Post AvG7MNuxofPcdkmarQ by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
(DIR) More posts by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
(DIR) Post #AvFrqYZ7C83B5GvcAa by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T12:36:31.222Z
3 likes, 0 repeats
@toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social but it seems like your argument is entirely predicated on proprietary apps being a bad thing and therefore every proprietary app must be suceptible to every bad thing any other proprietary app has done before without requiring further examinationThis is exactly my argument. If proprietary software is not already malware, it will always become that over long enough time as the developers get more greedy. It always happens, no exceptions.
(DIR) Post #AvFyy28GMaXCUSsfVA by tris@chaos.social
2025-06-18T13:28:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm But Signal is not proprietary...
(DIR) Post #AvFyy3HW5fWy3SDZZ2 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T13:56:16.388Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@tris@chaos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social If Signal is not proprietary then why can it not be included in F-Droid?
(DIR) Post #AvFzoX3WdRoDSMhLWa by tris@chaos.social
2025-06-18T13:58:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm It dependents on FCM (only used for waking system and not for sending actual notification). You can still use Molly, a Signal fork which doesn't dependent on FCM.
(DIR) Post #AvFzoY4GsA02ay3SKG by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T14:05:45.243Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tris@chaos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social It doesn't matter what the dependency is used for, the fact that it is included means that the Signal application should be considered proprietary.I've seen Molly and it claims to be Signal without blobs, but Molly is also not available in F-Droid. So I wonder what's wrong with Molly?
(DIR) Post #AvG0FR3X3CuWfPWu6y by tris@chaos.social
2025-06-18T14:09:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm "If it's not in F-droid, it's proprietary." What kinda stupid logic is that? In that sense, @GrapheneOS apps would also proprietary just because they decided against publishing it on F-droid
(DIR) Post #AvG0FSAIvVvE6hhpJ2 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T14:10:37.385Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@tris@chaos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social GrapheneOS is absolutely proprietary. Their operating system is full of proprietary blobs in order to run Google devices.
(DIR) Post #AvG7MNuxofPcdkmarQ by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T15:13:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris F-Droid isn't a good or safe way to get open source apps. It adds another group of people as a trusted party who have demonstrated disregard for basic security and user safety. There are a huge number of high quality open source apps not available in F-Droid and many developers don't want their apps packaged there. Apps not being included in F-Droid's main repository doesn't mean they aren't fully open source. Molly has a fully open source variant.
(DIR) Post #AvG7MPFCstCOkpGH3I by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T15:30:19.065Z
7 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social F-Droid isn't a good or safe way to get open source apps.Hey Graphene, I don't think you're in a great you're in a great position right now to criticize other projects (especially ones that do actually care about software freedom, like F-Droid).How's your partnership with Google working out right now regarding the access to those shitty Pixel phone blobs?:gnutroll: :gnutroll: :gnutroll: :gnutroll: :gnutroll: :gnutroll: :gnutroll: :gnujihad: :gnujihad::gnujihad::gnujihad::gnujihad::gnujihad::gnujihad:
(DIR) Post #AvGAwpqvjR9PZAy7No by hexman@poa.st
2025-06-18T16:10:33.927084Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Everybody knows Signal is a confirmed backdoor like Swiss "Crypto AG", you literally need a 8 seconds search online to find out.
(DIR) Post #AvGDwlUAGifzssyiO0 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T16:00:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris GrapheneOS doesn't have any partnership with Google. Pixels remain the only devices meeting our very reasonable hardware security requirements listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. We finished our port to Android 16 days ago and are well into the work required to release it for the devices we support. You don't have an understanding of what we do or what we posted about.F-Droid is an Android app for OSes on Android hardware. You realize that, right?
(DIR) Post #AvGDwmNovnCCfV1A8W by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T16:08:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris There are zero devices providing what existed for Pixels prior to Android 16 and no longer does. Not clear what you think we were talking about in posts but it wasn't something which exists for anything else. We're in talks with OEMs about meeting these requirements like Pixels which is going well. We'll be just fine.F-Droid wouldn't run on a single device if it didn't run on top of closed source hardware and firmware. What's your point supposed to be?
(DIR) Post #AvGDwn40OwwKmKkqtE by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T16:44:05.624Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social Your hardware requirements make absolutely no sense.A lot of your requirements are literally "who cares?", the user gains nothing from so called safety features if they are implemented in a mostly proprietary system it. I know a fully free software smartphone isn't possible mostly due to modem firmware, but outside of that most things can be free. Why doesn't GrapheneOS have a minimum requirement when it comes to stuff like this at all?I prefer the hardware supports decisions from projects like Replicant a lot more, where they try to minimize nonfree blobs as much as possible (including down to the boot firmware on some devices)https://www.replicant.us/freedom-privacy-security-issues.phpThe Pinephone is also a phone that has "nearly" free modem firmware (going as far as legally possible I think): https://github.com/the-modem-distro/pinephone_modem_sdkOf course the best thing is to not use a smartphone at all.
(DIR) Post #AvGEkAI0pvw90BqlCC by Anonsfw@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T16:53:07.366658Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris As a GrapheneOS user for the past year, I actually agree with this post. I was introduced to GrapheneOS by someone I know only for them to actually switch to something later while I've been locked into buying a Pixel phone and trying this whole privacy OS about only to learn that there's actually other Privacy OSes that can run on a multitude of devices that isn't google pixel and I could even run more things on it than what I could on Graphene. I too have a Pinephone that I was using and I wonder why can't something like that have GrapheneOS on it? Though I understand if it's because the battery life is absolutely trash on the Pinephone, But many other phones could be used. It's weird that it is just Google and how they have some sort of thing that makes it more important than others in terms of Security. Like dude, I'm already downloading APK files to install on my phone what's the issue with other phones for "Security"? I'm using Proprietary Google hardware over here, How can I exactly trust it?
