First of all, to anyone downvoting my Comments about /e/ being a piece of shit, because…

  • they advertise themselves as degoogled, but instead let you connect to Google/Microsoft/etc services

  • replace all the propriatery not at all Secure Services from Google, with… Drumroll please… Propriatery and not at all Secure Services from themselves and actively encourage it.

  • They are For-profit

  • and being MORE out of date then even Fairphones stock roms.

… I told you so. Dm your Instance admin, pay them to send the DB entries of your Downvotes on a Thumb drive (or anything else from SSD to 3.5 inchHDD, depending on your preferences), and shove it up your rectum.

But a TL;DR:

/E/ is not Private. They just switch one bad comany to another one.

    • Luffy@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      Linaege and Calyx is OK too, since they actually develope software (Linaege does it from scratch, Calyx develops Seedvault etc). even though they are not as rigid as Graphene, they are still ok for normal ungoogled stuff, and to be honest, most people dont need the security Graphene provides them with.

      My problem is with Roms like /E/ OS or Iode, which essentially add nothing of value, but instead Fork Linaege, remove Seedvault and everything what isn’t essential, and sell what is essentially a DNS blocker (which you can just use on your VPN slot via apps like DNSnet, or Server side like Adguard or Mullvad DNS) as a new ROM, complete with Subscription Service and (in the case of E OS) even with non encrypted Backup, essentially begging someone to compromise their Servers and steal peoples Photos and Data.

        • Luffy@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 days ago

          A lead Dev has left and now they have to rebuild much of their workflow, it will only take 4-6 months according to them

        • rapchee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 days ago

          they need new encryption keys for the new lead devs, but that takes months, so it is “dead” for however long that takes

        • Skorp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          There is no “hole”. It has nothing to do specifically with being from Google, only that no one else but Google is manufacturing devices that meet the hardware requirements and have full support for alternate OSes.

      • other8026@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 days ago

        That’s because they’re the only ones that meet the project’s requirements at the moment, but that may soon change soon. Maybe you’ve seen the news that the project is in talks with an OEM for them to meet the requirements and have official support for GrapheneOS for some of the existing devices.

        • Skorp@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          It is an isolated component without networking. This is not evidence that unknown data collection is occurring. You need to provide actual evidence that it is.

          • CitricBase@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 days ago

            You need to provide actual evidence that it is.

            How do you expect me, or anyone else, to provide you with the inner working details of Google’s surreptitiously closed-as-fuck custom SoCs? That’s the entire basis of the problem, it’s closed-as-fuck and there is nothing that you or I or anyone else can do to verify that it isn’t malicious.

            At this point, you have to choose whether or not to trust the manufacturer. Given that the manufacturer is the most notoriously data-hungry surveillance corporation in the history of the entire world, I choose not to trust them. I wouldn’t trust them, even if they were to claim not to spy on us with these phones. (Incidentally, that is not something they claim.)

            • Skorp@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              Open source or source availability is not a requirement for auditing a system. There would be evidence that would have almost certainly been found by now if this was the case. It is up to you, or the claimant, to prove their claims. I can say that there has not been any evidence of data collection by hardware components found, despite years of Pixel devices being tested by security researchers and mobile forensics companies. Not only that, the actual technical capabilities of the hardware (isolated component without networking capabilities) backs that up.

              What do you have except fearmongering?