no and I'm not going to
Conversation
You’re unable to view this Tweet because this account owner limits who can view their Tweets. Learn more
They have no involvement with GrapheneOS. You can see from their replies to me that they don't intend to do something that's supportive of it here.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @hybr1z @octaforge and @mntmn
This isn't helping GrapheneOS or convincing anyone to use or support it.
2
1
Please, leave the open source project they're not associated with and which you haven't actually looked into out of it.
GrapheneOS is not hostile towards people using iOS and iPhones. That's generally our recommendation for people who don't have their needs met by GrapheneOS.
1
well, I have no strong feelings whatsoever about grapheneos and if I had an android phone capable of running it I wouldn't mind giving it a shot
so please don't take it the wrong way, I won't go and derail grapheneos twitter threads either ;)
2
1
also: despite not agreeing that forking android and mitigating the bad things in it is not a good long term solution, don't take that as me rejecting your work in any way: it is still important since it enables people with existing hardware to get something better *right now*
2
It's a far better platform for privacy and security than the desktop Linux software stack. The biggest issue for security in AOSP is the Linux kernel.
AOSP vs. iOS is a mixed bag and I wouldn't describe what GrapheneOS does as mitigating things that are bad vs. other OSes.
2
2
I'm not talking about an individual's security/privacy, it's more like a power/influence problem, which I consider more important when it comes to the big picture (and I believe the two are inherently tied together)
2
as I said in another branch of the thread - a google derived/compatible codebase (in any way) results in proliferation of a non-free ecosystem where google has the final word - and this then results in things bad for the user - which is why I don't think it's ideal
1
In the same way that LLVM is not an Apple project anymore, AOSP and Chromium don't need to remain primarily Google projects. There are a bunch of companies and projects using both of those. Don't have to leave Google in charge of making all the upstream decisions for them.
chromium is very much google controlled and will remain that way (contributing any patches that aren't commercially interesting to them is a major pain and often are met with rejection)
I don't see AOSP being any different
llvm was never really an apple project per se
2
if it wasn't I wouldn't still be maintaining many KLOC of patches for ppc64le and musl support downstream