(DIR) Post #AvGFLg9xJ7YoYlyAZE by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T16:59:50.872Z
5 likes, 0 repeats
@Anonsfw@shitposter.world @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social In my opinion software freedom is always more important than security anyways.Software freedom is absolute and measurable (something either gives you the four freedoms or it doesn't).Security however, is highly subjective and completely depends on your usecase and attack vector. In my opinion, a lot "security focused" software that doesn't focus on freedom first, like GrapheneOS, is mostly supported by overpriced security consultants who like LARPing about hypothetical and unreasonable schizophrenic attack vectors that nobody in the real world should actually care about.
(DIR) Post #AvGHWwVX49dOM8YoT2 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:17:36Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris > the user gains nothing from so called safety features if they are implemented in a mostly proprietary system it. Our requirements are needed to provide strong privacy and security including protecting people from widely available commercial exploit tools. See https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/14344-cellebrite-premium-july-2024-documentation for an example. As one example, the Pixel 6 and later / iPhone 12 and later are the only devices providing a secure element successfully blocking brute force attacks.
(DIR) Post #AvGHWxneGHigMc2nLM by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T17:24:16.926Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social But that's my point. This example is a cherry picked example that makes no sense in the grand scheme of things.Like sure, you are protected from these USB attacks that require hardware access. But all that stuff really doesn't matter when you're running Google or Apple services or other proprietary apps that store all your personal data in their "cloud".Make it make sense and focus on the low hanging fruit first, by only allowing free software.
(DIR) Post #AvGHX2ZIX4DB9YMuAa by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:18:45Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris We do not require having a secure element on the same level as the Titan M2. Our requirements do not require a device to be on the same level of security as what we have now. We only require that the basic features we use are present. Everything on our list of requirements is very reasonable and industry standard. OEMs we're in contact with are confident they can provide everything we require. There's nothing exotic listed as a requirement there.
(DIR) Post #AvGHX8dlxLM7zAVYye by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:20:28Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris > I know a fully free software smartphone isn't possible mostly due to modem firmware, but outside of that most things can be free. Hardware and firmware is closed source in general. Any ARM SoC has immensely complex closed source hardware/firmware for the CPU, GPU, memory controller and the rest of what's provided. There is no ARM SoC that's open. There is no serious RISC-V SoC alternative and most RISC-V chips are largely or fully closed source too.
(DIR) Post #AvGIUAU4kGJ6my7Uzw by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:31:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris GrapheneOS doesn't come with any services storing user data in the cloud. Our users prefer end-to-end encrypted services and privacy focused apps. People can choose what they want to run and it's our job to protect their privacy/security.Apps installed on GrapheneOS are sandboxed with a significantly improved version of the standard Android app sandbox with a better permission model. Storage Scopes, Contact Scopes, Sensors toggle and much more are added.
(DIR) Post #AvGIUBMfTHyZWHf65g by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T17:34:58.809Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social Sandboxing proprietary software doesn't make it less harmful.
(DIR) Post #AvGIUFu8an7pbFLsoa by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:34:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Our users can choose which apps and services they want to run for themselves. We care a lot about having compatibility with the whole Android app ecosystem. There's a large open source Android app ecosystem far beyond the subset of apps packaged in F-Droid. People can also run closed source Android apps too. We have a compatibility layer to force Google apps to work in a standard app sandbox without the invasive OS integration and permissions they require.
(DIR) Post #AvGIrJtBwY38cPuJsG by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T17:39:12.145Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social Any ARM SoC has immensely complex closed source hardware/firmware for the CPU, GPU, memory controller and the rest of what's provided.That's just not true. There's many ARM SoCs that require none or a very minimal amount of proprietary blobs (often just for booting or memory training and nothing else after that).
(DIR) Post #AvGJ4mL1TxrOcFLK2i by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:21:34Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris There are some basic RISC-V CPU core designs which are open but using those wouldn't result in an open source SoC. Then you have all of the other components: Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular, NFC, GNSS and optionally UWB each have a closed source SoC with closed source firmware. It's a common misconception that cellular is special in this regard. In general, these radios are their own little computer isolated from the main processor on mainstream devices.
(DIR) Post #AvGJ4mxfAIliY5QBGq by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T17:41:35.814Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social Software that is on a non-upgradable ROM chip is not really software, it is part of the hardware from a user's point of view, because it can't be modified just like the circuitry.
(DIR) Post #AvGJ4rIj1vze0ZJ3ei by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:22:47Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris > I prefer the hardware supports decisions from projects like Replicant a lot more, where they try to minimize nonfree blobs as much as possible (including down to the boot firmware on some devices)This isn't true. Replicant and Purism use closed source hardware and firmware. Their requirement is that the OS doesn't have to load the firmware at boot so they can pretend it's not there. Almost none of the overall firmware on those devices is open.
(DIR) Post #AvGJ4wYrTMs6K3tW08 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:23:50Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Using ancient devices without firmware / driver patches with an ancient fork of Android without security patches guarantees having extreme lack of privacy and security. It's the direct opposite of what we want. The hardware and firmware underneath is in fact no more open source. The requirement of not having to load firmware from the OS is extremely arbitrary and is in fact less transparent than unobfuscated firmware which must be loaded by the OS at boot.
(DIR) Post #AvGJ51bWisyTxmBDLk by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:25:21Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris > The Pinephone is also a phone that has "nearly" free modem firmware (going as far as legally possible I think)No, that's completely untrue and has been presented as something it isn't. Pinephone's cellular radio has a Qualcomm baseband included on a Quectel chip with an extra CPU running their closed source fork of an old Android version. That extra CPU and Android fork are highly unusual and not usually present at all.
(DIR) Post #AvGJ5744QBmGtkZa2C by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:26:41Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris The baseband firmware is not being replaced by the project you linked. They're using the usual outdated baseband firmware for the outdated cellular baseband. What they're replacing is the unusual extra operating system on an extra CPU between the baseband and the main processor. They're replacing something which shouldn't exist in the first place and does not exist on a normal device. The design of that radio has less isolation and far worse security.
