundations, the foundation being an user existing that breaks the OS' security model. If you hadn't noticed, we get a zero click RCE on phones basically couple every years. That's the type of stuff GrapheneOS worries about, not whether its users can block ads, however nice that is.
- matheusmoreira 3y ago
  Is there a better way to maintain control over the device? I understand rooting has its drawbacks but I still want control.
  - graphe 3y ago
    Don't use graphene. Full control root Android's features are way more useful to me than some hack that won't be used on my phone.
    - alwayslikethis 3y ago
      You can root GrapheneOS (with secure boot) just fine if you sign it with your own key.
      - graphe 3y ago
        It defeats the purpose of using it. There's plenty of unlocked bootloader OS that make root easier. Calyx or lineage work better for root. If it works well for you though, great!
        summm 3y ago
        Not entirely, there would be a bit more security during bootup. However, the risks and problems are probably not worth it. Other benefits Graphene advertizes: they are much better and quicker applying updates (that's easy because they only support pixels), they allegedly support much more and better exploitation mitigation mechanisms, and have a Google Services sandbox that looks quite interesting. Though, after the conversations I had with them I really do not want to trust those people :(

throwawayapples 3y ago

> I wouldn't hold up GrapheneOS as a good example of more freedom compared to Apple or Google tbh. I don't see why we can't have both, but this doesn't really a fair criticism of GP's comment. The specific word GP used was 'privacy', not 'freedom', and you are attacking GrapheneOS's stance on the latter, not the former. GrapheneOS is more focused on privacy over freedom, as you said ("their stance on user privacy is so extreme that it gets in the way of user freedom"). They have chosen to prioritize one over the other. > For freedom, I'd moreso point towards projects like LineageOS. This might be true, but LineageOS doesn't have access to microcode either, and certainly GrapheneOS is more 'private' than Lineage, assuming that GrapheneOS hasn't been compromised either internally or at some point in the AOSS supply chain. Except for niche mfgs like PinePhone et al, Google is probably the most free of the major manufacturers (ironically, less private but more free). I agree that we should aim for both freedom (as in free speech, not necessarily as in free beer although it'd be nice!) and privacy. Both are critically important, and the efficacy of the latter depends in large part on the former.

shortsunblack 3y ago

Android security model does not allow root users. If you allow root users, you destroy the security model. GrapheneOS has people working on it that are real security researchers. You can't patch your way up into security out of shit foundations, the foundation being an user existing that breaks the OS' security model. If you hadn't noticed, we get a zero click RCE on phones basically couple every years. That's the type of stuff GrapheneOS worries about, not whether its users can block ads, however nice that is.

matheusmoreira 3y ago
Is there a better way to maintain control over the device? I understand rooting has its drawbacks but I still want control.
- graphe 3y ago
  Don't use graphene. Full control root Android's features are way more useful to me than some hack that won't be used on my phone.
  - alwayslikethis 3y ago
    You can root GrapheneOS (with secure boot) just fine if you sign it with your own key.
    - graphe 3y ago
      It defeats the purpose of using it. There's plenty of unlocked bootloader OS that make root easier. Calyx or lineage work better for root. If it works well for you though, great!
      - summm 3y ago
        Not entirely, there would be a bit more security during bootup. However, the risks and problems are probably not worth it. Other benefits Graphene advertizes: they are much better and quicker applying updates (that's easy because they only support pixels), they allegedly support much more and better exploitation mitigation mechanisms, and have a Google Services sandbox that looks quite interesting. Though, after the conversations I had with them I really do not want to trust those people :(