If you prefer silent memory corruption, GrapheneOS was probably a bad choice in the first place. I definitely don't have hatred for users of GrapheneOS. You've made it pretty clear that you are not a user of GrapheneOS. Don't really understand why you're jumping in very late to..
Conversation
... this continuation of a long series of threads and trying to get involved in it while bashing myself and GrapheneOS. It doesn't surprise me. More than tired of people who contribute nothing of value, have an incredibly entitled attitude and deliberately spread misinformation.
1
I don't need your money or bug reports. As far I know, you haven't contributed anything, and you've just showed up here to throw in some irrelevant attacks on me and the project that I work on with others because I didn't like you jumping in here with your "both sides" comment.
2
1
You tend to assume malicious intent when I and others seek only to learn the details behind your positions.
Our goals differ but know I do highly respect you and your work.
I fear the hostile tone you use with anyone that questions you is the only major limiter to your success.
1
3
You weren't originally talking to me. I think you have the intent to push your views and you're willing to make lots of false claims to do that along with engaging in a discussion in a manipulative way. Not malicious intent, rather, an underhanded approach is being used.
2
I mean, here you go again with misrepresenting the issues I've had with this long and extremely frustrating series of threads as far different. A nice summary of the problems.
You went out of the way to involve yourself and write up a huge series of replies before I was there.
1
I think what you were doing is inherently hostile from the start: showing up in random threads to peddle a bunch of dubious claims and misinformation to push your views.
Certainly does a good job at causing stress and disruption of work.
2
You jumprd in on me sharing my opinion that Android is continuing to head in a difficult to audit and maintain direction.
This is an informed by me spending hundreds of hours trying to port devices and automate builds in spite of Google not investing in testing AOSP anymore.
3
1
> You jumprd in on me sharing my opinion that Android is continuing to head in a difficult to audit and maintain direction.
It wasn't your thread. You jumped into a thread to go off on a tangent about that.
> not investing in testing AOSP anymore.
Huh? It's what they ship.
1
Google used to pay a dedicated person to build/test AOSP from source on all new devices. They don't now and this has slipped in priorities.
I know this because I literally met with an Android team manager and talked about it in Mountain View.
3
1
Many teams working on Android do AOSP first development. It's what they are primarily using and testing during development, and is what they ship on their own devices with the addition of their overlays. The normal AOSP stable tags are the stable tags for their own stock OS.
You confuse lack of support for others to build projects on top of Pixels with lack of support for AOSP and people using AOSP to build devices. It is part of the core of what's wrong with this whole thread, and you've kept it up the whole time pretty much ignoring the discussion.
1
Yet it won't boot without stealing tons and tons of blobs and nonsense from the factory images let alone build signing etc. Tons of hacks are always needed just to get source+drivers AOSP working on their own first party devices.
They have not built ready-to-use AOSP in years.
1
1
That's not true, and again, you're confusing the state of AOSP (which is great) with the state of public support for others to build AOSP for Pixels (which is very poor).
1
Show replies