(DIR) Post #AvGJ5D7TuQ4Tg4DOBU by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:29:03Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Having a very outdated radio with a whole extra CPU running a proprietary OS with the radio hooked up via extremely high attack surface USB protocol instead of a far simpler interface with IOMMU isolation is not at all an improvement just because people developed a way to replace the extra OS in between.The reason the cellular radio is designed in that strange way is because it's for Windows and runs Android in between as a lazy development shortcut.
(DIR) Post #AvGJhP1g5cS9bniBto by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T17:48:35.465Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social The requirement of not having to load firmware from the OS is extremely arbitrary It is not arbitrary at all. It makes a lot of sense from a philosophical and fairness point of view.Also consider this; If the firmware on the chip is proprietary anyways, meaning it can't be properly studied, audited or patched, why do you consider it a good thing to load the blobs from the OS? Wouldn't it be better to just leave it as it is, so at least you know it's not going to change?Wouldn't that also allow new previously unknown issues to arise if you keep updating it with the latest available proprietary blobs?
(DIR) Post #AvGK7kAK7GfWhVJeam by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:46:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Closed source hardware and closed source firmware don't stop existing if you don't have to load the firmware from the OS at boot. It doesn't matter any less. The operating system not being able to update firmware is a loss of important functionality needed to patch security vulnerabilities, not an improvement. Pinephone is full of closed source firmware which can be updated anyway, although it's largely not maintained with proper security updates.
(DIR) Post #AvGK7lH5zZgE8nUZmq by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T17:53:20.003Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social Closed source hardware and closed source firmware don't stop existing if you don't have to load the firmware from the OS at boot.Yes I think it will. When enough projects (and that includes GrapheneOS) say enough is enough and actively stop including proprietary firmware, you can actually force OEMs to start releasing the firmware under a free license.
(DIR) Post #AvGK7q5E789n3QyfTs by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:48:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris You seem to be confusing the Pinephone with the Librem 5 which chooses components based on them being able to block updating the closed source firmware. That assures insecurity. Taking away the option to update firmware is hardly giving users freedom. Not letting users update microcode/firmware and hiding the security flaws which are left unpatched by removing warnings from the Linux kernel and elsewhere is not helping, protecting or giving users freedom.
(DIR) Post #AvGKQ6tiKz9mPpIyKu by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T17:56:40.350Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social hiding the security flaws which are left unpatched by removing warnings from the Linux kernel and elsewhere is not helping, protecting or giving users freedom.I'm not that familiar with the smartphone world, but as far as real computers are concerned I know Linux-Libre and GNU Boot developers are not simply hiding warnings from the kernel, they are actively developing workarounds inside the kernel that fix these issues without installing proprietary blobs from the OEM.
(DIR) Post #AvGKp98b97EYbQCm0W by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:50:37Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Hardware which does not have most of the firmware baked in but rather requires to load it from the OS is more open to inspection. Firmware or software being closed source doesn't imply it can't be audited and reviewed. It doesn't imply that it's obfuscated. Closed source hardware and firmware which you ignore and don't update doesn't make it go away and just assures insecurity and lack of privacy via having serious unpatched vulnerabilities known for years.
(DIR) Post #AvGKpAIYpYnUCbsFAu by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:01:10.762Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social Firmware or software being closed source doesn't imply it can't be audited and reviewed. Everything is possible to reverse engineer and decompile with enough time and effort, but you lack the same tools (the actual source code) that the developer at the OEM used they are at a massive advantage over you. And they will abuse that advantage for profit, control and power.
(DIR) Post #AvGKwChoHM3dhB2Z3w by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:52:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris No, you're completely wrong about this. You're continuing to inaccurately conflate not needing to load firmware/microcode from the OS or updates to it not being available as it not existing. It doesn't stop existing just because there aren't updates for it or the OS doesn't have to load it. Pinephone SoC is entirely closed source hardware and low-level microcode/firmware. Late stage boot chain after the early boot firmware being open doesn't make it open.
(DIR) Post #AvGKwDKRxgxxd17QI4 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:02:29.017Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social It doesn't stop existing just because there aren't updates for it or the OS doesn't have to load itYes it actually does stop existing as software. It becomes part of the hardware. It is now a hardware limitation, not a software freedom issue.
(DIR) Post #AvGKwI7AAWJCTFwNm4 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:54:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Qualcomm publishes their late stage boot chain source code, which is a fork of EDK2 (UEFI) since they moved to that as part of supporting Windows in addition to Linux. It's barely part of the low-level firmware at all. It doesn't make the earlier boot chain stop existing. Burning efuses to prevent updating the earlier boot chain doesn't make it stop existing. The boot ROM that's never possible to update still exists too. You want to play a game of pretend.
(DIR) Post #AvGLAbsJUq43oLp3ui by tris@chaos.social
2025-06-18T18:03:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm What is the most pragmatic thing to when you have to proprietary software? Like for banking or for your work purposes?
(DIR) Post #AvGLAcrHq8pyrSLkx6 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:05:04.483Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tris@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social Do a little research and try to find a bank that doesn't require you run proprietary software.Same for work, don't apply to jobs that require you run proprietary software, especially on devices that you own.
(DIR) Post #AvGLVPY2WULJf2G5PU by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:56:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris There are 0 devices we could support without closed source firmware. Not loading microcode/firmware from the OS and leaving users vulnerable to unpatched vulnerabilities isn't acceptable to an actual privacy/security project.Open source also doesn't have the magical privacy and security properties you believe it does. It doesn't make things inherently private/secure and doesn't provide mean all the vulnerabilities can be found even with huge efforts.
(DIR) Post #AvGLVQbyZL5MxX6kBU by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:08:49.818Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social Open source also doesn't have the magical privacy and security properties you believe it does.I am well aware that free software is not automatically more secure (even though often it is obviously).I and many other people who actually care about not being enslaved have different priorities.First you give me control over my own device, absolute 100% software freedom. And only then when software freedom has been achieved we can start talking about fixing mundane issues like improving security.
(DIR) Post #AvGLVUySLhRcUPekmO by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:57:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Here's a list of security vulnerabilities acknowledged by the Linux kernel as part of backporting fixes for them:https://lore.kernel.org/linux-cve-announce/It's a subset of the security issues being fixed for the Linux kernel and that's a subset of what's being publicly discovered for it.Does it being open source, immensely widely used and widely reviewed/tested somehow prevent or result in these vulnerabilities all being quickly discovered? No. Many are years old.
