3 ms·
This reads really weirdly and seems to downplay concrete threats/malicious activity in the play store and emphasise best practice/security model violations on F
by captainbland 2y ago
This reads really weirdly and seems to downplay concrete threats/malicious activity in the play store and emphasise best practice/security model violations on F-Droid.
I get F-Droid is the subject, and it's reasonable to make space to highlight issues with it here but it doesn't seem reasonable to conclude your security posture is better if you go with the play store.
- glenstein 2y agoI agree that the article is very bizarre and seemingly written by a non-expert. The criticism of the inclusion policy sticks out like a sore thumb for strangeness. They criticize f-droid for requiring hosted apps that don't include proprietary software or ads. which of all the things you could criticize F-Droid for, is very strange. And instead of making like a systematic point about process or about best practices or standards, it meanders into an anecdote about one instance of an app where the developer packaged an outdated version of WebRTC to comply, and then blames F-Droid for the way that the developer packaged the app. And then bizarrely refers to this as a "case study". There's an informal sense in which you can say case study, which I guess is fair enough, but when speaking a bit more formally case studies are real research projects, not just one-off anecdotes loosely summarized in a paragraph. A lot of the language here is used in this gray area of formal and informal, seemingly characteristic of a high school essay.