Conversation

Replying to

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

Replying to

and

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

Replying to

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

Replying to

and

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

Replying to

and

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

Replying to

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

Replying to

and

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.

1

1

Replying to

and

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

Replying to

and

LLVM was as much of an Apple project as WebKit. Clang was entirely an Apple project from the start. Both of them transitioned to being controlled by a foundation not at all controlled by Apple. Various Google open source projects have gone through comparable transitions to that.

1

Replying to

and

llvm wasn't even started at apple, and both llvm and webkit have been managed as actual open source projects with open contributions for as long as I can remember with chromium and android this has *never* been the case

1

Replying to

and

AOSP and Chromium are actual open source projects with actual open source contributions. Chromium is almost entirely developed in the open other than security fixes. AOSP is partly developed in the open and partly behind closed doors with code dumps (merges into AOSP) for those.

12:03 AM · May 2, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

google tolerates external contributions either if they align with their needs or if your entity is large enough that they have to listen good luck contributing anything as an individual, e.g. new platform support

Replying to

It doesn't matter where LLVM was started. Android wasn't started at Google. Google acquired it. Apple essentially acquired LLVM. I'm really not sure how can you can claim that WebKit is a more collaborative project than Chromium. It's entirely not based on the actual reality.

1

Replying to

and

because I contribute to webkit, and I'm well aware of how it is to contribute to chromium as well

1

Show replies