(DIR) Post #AvGLVaDAsPBkjVa4um by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:59:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris There are vulnerabilities being found which have existed for a decade or even multiple decades.Open source can be very beneficial to security through enabling easier external auditing if that's actually happening. It does happen for the Linux kernel. It is more secure because it's open source. It is not magical though, and it does not provide the strong assurances about it which you believe it does.Clearly, at least nearly all these bugs were accidents.
(DIR) Post #AvGLVfUNFsux6IfNuy by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:01:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris There's no way of knowing for sure if all of the vulnerabilities being found and fixed were accidents. Accidental vulnerabilities often survive for years in an extremely widely used open source project with far more eyes on it than typical ones with 1-2 developers and hardly anyone else looking at it. How is there assurance against an intentionally inserted vulnerability which was subtly hidden being found? How is that meant to work when this is reality?
(DIR) Post #AvGLjDrokWmdUG5y52 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:11:21.239Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social You don't have to explain to me how CVEs work like I'm five. I'm a professional software developer.
(DIR) Post #AvGM0l6GRXDRTqDM0m by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:02:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Desktop and laptop computers are similarly closed source hardware with closed source firmware. The linux-libre project primarily exists to remove support for firmware updates which are usually needed to patch vulnerabilities. They aren't replacing the security patches with anything. They're removing the ability to apply those updates and are removing warnings about having outdated CPU microcode and other firmware. They do exactly what you say they aren't.
(DIR) Post #AvGM0m1h019YLx5DWa by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:14:28.962Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social Hold on I gotta mention @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br for this one.
(DIR) Post #AvGML52xzVFR8UMVns by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:13:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Your description of freedom is thoroughly convoluted and nonsensical. You claim that if the software is hard-wired into the hardware and cannot be updated, it doesn't matter. Hard-wiring the operating system in a way that it cannot be updated would comply with your description of software freedom. It's utter nonsense. It's a bunch of semantic games to try to justify only focusing on software and drawing an arbitrary line where it doesn't matter anymore.
(DIR) Post #AvGML6Dzbzf6myWpd2 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:18:08.792Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social Sorry, the entire free software movement disagrees with you. It's not nonsense.
(DIR) Post #AvGN2HVFYT5oDiBugi by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:15:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris What you've claimed is that closed source matters if it can be updated, and that if it's hard-wired into the hardware then it doesn't count anymore. The whole software on a device can be hard-wired with no updates possible. That complies with your completely nonsensical idea of software freedom. The reality is that the arbitrary line you're drawing is completely illogical. Stopping users updating or replacing software/firmware is in fact removing freedom.
(DIR) Post #AvGN2ISS0MRpBJtBxo by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:25:58.135Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social The whole software on a device can be hard-wired with no updates possible. That complies with your completely nonsensical idea of software freedom.Yes indeed. I own many devices that are like this. Like my Casio F-91W Watch. Or my microwave oven.Nobody in their right mind considers these devices nonfree or "closed source". They software that runs on them is literally part of the hardware, it doesn't create any unjustice. It just exists and just sits there, never being updated.Stopping users updating or replacing software/firmware is in fact removing freedom.Users can't update or replace proprietary firmware, we're not taking this freedom away. The OEM is the one taking this freedom away, because they are the only ones that have the source code and the legal rights to modify it.But if the software is on a ROM chip, neither the OEM nor user can modify the software anymore. It's not ideal from a technical standpoint but now at least the OEM and user are equals, there is no unjustice in this scenario.
(DIR) Post #AvGNDZSH9Mdp5CBQEi by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:20:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris A small group of illogical people who don't actually care about freedom, privacy or security but rather pay lip service to them disagrees with it. We're well aware of where you're getting these nonsensical ideas from and appealing to the authority of RMS doesn't give your arguments any weight.
(DIR) Post #AvGNDaicS5JD0ApzLk by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:28:00.496Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social The free software movement is not just RMS. It's also not just the GNU Project, or just the FSF either. It's much more than that.
(DIR) Post #AvGNWHlX8vIViq7BIm by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:17:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @lxo What we said is completely accurate. Pretending firmware doesn't exist and not updating it doesn't make it not exist. Pretending hardware isn't closed source doesn't make it open. Every ARM SoC is closed source hardware/firmware even if it doesn't support any firmware updates, has none released or the OS chooses not to apply them.Disabling doing firmware updates for closed source firmware that's still present is not making it open. It's convoluted and nonsensical reasoning.
(DIR) Post #AvGNWIxGimHLPWc4ES by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:21:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @lxo Earlier, you promoted a closed source cellular baseband by inaccurately claiming that the radio firmware can be mostly replaced with open source software, when in fact none of the radio firmware can be replaced. It's quite strange to present yourself as an advocate for open source software/firmware/hardware when you're marketing closed source hardware/firmware including presenting it as having an open source firmware replacement it in fact does not have available in any way.
(DIR) Post #AvGNWJonVl645XeofQ by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:31:22.494Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br I do not wish to promote software that is not fully free. I mostly just mentioned it as an example of something that is slightly less bad than mobile operating systems that contain a lot of proprietary software and do not try to minimize it much as possible.The only think I can recommend in good consciousness however is to not own a smartphone at all, as no fully free smartphone currently exists.
(DIR) Post #AvGNWOSIGr4CTCAPmi by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:22:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @lxo Having a Qualcomm baseband on a larger SoC with a CPU running a closed source fork of Android and then replacing that closed source fork of Android with something else still leaves you with a 100% closed source firmware baseband and 100% closed source hardware for both the baseband and overall SoC. Presenting that as open source because a usually non-existent CPU can have the software replaced is promoting closed source hardware and firmware as being something it isn't at all.
