3 ms·

This is the whole point, they should stop nitpicking and start to do it (GrapheneOS side), even if it is not going to be THE most secure phone, there is enough

by stiray 1y ago

This is the whole point, they should stop nitpicking and start to do it (GrapheneOS side), even if it is not going to be THE most secure phone, there is enough of features that are far more useful then just security (like privacy). I don't mind if they make it payable. With money they will get (I suspect there will be quite a bit less pixels sold) they can make a new phone that will have all the bells and whistles GrapheneOS wants and on the other side, Fairphone developers will figure out it is $$$ worthy to do it. GrapheneOS has bunch of requirements that are expensive while Fairphone has zero chance to figure out, if investing would make any economical sense, while their normal users dont really care about that security but might regarding privacy. This is a stale-mate position. Found info about GrapheneOS installations, 250k users(1). Lets say 25% are on old pixels. This is 60k sold pixels. All Fairphones sold by 2022 were 400k(2). 1. 2024, https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/12281-how-many-grapheneos-users-are-there https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/12281-how-many-grapheneos-u... 2. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone

IlikeKitties 1y ago
> This is the whole point, they should stop nitpicking and start to do it (GrapheneOS side), even if it is not going to be THE most secure phone, there is enough of features that are far more useful then just security (like privacy). I don't mind if they make it payable. This feels super entitled to me. GrapheneOS Devs have a mission and they get to make that. You get it for free and if you like it you can give them money. If they don't support the hardware you like you are free to fork it and get it to run yourself. And if security isn't something you care about but privacy is and you feel like there's a difference here you can still install /e/os or lineageos and similar on the fairphone.
- stiray 1y ago
  Sure they have a mission. But sometimes mission can be done by taking 1 step back to later make 2 steps forward in fast pace. At the end all profit. While in current state, the culprit, Google profits. And please keep fallacies like "do it yourself" for yourself, I am talking about collaboration, feel free to open another thread on top level about forks. Same goes for /e/ ... they just dont compare. GrapheneOS has two use-cases that are they excelling with, security and privacy. While security is not really my threat model (some rubber-hose cryptography aka large wrench, solves this issue for any attacker), privacy violations are everyones issue. Even if they dont care.
  - IlikeKitties 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - stiray 1y ago
      This went far enough. I have stated my thoughts, if the view doesn't change, GrapheneOS will continue to sell Pixels (lol, SAMSUNGS! Still rather buy them than Pixel) and I will be forced to buy them. >Please consider the level of retardation this comment requires, it's impressive. Yes, thats why I have stopped discussing with you and I dont know why I even started - futileness discussing with GrapheneOS evangelists is well known over the internet.
    - ikurei 1y ago
      > Please consider the level of retardation this comment requires, it's impressive. This is not how we have civilized discussions. To say this just because you disagree with someone about the security of an OS... Hope the mods see this.
      - DaSHacka 1y ago
        You're conveniently ignoring everything that came before that, where they deconstructed why the idea does not make sense.
        stiray 1y ago
        [flagged]
        IlikeKitties 1y ago
        > Again, this is a fallacy. Okay, maybe you are not a native speaker, so you might mean a different thing with fallacy. Here's the dictionary definition of fallacy > an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false [0] > a false belief [0] My comment was > Again, no one is locking down GrapheneOS you can literally download the source and try to get it to run on any device you like. You just want someone else to do the work for you because you lack the skills and it's not available for the particular phone you want. Here is the link to the GrapheneOS Source: https://grapheneos.org/source https://grapheneos.org/source Here's the GrapheneOS FAQ regarding other Devices [1] > Many other devices are supported by GrapheneOS at a source level, and it can be built for them without modifications to the existing GrapheneOS source tree. Device support repositories for the Android Open Source Project can simply be dropped into the source tree, with at most minor modifications within them to support GrapheneOS. In most cases, substantial work beyond that will be needed to bring the support up to the same standards. For most devices, the hardware and firmware will prevent providing a reasonably secure device, regardless of the work put into device support. [0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/fallacy https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/fall... [1] https://grapheneos.org/faq#supported-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#supported-devices Where's the fallacy? --- Now after editing he makes this argument instead: > And while I am searching for a way for GrapheneOS to grow, you are searching for a way to keep it limited to corporation made phones. And it is corporations that have the most interest to make it insecure trough hardware, SOC is just one day to do it. So you are failing even on security perspective. There are no not-corporation made phones on this planet. Every conceivable part of a phone is made by a corporations from parts extracted from this planet by corporations, shipped and assembled by corporations. Do you think that the Fairphone, made by the fairphone corporation is not made by a corporation? From There Wikipage [2] > Fairphone B.V. > Company type Privately held company > And it is corporations that have the most interest to make it insecure trough hardware, SOC is just one day to do it. So you are failing even on security perspective. So google, spending literally billions [3] on cybersecurity with a direct interest and industry leading track record in keeping pixel devices secure has an interest to make it insecure? I stand by judgment: The required retardation for this kind of argument is amazing. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone [3] https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/why-were-committing-10-billion-to-advance-cybersecurity/ https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/why-were-comm... --- So, i'm dealing with a first grade tech student that learned some cybersecurity words. Here's how you can prove me wrong, answer the following simple questions: 1. Why should the GrapheneOS Developers do the work you want them to do? They seem uninterested and I don't see you paying them the 100s of thousands of dollars to hire someone to do the work for them. 2. Name a Phone that's not made by a corporation.

