Caretaker of Sunhillow/DS8.ZONE. Free (Libre) Software enthusiast and promoter. Pronouns: any
Also /u/CaptainBeyondDS8 on reddit and CaptainBeyond on libera.chat.
AI Disclosure: No “generative AI tools” are used to produce any work attributed to “Captain Beyond of Sunhillow” (here or elsewhere).
What makes Sailfish OS unique over competitors like GrapheneOS and e/OS is that it’s not based on the Android Open Source Project, but Linux.
Not only are AOSP and its derivatives also based on Linux, they are actually free software unlike Sailfish OS which contains some amount of proprietary code (I know at least the Android compatibility layer - which I’m told isn’t simply the AOSP runtime (as Waydroid uses) but some proprietary thing).
s/Linux/systemd/g
Ironically though this makes the reverse a bit more defensible (i.e. using an LLM to reverse engineer a proprietary app) because that proprietary app’s source code is less likely to be among the publicly available dataset.
But I imagine the corpos aren’t going to look fondly on that for obvious reasons.
I wouldn’t characterize myself as “the GOS camp” (I use LineageOS) I just happen to agree with them sometimes, and this is one of those times.
I do imagine this response is to some degree influenced by their beef with /e/ (an OS I don’t have a high opinion of either, but for other reasons). It just seems to me that people see “not google” and think it’s a good thing, but a gatekeeper determining which OS you are allowed to use with what apps is fundamentally a bad idea even if it’s not google.
It’s much more correct to say that Lineage or Graphene are Android than saying that Android is Linux.
Both of these are correct. LineageOS and GrapheneOS are AOSP; AOSP is Linux.
Linux is a kernel. Other components must be added onto Linux to create a complete Linux operating system. Adding stuff onto Linux does not subtract any Linuxness from it. Any Linux OS is “real Linux.” Saying that some Linuxes are not real Linux is like saying if you add peanut butter to bread you no longer have “real bread.” It is nonsense.
GrapheneOS is critical of this initiative here and I think their criticism has merit. This simply moves the gatekeeper from Google to a handful of OEM’s who won’t let you use anything other than their blessed OS’s.
I think the fact that the maintainer is intimately knowledgeable about the original codebase is enough for it to not be a clean room re-implementation, no? That’s what makes it “clean”
You’re being downvoted but it’s true. The GNU Image Manipulation Program is held back by its inappropriate name. Not only does it have several problematic connotations it is also just not a very flattering term in general. To describe something as gimped is not a compliment.
As techies we’re sympathetic to the project and are likely to give funny or inappropriate names a pass, but think about how “normies” would see it, especially in e.g. a business or education context, with knowledge of the derogatory meaning(s) of the word.
It’s not really free (libre), merely “free” (gratis). Since that’s something that matters to me I won’t use it.
I don’t believe that is the case. I believe they have their own fork of Gecko that they maintain here.
They stole our brain? Wasn’t that a Star Trek episode?
Brain and brain, what is brain 🧠?
The devices will be available in 2027, according to GrapheneOS
GrapheneOS is partenered with a major OEM to release compatible devices in 2027. The OEM will publicly announce this partnership in March 2026.
conspiracy theory time: “AI” is a psyop designed to manufacture consent for unpopular internet regulations such as this one. We used to take anonymity and privacy for granted and now every other website demands you to “prove you are human” (my instance is unfortunately no exception… its a necessary evil).
The thing is, there already is a flow to enable “unknown sources” with the appropriate scare messages. So whatever “advanced flow” they’re going to come up with is going to be more involved than that.
My guess would be something similar to the bootloader unlock flow, where it resets the device and sets it to some “unsafe” state similar to a rooted/unlocked device which banking apps etc. can detect and refuse to work with.
I would say there is a difference between constructive criticism and an “attack” and although the privsec article does bring up valid points* I would still regard it as the latter (despite their claims of objectivity), because they ultimately conclude that its premise is inherently flawed regardless of implementation details. They claim
This article aims to be purely technical. It is not an attack on F-Droid or their mission.
Yet while the authors claim to be “objective and technical” its not hard to notice all the “attacks on F-Droid’s mission” in this article, from the reference to F-Droid’s “ridiculous inclusion policy” to all the dismissive references to “ideology.” The message is clear, that F-Droid’s “mission” is Stupid and Ideological and the problems F-Droid aims to solve are not real. Thus, their suggested “alternatives” are just regular app stores that don’t enforce any of the guarantees that F-Droid does (namely, that the app corresponds to its source code and does not include proprietary components), because those guarantees aren’t worth anything** to the “Objective and Technical” people of privsec - you are Stupid and Ideological if you care about software freedom. In fact, Accrescent even says they allow proprietary software because free software “is not inherently more secure or private” - which is technically true, but very misleading, because free software never has claimed to be “more secure” - it has only ever offered the four freedoms, which as a user I feel entitled to on my own devices, so I only install apps that give me these four freedoms. Far from being “objective and non-ideological” the position of Privsec, Accrescent, and their advocates is that users neither deserve, need, or should want software freedom, as such I would characterize these organizations as hostile to the free software movement even if some of their points are factual.
I will add I am not entirely uncritical of F-Droid either, but my criticisms are more that they aren’t strict enough and should be building as much from source as possible instead of relying on prebuilt Maven dependencies as much as they do. I would also say although as a user I think F-Droid’s inclusion policy is a good thing and not “ridiculous” I agree it does put some amount of burden on developers who I imagine develop for the Google world first and the FOSS world second. It might be a good idea for F-Droid maintainers to take a more active role in, well, maintaining these apps instead of pushing the extra work onto the developers (this is typical in the GNU/Linux world, in which distro maintainers take up all the work to package upstreams, but F-Droid sometimes tries to cosplay as an “app store” despite it being a fundamentally different model).
* aside from a bizarre claim that F-Droid supporting multiple repositories is a Bad Thing because it interferes with, and I quote, “UserManager which can be used to prevent a user from installing third-party apps” - what does this have to do with privacy? I think this also speaks to a deeper conflict between security people and free software people, that being uncritical worship of “security models” even when they harm the user. Accrescent offers more or less the same justification for why it locks the user into their own store/repository, and I think it is subtly dangerous to suggest this is an “alternative” to F-Droid because it has very different values.
** According to one of the writers of that article,
Any better ideas for it are welcome.
Just allow devs to upload their own build with their own keys like Accrescent. It’s not like the whole “audit” system is meaningful anyways.
Of course, characterizing it as an “audit system” is missing the point entirely, but I imagine he knows that. Reducing the four freedoms down to “you can look at the source code and audit it” to then follow it up with “you can’t/aren’t going to audit every app you download so why bother with FOSS anyway” is a favorite rhetorical tactic.
I’ll go through and evaluate the freeness of each item on this list at some point however we’re already not off to a great start - Build engine unfortunately is non-free.
https://github.com/vogonsorg/BuildGDX/blob/master/buildlic.txt
I feel like listing copyright infringement next to actual harms is sort of an “arson, murder, and jaywalking” moment.
But yes, I wouldn’t mind banning discussion of this nonsense as well.
It does seem like a bug. I actually have a UnifiedPush distributor but have never configured Fennec to use it (I didn’t even know it was an option) but now Fennec shows me this warning and there is no way to actually enable it in settings anymore.