• unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    5 days ago

    The developer of GrapheneOS is… Interesting, to say the least. Restricts the ROM to a select group of devices, and is very toxic to people who disagree with or even question him.

    • Renohren@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      I understand him though, GrapheneOS without the underlying security hardware is a huge security risk for the end user. It makes people think they get benefits from running a secure os while in fact, they are at the same level as running lineage.

      • unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        4 days ago

        That’s vastly underestimating the hardware on other devices as well as overestimating the danger. There are plenty of software optimizations that can be done to enhance security that work even if the hardware isn’t ideal. Simply ignoring those devices is letting perfect be the enemy of better. Not everyone wants or even can buy a pixel, and that just excludes all of those users (and also sends even more money Google’s way, which I would honestly like to avoid).

        • dustycups@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 days ago

          There is a lot of people arguing about fine distinctions ITT.
          The GrapheneOS leadership (well Daniel) are uncompromising for a reason: this fork will be fundamentally less secure.
          You are also right: there are useful features that will improve security on GSI devices. As always choose your threat model.
          Hopefully both parties can play nicely.