(DIR) Post #AvGNWUIwWX9Ubvq22i by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:24:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @lxo People who actually want open source hardware and firmware should have a huge problem with projects being marketed as providing that when they don't. Purism presents their devices as being open over and over again which then results in tech media widely claiming their open hardware which they absolutely aren't. Pine64 doesn't do as much of that, but they do a bit of it. People who actually want real open hardware and open firmware should in fact have a major issue with that.
(DIR) Post #AvGNWa4z3LYEWNLy7M by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:26:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @lxo Pretending the closed source firmware (and hardware) doesn't exist by leaving it not updated or choosing components which don't require the OS to load it does not make it go away, and does not make it more open. Components with closed source firmware stored on them are not more open than components requiring the OS to load it.Fighting for having firmware/software updates disallowed is not fighting for freedom. Locked down devices without user control or updates meet your bar...
(DIR) Post #AvGOR44MjnsrkZzvM0 by tris@chaos.social
2025-06-18T18:32:00Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm You're comparing watch and microwave oven to smartphones now? May I know since when Telegram became free software and also what smarphone are using and OS running on it?
(DIR) Post #AvGOR5S9aqVS2e8R4S by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:41:40.072Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@tris@chaos.social Telegram has many free software clients available for it, most of them are released under the GPLv3. I own a few smartphones, but I am well aware none of them are perfect from a software freedom standpoint and I wish they were more free. This is also the reason why I am not dependent on any of my smartphones and I don't need them to live out my daily regular life.My current list of smartphones if you're curious:Samsung Galaxy S2 with ReplicantPinephone running MobianFairphone 3 running LineageOS
(DIR) Post #AvGOXeCdJ8vJYN0Hsu by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:35:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @lxo You promote is closed source hardware, firmware and software as long as you don't have the ability to update it. You're promoting closed source hardware/firmware like the Pinephone which doesn't even meet what you see as a valid loophole where blocking firmware updates means it doesn't count as closed source.You claim that closed source hardware, firmware and software is free if it cannot be updated by anyone. That has no connection to what we want. It's just nonsensical.
(DIR) Post #AvGOXfHdI2W6uALnJg by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:42:50.332Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br Promoting it is a big word. I'm not really promoting any smartphones. I mostly just mentioned them.
(DIR) Post #AvGOXjp6PXfMz82a2a by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:37:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @lxo When we say we want open hardware, that means we want the hardware designs which can be provided to a choice of multiple different manufacturers to produce the components and overall device.We do not mean what you apparently mean which is having hardware which has no closed source firmware components which can be updated. That's really the direct opposite of what we mean. Being able to inspect and load closed source firmware is more open than it just being baked in.
(DIR) Post #AvGOXpwPfH4xxXVVGi by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T18:38:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @lxo We are not under any illusion that we are going to be able to get open hardware meeting our requirements in the near future. We aren't going to lower our security standards for components or the overall device to accommodate an open source hardware design. The expectation is it meets the same basic requirements. We are going to be having hardware produced to meet our requirements within the next couple years and we can begin influencing the security and openness of it.
(DIR) Post #AvGOrbzJFhrcTYI7zk by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T18:46:27.674Z
3 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br At least projects like Replicant, Pinephone or Librem are trying their best to reduce the amount of proprietary software as much as possible. That's literally all I can say about it. Something GrapheneOS is not doing, as it thinks including as much proprietary software as possible is a good thing actually because it might fix a few security issues.
(DIR) Post #AvGOzVgoYMDdG5PHCC by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-18T18:46:02Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
it is also more open to enshittification. see https://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/#Unshittifybut part of the reason why you two are talking past each other is that one of you speaks in terms of open/closed, while the other speaks of free software. the former lacks (because it was designed to remove) the ethical principles that are the foundation of free software.when software is embedded in hardware in a way that one can't tell whether it's hardware or software without opening the hardware black box, there's no ethical difference between depriving users of software source code or of hardware specifications: the software becomes part of the hardware, and for hardware, even the practical freedoms are more limited: copying and adapting hardware are by nature a lot easier for software.so, whether or not you consider proprietary hardware unethical, this ethical equivalence between hardware and software equivalent to a hardware circuit embedded in it makes it a lesser offense (if an offense at all) than that of the more general case of nonfree software.as for the tangent on security, see https://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/#specmeltCC: @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social
(DIR) Post #AvGbJ1o0ZNNtogqRZQ by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T20:34:53Z
3 likes, 2 repeats
@lxo @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris You're trying to justify highly illogical and nonsensical beliefs you hold with convoluted nonsense. That is your whole ideology. It's just playing a bunch of rhetorical games. You folks claim a device that's completely locked down with no updates is free vs. a device where you can replace major parts of it being non-free if there's a closed source firmware component which can be updated. Most people find it to be ridiculous nonsense, not only us.
(DIR) Post #AvGbJ2lYzx1UnOi0Om by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T20:49:34Z
2 likes, 2 repeats
@lxo @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris You don't care about freedom. You want conformance to a nonsensical framework you've come up with where somehow a locked down device where the user can't replace anything is what you consider freedom. You don't want people making informed choices. You go out of the way to try to hide that people are missing patches for severe security issues. You in fact don't want people to have the freedom to apply those updates. You don't want an informed choice.
(DIR) Post #AvGbJ3iPTA5vjuF07c by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:03:02Z
2 likes, 3 repeats
@lxo @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris Your movement does not have a monopoly on caring about ethics around software. What you have is a monopoly on building up a huge mountain of cognitive dissonance around it for decades. Rational people who have not been pulled into it can see how ridiculous it is to claim that blocking replacing or updating software/firmware creates a freedom respecting device. No amount of rhetorical games and essays will make what you push rational or ethical.
(DIR) Post #AvGbXB2X296GVhNvSy by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T20:37:24Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @lxo Trying to stop people using the apps they want to use is not freedom. Stopping people updating firmware is not freedom. What you believe in is not freedom but rather a whole convoluted and irrational framework of beliefs you folks have built which do not help people. You're muddying the waters and making it harder for real open hardware to be created and to succeed. You promote closed source hardware and firmware because people pay lip service to your convoluted ideology.