by stiray 1y ago

IlikeKitties 1y ago

> This is the whole point, they should stop nitpicking and start to do it (GrapheneOS side), even if it is not going to be THE most secure phone, there is enough of features that are far more useful then just security (like privacy). I don't mind if they make it payable. This feels super entitled to me. GrapheneOS Devs have a mission and they get to make that. You get it for free and if you like it you can give them money. If they don't support the hardware you like you are free to fork it and get it to run yourself. And if security isn't something you care about but privacy is and you feel like there's a difference here you can still install /e/os or lineageos and similar on the fairphone.

stiray 1y ago
Sure they have a mission. But sometimes mission can be done by taking 1 step back to later make 2 steps forward in fast pace. At the end all profit. While in current state, the culprit, Google profits. And please keep fallacies like "do it yourself" for yourself, I am talking about collaboration, feel free to open another thread on top level about forks. Same goes for /e/ ... they just dont compare. GrapheneOS has two use-cases that are they excelling with, security and privacy. While security is not really my threat model (some rubber-hose cryptography aka large wrench, solves this issue for any attacker), privacy violations are everyones issue. Even if they dont care.
- IlikeKitties 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - stiray 1y ago
    This went far enough. I have stated my thoughts, if the view doesn't change, GrapheneOS will continue to sell Pixels (lol, SAMSUNGS! Still rather buy them than Pixel) and I will be forced to buy them. >Please consider the level of retardation this comment requires, it's impressive. Yes, thats why I have stopped discussing with you and I dont know why I even started - futileness discussing with GrapheneOS evangelists is well known over the internet.
  - ikurei 1y ago
    > Please consider the level of retardation this comment requires, it's impressive. This is not how we have civilized discussions. To say this just because you disagree with someone about the security of an OS... Hope the mods see this.
    - DaSHacka 1y ago
      You're conveniently ignoring everything that came before that, where they deconstructed why the idea does not make sense.
      - stiray 1y ago
        [flagged]
        IlikeKitties 1y ago
        > Again, this is a fallacy. Okay, maybe you are not a native speaker, so you might mean a different thing with fallacy. Here's the dictionary definition of fallacy > an idea that a lot of people think is true but is in fact false [0] > a false belief [0] My comment was > Again, no one is locking down GrapheneOS you can literally download the source and try to get it to run on any device you like. You just want someone else to do the work for you because you lack the skills and it's not available for the particular phone you want. Here is the link to the GrapheneOS Source: https://grapheneos.org/source https://grapheneos.org/source Here's the GrapheneOS FAQ regarding other Devices [1] > Many other devices are supported by GrapheneOS at a source level, and it can be built for them without modifications to the existing GrapheneOS source tree. Device support repositories for the Android Open Source Project can simply be dropped into the source tree, with at most minor modifications within them to support GrapheneOS. In most cases, substantial work beyond that will be needed to bring the support up to the same standards. For most devices, the hardware and firmware will prevent providing a reasonably secure device, regardless of the work put into device support. [0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/fallacy https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/fall... [1] https://grapheneos.org/faq#supported-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#supported-devices Where's the fallacy? --- Now after editing he makes this argument instead: > And while I am searching for a way for GrapheneOS to grow, you are searching for a way to keep it limited to corporation made phones. And it is corporations that have the most interest to make it insecure trough hardware, SOC is just one day to do it. So you are failing even on security perspective. There are no not-corporation made phones on this planet. Every conceivable part of a phone is made by a corporations from parts extracted from this planet by corporations, shipped and assembled by corporations. Do you think that the Fairphone, made by the fairphone corporation is not made by a corporation? From There Wikipage [2] > Fairphone B.V. > Company type Privately held company > And it is corporations that have the most interest to make it insecure trough hardware, SOC is just one day to do it. So you are failing even on security perspective. So google, spending literally billions [3] on cybersecurity with a direct interest and industry leading track record in keeping pixel devices secure has an interest to make it insecure? I stand by judgment: The required retardation for this kind of argument is amazing. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone [3] https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/why-were-committing-10-billion-to-advance-cybersecurity/ https://blog.google/technology/safety-security/why-were-comm... --- So, i'm dealing with a first grade tech student that learned some cybersecurity words. Here's how you can prove me wrong, answer the following simple questions: 1. Why should the GrapheneOS Developers do the work you want them to do? They seem uninterested and I don't see you paying them the 100s of thousands of dollars to hire someone to do the work for them. 2. Name a Phone that's not made by a corporation.