HybridStaticAnimate

@okias@floss.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @FediFollows@social.growyourown.services @wariat@mastodon.social @SpaceLifeForm@infosec.exchange Your clarification is false. Android and its derivatives are linux distros. They are linux distros because they use the linux kernel, and are perfectly capable of running mainline kernels as well. Androids package management system (APK) is a linux application ecosystem just like any other. What you consider to be typical is irrelevant. What constitutes a linux distro is not your call to make. Something being called a linux distro is not a badge of honor or a purity test. You are spreading misinformation. Trying to turn that around on others doesnt change that.

@FrostDaemon@mastodon.social Also on my pixel 9 fold, I have tested GOS, iode, lineage, lineage for micro g. GOS was sadly the worst out of them, I say sadly because I do like GOS for the most part, just start using micro g. But the battery life is bad compared to the others as well. GOS in my opinion after using all of them on different devices, is a more security focused OS rather than privacy, and those are different. MicroG would be a reduction in privacy and security, while also hurting app compatibility, so GrapheneOS wont be including it. The battery life on GrapheneOS is better than stock out of the box. If you had poor battery life, that was due to how you configured it. GrapheneOS is a privacy first project. Security is improved for the sake of improving privacy. Multiple features GrapheneOS offers are only privacy features, and some actually add attack surface. However, based on everything you have said, I am unconvinced you have ever used GrapheneOS.

@offline_and_free@todon.nl @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social These are not personal conflicts. GrapheneOS is defending themselves from attacks. These attacks have done substantial damage to GrapheneOS and ignoring them does not work. These attacks are constant and unprovoked, out of malice, with the intent of destroying the project.

@schm43cky @lincoln @kuketzblog GrapheneOS does not want to do this as much as you do not want to see it. They think its sad they have to deal with this nonsense and they want the abuse to stop. They are given very little choice in the matter.

@yepoleb I am doing no such thing. Please refer here for more info; https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private

@lincoln @kuketzblog Thank you. They speak neutrally and objectively. But yes, the character limit sucks lol. I hope they can resolve that because Mastodons default limit is incredibly tiny.

@denkbeteiligung @Carsten_O @kuketzblog Sure, here is the most recent thread on the issue and likely the one that sparked this post; https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116388159407099477 When faced with abuse, the abusers actions should be shown for all to see. Others need to be informed/warned, otherwise they may be misled, or worse, victims themselves. Scams and abusers thrive in apathy and ignorance.

@plumeros @flyingsquirrel @kuketzblog The GrapheneOS project accounts are controlled by multiple project members and is not run by AI.

@notutner @kuketzblog GrapheneOS remains in full control of the project and has not handed over any responsibilities to Motorola.

@lincoln @kuketzblog It has been very helpful in lessening the harm caused. The unfortunate truth is misinfo and attacks need to be refuted where they are, and misinfo/attacks are in a LOT of places, unfortunately.

@ramon @kuketzblog Ive found the team to be very friendly. They speak neutrally and objectively. They have to deal with so much abuse that there is little time to discuss more positive things. If the abuse stopped, there would be a lot more positive stuff.

@Carsten_O @denkbeteiligung @kuketzblog GrapheneOS defends themselves from attacks, a better question is why are they being attacked? Its awful and its an inhumane level of abuse they are subjected to. They dont want to spend time refuting all of it, they just need to lessen the harm caused.

@alltagsradler @kuketzblog All hardware is proprietary hardware. The marketing for many devices that they run on "open hardware" is false. GrapheneOS has long term sustainability with 7 year support on newer devices. Devices like Fairphone get very little support, and are often end of life when they are released. They have older gen hardware and ship older kernels. They falsely claim that updating what should have been updated years earlier is "extending support". If you really want a sustainable device and less ewaste, pixels are, ironically enough, the best choice. Much better than the on-launch ewaste. Other OEMs are welcome to step up and provide the necessary security requirements. Motorola did so. But this is often neglected.

@lies_das @kuketzblog GraphenrOS is here to stay, they have funding and a very bright future. Of course, they could always use more resources.

@marcr @kuketzblog GrapheneOS has a team of paid, full time developers. They are not mentally ill or paranoid. Multiple people have control over the official accounts. These posts that GOS makes do not stem from paranoia, rather this is a very real issue of nigh superhuman abuse they have to deal with.

@Archaide @kuketzblog Ive been in the GrapheneOS community for years, I, and others, try to stop any elitism or condescension if it occurs. Who treated you like this? This person should be banned. Elitism is against the rules.

@fbausch@chaos.social @kuketzblog@social.tchncs.de GrapheneOS is developed by paid, full time developers. They are not mentally ill and they are not paranoid. I know the level of abuse they claim is occurring seems outlandish, but it is really happening. Its a nigh superhuman level and its not fair to them. They have to refute the misinformation and attacks to lessen the damage the attacks cause.

@me @tastyraspberry@mastodon.online @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social What a horribly apathetic thing to say. They wouldnt respond to abuse if they werent being abused.

@tastyraspberry@mastodon.online @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social Those who spread misinfo make individual posts and shove it in peoples faces. GOS is allowed to make posts about topics that pertain to them, especially if they are to point out harm and abuse.