(DIR) Post #AvGcL0JhAzG7jSAka0 by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:17:29.186421Z
4 likes, 2 repeats
@GrapheneOS @lxo @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris this is an up and coming attack on free software for the last couple years, that users are more free based on utility than fundamentals like do you really own your device or does the vendor keep secrets on it from you or artificially limit modification. by this logic adobe photoshop is more free software than gimp.
(DIR) Post #AvGcfclXvsu0lv22QC by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T21:21:11.365Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@sun@shitposter.world @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social Yes indeed. His reasoning is:More features = more things you can do = more freedomBut that's not the case at all if those extra features are used by the manufacturer to handcuff the users.Maybe I should make it clear that us free software people are not opposed to being to install firmware updates from our operating system.We would love to have a feature like that, but not if it's handcuffed, In that case we would rather not have this feature at all.
(DIR) Post #AvGct79uFB7mnYrISO by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:23:39.533614Z
3 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @lxo @tris I agree and disagree with them and you on different things but basically all closed firmware and software is a boot on your neck so even if you have legitimate reasons to run it it's not "free". the metaphor gilded cage exists for a reason
(DIR) Post #AvGdLg483RnhAUmBpQ by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:26:00Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Now you're just making blatant strawman arguments. We said nothing of the kind.It is you falsely claiming closed source hardware and closed source firmware is open source when it isn't. Pinephones are closed source hardware and firmware. Misrepresenting replacing a weird extra OS on an extra CPU next to the baseband as being open source baseband is a particular egregious form of false marketing by their company and supporters.
(DIR) Post #AvGdLgcA0v1Ss2hMsC by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:27:22Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Not loading or updating closed source firmware via the OS doesn't make it stop existing. Leaving yourself and more importantly others vulnerable to serious known vulnerabilities is not trying to provide privacy and security. Misleading people about them, hiding it from them and putting them at risk is highly ethical. You don't want people to make informed decisions. You want to eliminate choices and force people to have insecure devices.
(DIR) Post #AvGdLhamNXVnu33mMK by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T21:28:44.909Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social You don't want people to make informed decisions. You want to eliminate choices and force people to have insecure devices.Why would I want that? Do you think I'm some kind of government agent who would benefit from it if the people were running insecure stuff?
(DIR) Post #AvGdWIsCcipKQLGTEO by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:28:46Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris That is what your "libre" projects do. They mislead people, hide important information from them and leave them vulnerable. They're thoroughly unethical. You're willing to do unethical things to advance something that's not at all a coherent ideology about freedom but rather a tunnel vision focus on only software. That includes attacking us with false claims, attacking our team, misrepresenting our statements and the rest of what you folks do.
(DIR) Post #AvGdWKcK8jJVpfqol6 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T21:30:40.507Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social You're distributing proprietary software. You're willingly handcuffing users. To us you're contributing to the problem. Not the solutions.
(DIR) Post #AvGdwPLDCNQ20rHU5A by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:31:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris It's little different from Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons showing up at our door to proselytize while being incapable of understanding we do not see their beliefs as rational.
(DIR) Post #AvGdwQWanY7HgRc5Sa by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T21:35:23.354Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social Oh trust me we're very aware that you do not find free software rational. You've made that very clear in every post for like the last 6 hours.
(DIR) Post #AvGe8CyV0CBz8OHgJ6 by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:37:35.527089Z
4 likes, 2 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @lxo @tris if you use free software as a major component of your software you benefited from the ideological extremist position of groups like the FSF, whether you like it or not you live in the world that software extremism created.
(DIR) Post #AvGeNMlCty5jpNIL5s by tris@chaos.social
2025-06-18T21:39:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo In that sense we should support big tech, as they're major contributor to Linux kernel and a lot libraries like zstd are maintained by them?
(DIR) Post #AvGeNNQgPlGhu0hSk4 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T21:40:15.613Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tris@chaos.social @sun@shitposter.world @Starkimarm@23.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br The Linux kernel is proprietary. You should support Linux-Libre instead.
(DIR) Post #AvGecBo9u9VSCekAme by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:41:48Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo If you make things freely available for anyone to use for any purpose, there's no requirement for them to share any of your beliefs or attribute any of the valuable work people have done to them. That includes instead believing it held it back. Most people writing and using 'free software' do not believe in the mountain of cognitive dissonance believed by an insignificant minority. Extremely few made any conscious decision to support any of it.
(DIR) Post #AvGek2mZLUbMWkkHQ0 by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:44:25.856326Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
@tris @Starkimarm @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo they're doing it for selfish reasons and submit their changes back to the world out of obligation, it's nice when that works and I don't have to support big tech yet benefit from their code contributions. yet it's unclear if this will continue in the future since companies are excising free software and coopting projects covertly in various ways. I think it's telling that companies like google avoid AGPL like a vampire avoids crosses
(DIR) Post #AvGevqlTqufkjLrkLg by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:46:33.973984Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris > It adds another group of people as a trusted party who have demonstrated disregard for basic security and user safety.adds *to what*? to the android ecosystem?? Obviously if there's a better alternative to @fdroidorg that's doing the work of allowing android users to have free software apps in a package manager-like environment, but is doing a better job of vetting security please let the rest of us know
(DIR) Post #AvGeyapxWnGYCTGivo by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:47:03.495094Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo I am not going to get into a license war in this thread because I think it's unprovable but my opinion is licenses that don't require returning changes allow big businesses to enclose the commons and result in being less free in the long run, and that such licenses would have precluded all the progress we have now. but of course I admit I can't prove that.
(DIR) Post #AvGfC7x3iiSqfS2jyq by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:35:47Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @Anonsfw @tris Pinephone is closed source hardware with closed source firmware. The hardware and firmware is not more open. The security features and software support we have as part of our requirements are needed to protect users from real world malware and commercial exploit tools which are widely deployed. The example we gave of Cellebrite's data extraction tools are just one example. It also applies to remote exploits and exploits from apps, not just that.
