Ian Molton 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
their content (or a copy, if it keeps changing / moving), and you use non-inflammatory language to demonstrate the issue.
What you don't do is get into a name-calling match.
Here's the difference:
Wrong:
"e/OS developers are hawking insecure crap and we're oh so much better. And they insulted my mum!"
Right:
"GrapheneOS doesn't suffer from <link to info about a flaw in e/OS> - we've put a lot of effort into this, see <link to description of work> to get it right for users!"
GrapheneOS
@spyro @bjb We don't need input from /e/OS supporters into why we shouldn't response to years of attacks on us from /e/OS and criticize with accurate and factual content as we've done here. You are not going to convince us to stop posting that kind of content about it. You're only going to encourage us to post much more of it with your highly biased replies in support of people who effectively scammed you.
Convince the people who have made years of attacks on us to stop doing it bothering us.
Ian Molton 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
> They're harming GrapheneOS with their inaccurate claims about it and fabricated stories about our team. We're showing them that there will be a cost to them doing it.
Well, speaking as someone watching from the outside (I have an e/OS device, but I'm not affiliated with them, and I'm well aware of it's nature)...
It doesn't look like that is what you are doing. It looks like you are badmouthing another project.
If you want to do as you claim, then you link to
1\2
GrapheneOS
> But two projects tearing each other down is not what i want to see.
They're selling people highly insecure devices which are presented as something they're really not and through that harming them. We are not on the same side as them.
> So why rise to the bait, if that is what you think their project is doing?
They're harming GrapheneOS with their inaccurate claims about it and fabricated stories about our team. We're showing them that there will be a cost to them doing it.
Ian Molton 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
@GrapheneOS @bjb of course i think security patches should timely.
But two projects tearing each other down is not what i want to see.
If what you claimed is true, then simply be the bigger project.
Let the third party sites make the comparisons.
You said earlier that you don't see your project in the same space as e/OS. So why rise to the bait, if that is what you think their project is doing?
GrapheneOS
@spyro @bjb Do you disagree that providing patches for known, public privacy and security vulnerabilities is part of the bare minimum for protecting user privacy and security? It is not something advanced or only relevant to protecting against sophisticated attacks. It's basic privacy and security protection which every user should be provided from all of the software they use without major delays.
It's not ethical for devices with such severe privacy problems to be marketed as highly private.
GrapheneOS
@spyro @bjb We recommend the third party comparison between Android-based operating systems at https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm as a starting point to understand how vastly different they are.
This is the data shown about updates for /e/OS there:
> Security update speed (AOSP subset of ASB)
>1-2 months, sometimes longer
> Full patches on fully supported devices
> Many months to over a year
Nearly all the devices they support are far more behind than this. This is the best case for devices like Pixels.
GrapheneOS
@spyro @bjb /e/OS is not a hardened OS. It does not substantially improve privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project like GrapheneOS but rather substantially reduces both. They do not provide users with the current privacy and security patches and do not keep basic parts of the security model like verified boot or the full standard app sandbox intact. It's a misconception that they're at all similar or working on the same things. We are not working towards the same things.
GrapheneOS
> Post your developments, improvements, and findings about YOUR OWN OS.
Nearly everything we post in our timeline is about GrapheneOS. The thread you're responding to is about GrapheneOS. It's a response to years of attacks on it from Gaël Duval, /e/OS and Murena project/corporate accounts where they keep making misleading and false claims about it across platforms along with personal attacks on our team including fabricated stories aimed at directing harassment towards them.
GrapheneOS
> There are plenty of other actors who will trash e/OS for you, if it's so awful as you claim.
/e/OS are the ones targeting GrapheneOS with highly inaccurate claims and spin for years. You're getting angry with us for posting a single thread responding to months of their attacks on us. We only linked a few of their posts on X but could also link dozens on Mastodon, their forum and elsewhere. We may respond to more of it. We'll see if they stop or continue doing it first.