@truhe@chaos.social Its not a better comparison, the official GrapheneOS accounts are not marketing and are not intended for marketing. Defending wont stop until the attacks stop. And yet I notice a distinct lack of criticism aimed at the agressors. Mastodon has a tiny character limit so GOS has to break up the posts. Its easier to cram nonsense into one post than it is to properly refute it. The website isnt for this purpose.

@truhe@chaos.social This is not accurate. They announced a partnership with Motorola but they did not announce devices with GrapheneOS preinstalled, whether or not they can do that still needs to be determined. And if they cant, thats fine, that was never a requirement of the partnership. Money isnt exchanging hands. GrapheneOS does not currently profit from this. Youre falsely tying this to promotion. Its just an announcement on future plans. And GrapheneOS doesnt yet support Motorola devices so there is little reason to put it on any page. This isnt beef, and your interest in the situation is irrelevant. Countering misinformation at the source is an effective method and has been better than other methods for a very long time. People are going to blindly believe the first thing they read or hear if its not countered, and they arent going to go to an unrelated page that they have no idea exists.

@truhe@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social Maximizing users at all costs is not the goal. These OSs are not alternatives to GOS and do not compare in the slightest. Why is it you turn a blind eye to scams committing crimes against GOS, and thats not called fighting, but GOS defending themselves is? "Also I don't care who started it and who's right." I mean, do I even need to comment on this? Seems pretty clear how disgusting this is to say. This is not a childrens sandbox, and you are in no position to talk down to them like some parental figure. This is real, and your apathy to their adversity is disappointing.

@truhe@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social Why do you automatically assume the goal is promotion? GrapheneOS is not a business and doesnt provide a product. Youre trying to downplay serious issues with implicitly juvenile descriptors to make it seem frivolous, but its not. Last I checked, providing accurate information for others to educate themselves was a good thing.

@codebam @GrapheneOS Yes, that doesnt mean anything in this context though.

@codebam @GrapheneOS This does not make something a ROM. ROM is an inaccurate term.

@codebam @GrapheneOS They are both operating systems. ROM is an inaccurate term.

@codebam @GrapheneOS They dont provide privacy. So a promise is already broken. But beyond that, privacy cannot exist without security. They arent mutually exclusive, they are intertwined. To ignore security means you are not a privacy project. E/ is not better at degoogling. GrapheneOS does not connect to any google servers, run any google play code, have any privilege google services, etc. Sandboxed google play is sandboxed and must be installed by the user. All default connections are to first party servers hosted by GOS. It is not more involved to get the same apps, google or otherwise.

@DanielDNK@hachyderm.io @TycoonTom@infosec.exchange @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social Attestation as a process is open. The approved OSs would be controlled by the owners of unified attestation. The approach of just making more play integrity clones makes no sense when the service can just pick the OSs themselves.

@RonRevog@social.tchncs.de @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @WeAreFairphone@social.fairphone.community No, that is not correct. Its more like; "Google does very bad illegal unethical thing, others dont like that and say 'cmon, lets work together and make our own very bad illegal unethical thing'. Now comes GrapheneOS, stands up and says 'These companies lie, they are unfair, they are insecure, and they only want profit. They are making something illegal. Dont do the same thing google does, we already have enough trouble fighting that and we dont want our progress reset, or worse, to be worse off than when we started. We wont allow it, we will fight to stop this unethical practice.' And the apps that companies use, that also use the play integrity thing say nothing, because they wont have another anti competitive feature. And GrapheneOS can continue working to get these apps to support generic attestation as they have done for many apps before."

@RonRevog@social.tchncs.de @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @WeAreFairphone@social.fairphone.community Confrontation and attack would be a very mean thing to do. They havent chosen that path. They have chosen to defend themselves and call out an anticompetitive practice that violates the law. These companies do not care about fairness in the slightest. The idea of unified attestation, at its fundamental level, is to eliminate fairness. GOS stands nothing to gain by working with scammers and grifters who have harassed and attacked them for years. They also do not care about long device lifetimes and that is reflected in their updates. An iphone or pixel with 7 years of support is far better for the environment than these devices with barely any support time and needing to be replaced much sooner if not *the second you receive it*. If you call defending themselves from an attack "sensitive", Id hate to see what is warranted in your eyes.

@meanmicio@todon.eu @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @volla@mastodon.social GrapheneOS has taken steps to create a more private and secure ecosystem. These other organizations have not. They are welcome to begin pushing towards that at any time, but until then, they are actively working against it. You phrase your message as positive, but you are telling victims of harassment and other various crimes to forgive their attackers, and work together with scammers and liars. These scammers do not work towards the same goal and they are making it worse, not better. What you ask is incredibly disrespectful, and neglects the reality of the situation in favor of empty platitudes and the illusion of making progress.

@okias @GrapheneOS @navi @lumi They do not need to show you that. Your subjective criteria for this is invalid. An example doesnt need to exist for it to be accurate. It just means Phone vendors decided not to do it.

@okias @GrapheneOS @navi @lumi That is incorrect. Android and GrapheneOS are Linux distros and are perfectly capable of running mainline linux kernels. Linux is not a badge of honor that you apply to what you like about a distro and what you dont.