(DIR) Post #AvGfCgJZxUgFF8qCno by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:38:33Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@Anonsfw @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika Pinephones are closed source hardware/firmware with extremely poor security. They're lacking even basic privacy/security patches and protections. They do not meet even much more basic privacy/security requirements than ours. There's a lot of false marketing used to promote them including this common false claim that there's open source firmware for the baseband which is completely false. It's open code for an unusual extra CPU next to the baseband.
(DIR) Post #AvGfClntYCtwGc3zFY by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:42:18Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Anonsfw @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika Pinephones are missing a huge portion of our very reasonable official hardware requirements. Those requirements are industry standard things provided by more than Pixels. The reason there aren't more devices to support is because more secure devices usually don't allow installing another OS or they do what Samsung does and cripple security and other functionality with them. We're in active talks with a major OEM about making what we need in 2026.
(DIR) Post #AvGfCrc3x70AHeZcdk by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T17:43:49Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Anonsfw @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika Those other operating systems you're talking about are forks of the Android Open Source Project which are largely doing the opposite of what we're doing. Instead of implementing substantial privacy and security improvements, they're rolling back privacy and security. They're not keeping up with important privacy/security updates or keeping the standard privacy/security model or features intact. They don't expect reasonably secure hardware.
(DIR) Post #AvGfX2jmIlUmZqnwqe by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:43:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris linux-libre is a highly insecure project based around misinforming and manipulating users. The project is thoroughly dishonest with users about what it provides and puts their privacy and security at risk. It puts ideology above people's well being and improving the world. That is what your movement does as a whole. You do not make things better, you make them worse all while you sabotage things and muddy the waters holding back progress.
(DIR) Post #AvGfX3mePZO5p39kxs by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:47:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Most people do not care about your contrived definitions of freedom where preventing them doing things is freedom and locking down the ability to do things is somehow freedom. You claim things are open and free which are not simply due to alignment with your ideology. You claim preventing users and not letting them make informed choices is freedom. It doesn't add up and is increasingly irrelevant. People doing most of the work don't buy into it.
(DIR) Post #AvGfX4KgN2brWb4w0e by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T21:53:13.783Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social People doing most of the work don't buy into it.Actually I think there are a lot more people who care about the free software somewhat than people who actually care about your infosec larper OS.
(DIR) Post #AvGfgZhP7Vl5PdEthQ by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:55:00.419344Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo it's very clear you're right, most engineers don't care about politics and they used the licenses because of network effect but you look around and now more than ever many express open contempt for free licenses of any kind despite using them, openness is not really in their DNA. that's okay I'll keep using their software, forcing people not to be antisocial is a property of civilization.
(DIR) Post #AvGfilE1En3tjsXLmK by Anonsfw@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:55:24.206325Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Yeah I'm not even trolling but the next phone I'd rather get an IPhone at this point. Really showing a side I don't like.
(DIR) Post #AvGfuCBNLpDsWzkkam by mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:57:28.596080Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@sun @SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @lxo @toatrika @tris >the ideological extremist position of groups like the FSFThe FSF isn't an extreme, it's only an extreme from the perspective of proprietary entities.Otherwise the FSF is a neutral as an individual/public entity should be, it allows the free market to exist.
(DIR) Post #AvGfvgm561FThTdMZs by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T21:57:44.376407Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@mangeurdenuage @GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @SuperDicq @lxo @toatrika @tris it's a hard problem in the architecture
(DIR) Post #AvGgEpCK0EwHKJ248W by tris@chaos.social
2025-06-18T21:55:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo Pretty sure GrapheneOS has more users than Linux-Libre would ever had
(DIR) Post #AvGgEqJ5sXwylbCzKa by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T22:01:08.640Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tris@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br Linux-Libre is far from the only free software project.
(DIR) Post #AvGgLrrsTPF9dRpPRQ by mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T22:02:28.310594Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@sun @GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @SuperDicq @lxo @toatrika @tris As far my understanding of the the GPL goes, it never forced companies/people to share anything immediately, but only when people having a binary of it asked for access to the code.The AGPL is the license that mandates code and code changes to be public by default, which is a very good defense for customer of SaaSS economical models.
(DIR) Post #AvGgX4SO0aoFreFMhM by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T21:58:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Your movement largely consists of people on 4chan and equivalent sites. It's filled to the brim with both tankies and fascists. Few are developers or building anything relevant. People writing software under licenses like the GPL doesn't make them part of your movement. It doesn't mean they believe in any of it. It's largely people who spend their time proselytizing and trolling people on social media. Funny calling people useful stuff larpers.
(DIR) Post #AvGgX5jnFMKNpvOmTA by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T22:04:26.276Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social our movement largely consists of people on 4chan and equivalent sites. It's filled to the brim with both tankies and fascists. Few are developers or building anything relevant.Yes, I'm sure we're all a bunch of worthless tankies and fascists who have never built anything relevant.Have fun compiling your larper OS without gcc or glibc :)
(DIR) Post #AvGgfEA7o8rIHXavU8 by aaron@social.tromdienste.de
2025-06-18T21:12:00Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS interesting to read all of that!in the case of CoMaps for example: comaps.app/download/Would you then recommend to download that application directly from the website (APK), from Play-Store (which needs a google account and play services enabled, right?), Aurora-Store (anonymous usage of Play-Store) or F-Droid (no account needed)?
(DIR) Post #AvGh97cYh1cggK9IZ6 by mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T22:11:22.762960Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris >Your description of freedom is thoroughly convoluted and nonsensical. Software Freedom = Free market.Free market = Civilization stability.Civilization stability = You are Free to do whatever as long as you are forbidden to forbid.As silly the "you are forbidden to forbid" recursion is it's a necessity for social stability to exist. And if it's violated our ancestor built the "law" to guide people into avoiding conflicts and other considered violence.And as men's understanding of themselves and natural science evolves so do the laws. Not necessarily in a positive or negative way.
(DIR) Post #AvGhauqHnTNd9qp5fs by mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T22:16:22.487029Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris >Your movement Implying.>people on 4chan and equivalent sitesImageboards.>doesn't make them part of your movementThat also applies to yourself.>It doesn't mean they believe in any of it.Self reflecting needed.>It's largely people who spend their time proselytizing and trolling people on social media:bruh:
(DIR) Post #AvGhgWuvf9ryh1fiE4 by mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T22:17:24.690556Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@sun I'm not understanding your comment but I understand that people can be tired of this thread.