GrapheneOS
> Anyone can accused any project of being insecure.
/e/OS is objectively highly insecure. It doesn't provide the current Android privacy and security patches. It doesn't keep basic parts of the privacy and security model intact. It's not an accusation but rather factual information about it which you can confirm from many sources.
> So stop going on about them, and tell us why, in detail, you feel your project is better.
GrapheneOS is in an entirely different space anyway.
Ian Molton 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
@GrapheneOS @bjb i literally replied into this thread, precisely because it is exactly what you accuse your opponents of.
Stop trashing them with comments like 'insecure is' etc.
Anyone can accused any project of being insecure.
So stop going on about them, and tell us why, in detail, you feel your project is better.
Post your developments, improvements, and findings about YOUR OWN OS.
There are plenty of other actors who will trash e/OS for you, if it's so awful as you claim.
GrapheneOS
> i literally replied into this thread, precisely because it is exactly what you accuse your opponents of.
We've done nothing of the kind. We haven't made any false claims. Everything we've posted about it is accurate and verifiable. You can read about the widely acknowledged insecurity of /e/OS from many reliable sources.
> Stop trashing them with comments like 'insecure is' etc.
We're warning people against using something unsafe that's promoted with false marketing.
Ian Molton 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️
I've recently become aware of this war between graphene and e/ OS.
It's not a good look for either side.
What i haven't seen is much in the way of solid evidence.
I can say that neither OS has a website worth shit.
It took ages to work out if e/ supports my phone, and i still haven't figured out if graphene even works outside a small clique of google handsets.
Pull it together both of you. Get along.
Thank fuck Mobian is on the rise is all i can say.
bjb :devuannew: :emacs:
@spyro @GrapheneOS
"Get along"?
GrapheneOS
@bjb @spyro The CEO of a company is using their personal, project and corporate accounts to mislead people about GrapheneOS with dozens of posts across different platforms in the past few months. There have been hundreds over the longer term. Hopefully they see it and realize that what they're doing is counterproductive. Overall, they've done the opposite of promoting their products. We don't have products to sell and most people who support us want to be informed that this is happening.
GrapheneOS
Here's another on X:
https://xcancel.com/gael_duval/status/1887528529694273590
Gaël Duval consistently misleads people about the ease of obtaining GrapheneOS, app compatibility, usability and privacy. These desperate posts on X, Mastodon and elsewhere are a small fraction of it. It's Murena's company policy.
GrapheneOS
Despite all the money Murena makes selling overpriced insecure devices and grifting EU government funds, they aren't even able to keep their non-end-to-end encrypted services up. Those services were recently down from early October until mid-February. That's not remotely serious.
GrapheneOS
Here's another example of the CEO of Murena replying to a post about GrapheneOS trying to mislead people about it and promote their products:
https://xcancel.com/gael_duval/status/1904097790977810458
Here's a high quality third party comparison between Android-based operating systems:
GrapheneOS
/e/OS is a fork of LineageOS, a volunteer developed project focused on broad device compatibility and power user features rather than privacy or security. /e/OS is a security disaster even compared to LineageOS with far longer update delays and far more security regressions.
GrapheneOS
Murena misleads people into wrongly believing that GrapheneOS is harder to use as their CEO is doing there. GrapheneOS has far better app compatibility, far better stability and unlike /e/OS is a serious production quality OS keeping up with updates and keeping things working.
GrapheneOS
Murena, the company behind /e/OS, heavily pushes using both an insecure OS and services. Their services lack end-to-end encryption and are the opposite of private. People purchasing their devices are making a huge privacy and security sacrifice compared to simply using an iPhone.
GrapheneOS
Murena sells highly insecure devices without basic privacy/security patches or the standard privacy/security model intact. Direct opposite of GrapheneOS in regards to privacy and security. It also lacks the stability and app compatibility of GrapheneOS...
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.