Conversation

Replying to
I just read that thread and I think you're 100% in the wrong here. You responded with unwarranted hostility to someone who simply didn't understand your project's advantages. Nobody was dishonest or spreading misinformation and you gave up an opportunity to explain your work.
1
3
Replying to
Yet they're speaking as an expert as if they do understand it, misleading other people about it, which is what I find dishonest and have a serious issue with, especially since they didn't simply make one post to the mailing list but rather have started up a pattern of attacks.
1
1
I didn't say they had malicious intent aimed at causing harm. I said they were being dishonest, to promote their own work and dismiss the possibility of something having substantial advantages (with costs) compared to their approach. I made sure to be clear with what I said.
1
Replying to and
Sorry, I misread your reply. Everything about not mixing arguments still applies though, I'd even suggest 2 posts (one clinically detached, the other alleging intellectual dishonesty). Anyway I have a Sailfish Pixel and a build server, is GrapheneOS still good for it?
1
Yes, but it's a legacy device and I don't know how much longer it will be supported. I think it's getting official support for Android Q so there's no reason it would need to be dropped. Even if it wasn't, it would be easy enough to continue a legacy maintenance branch for it.
2
1
Lots of what matters is in the scope of hardware/firmware or the OS depends on it being supported in hardware/firmware. Other things like drivers are within the scope of the OS but GrapheneOS doesn't have the resources to take over maintenance of those or replace them in general.
1