(DIR) Post #AvGhgcfYHF8OX4WW5g by Anonsfw@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T22:17:25.682151Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@mangeurdenuage @GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @SuperDicq @lxo @sun @toatrika @tris I should have listened to Louis Rossman.
(DIR) Post #AvGhoPOvUXpFhNSYjY by mangeurdenuage@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T22:18:50.448278Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Anonsfw Louis is right about hardware repairability, but for software he's out of touch.
(DIR) Post #AvGhrUTT5NwoIm3NpY by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T22:10:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris You take credit for things you have no involvement in. GCC and glibc are hardly even tied to your movement anymore. They're more big tech projects than tied to your community.As a side note, GCC and binutils aren't used as part of building GrapheneOS.
(DIR) Post #AvGhrVKzsMlWyn68GW by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-06-18T22:18:13.695Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social GCC and glibc are hardly even tied to your movement anymore. They're more big tech projects than tied to your community.Nope, not true at all. I know a bunch of GCC developers and they are all very much part of the GNU project.GCC and binutils aren't used as part of building GrapheneOS.You don't even know how to build your own project? Doesn't GrapheneOS use the Linux kernel compiled using GCC? Do you guys use Clang instead or something?
(DIR) Post #AvGi8i4DnkL7NkSIkq by sun@shitposter.world
2025-06-18T22:22:30.169648Z
3 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @lxo @tris this actually reminded me I have to get back to work, I respect your project even if I don't agree with you and you insult people like me with untruths
(DIR) Post #AvGiUpqVYoaXsWairQ by newt@stereophonic.space
2025-06-18T22:26:18.793978Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris not sure about today, but fdroid build servers used to have asinine environments and getting stuff to build on them was a huge pain in the ass.
(DIR) Post #AvGin6tstJUvz5suvI by mischievoustomato@tsundere.love
2025-06-18T22:29:45.353119Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo bsd3 works well enough for me
(DIR) Post #AvGlBOGQBYqSh88DrM by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T22:49:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo Preventing updating it doesn't make it go away. It doesn't mean it's hardware. Hardware is also more rather than less limiting anyway. Closed source software can be reverse engineered, analyzed and replaced in a way that's not nearly as possible with hardware.Firmware that's unobfuscated and loaded by the OS is more open to inspection than having it stored on the hardware without having access to the code. It isn't somehow freer to do that.
(DIR) Post #AvGlBPXpQKMafPHddA by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T22:52:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo A device with very complex closed source hardware and firmware is not an open device. It does a huge disservice to people working on working that to pretend as if not updating the firmware makes it open. It's nothing less than scamming people to falsely market products this way. The product being promoted above doesn't even try to do that in the first place. It would be significantly worse if it did. It would not be more open but rather less.
(DIR) Post #AvGlBQAp5LYUcLWmPY by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-18T22:53:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo Earlier, there was an attempt at promoting a product based on it having an insecure extra firmware component which due to the ability to update it was able to be replaced with an open source replacement. The baseband firmware is still entirely closed source, but the extra CPU between it and the OS can run something else.How is it logical to claim that not being able to update that would have been more free and more open? It makes no sense.
(DIR) Post #AvGsEuC4cvA6Gsim7E by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-19T00:15:40.516016Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris > outdated CPU microcode it's not 'outdated' it's 'unfree' it's only 'outdated' to those who have the corresponding source code
(DIR) Post #AvGsW3FiCSgjHzbBrs by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-19T00:18:46.508687Z
1 likes, 2 repeats
@GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @lxo>Fighting for having firmware/software updates disallowed is not fighting for freedom.On the contrary: it limits the amount of control over the hardware the manufacturer has to what was built in to begin with. Users being allowed to "update" only with black box magic doesn't give users any more control over it.
(DIR) Post #AvGtOGRdMqGvqG1fZg by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-19T00:25:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika That's utter nonsense completely detached from reality and rational thinking. Not patching known and verifiable security vulnerabilities is assuring insecurity and lack of privacy. Misleading users about it, hiding the problem from them and trying to stop them updating it is harming them, not helping.Meanwhile, you folks misrepresent exactly the same hardware/firmware as 'open' if updates are blocked. It's nonsense and people are realizing it.
(DIR) Post #AvGtOHS1csBAxlDUp6 by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-19T00:28:33.352495Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika >g. Not patching known and verifiable security vulnerabilities is assuring insecurity and lack of privacyknown to *who*? by what process??If these are kept from the user *they are not patching anything known*they are patching "trust me" > Meanwhile, you folks misrepresent exactly the same hardware/firmware as 'open' if updates are blocked. I don't call things "open" at all. I am concerned with managing the complexity of the devices, and preserving the freedom of users to understand and reason about them.
(DIR) Post #AvGtvGTqFvjfVanK4W by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-19T00:32:36Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
we are not removing warnings, to the best of my knowledge. please report any occurrence of warning removal, it's a bug that ought to be fixed.we do indeed lower the temptation to use nonfree software to work around a hardware (+ embedded software) bug, acknowledging that making the user more vulnerable to strongarming by suppliers doesn't make things better for users; empowering vendors to enshittify products rather makes things worse for users.short-term thinking, such as trading your freedom for some temporary security, leads to various ruinous compromisesCC: @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social
(DIR) Post #AvGuGbvvgnJ47p6w1w by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-19T00:35:40Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
plugging one hole while widening a gap that allows a third party to take further control of your computing doesn't make you more secure, it makes you more vulnerable.CC: @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
(DIR) Post #AvGuW4DmnUoiCcpiro by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-19T00:27:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @SuperDicq @lxo Open source software is in fact a black box to most people. Even for software developers, they're still trusting the people making it. You're conflating different things together.The idea that preventing people updating firmware or even preventing replacing it with different firmware is somehow more free is nonsensical. Taking away a capability from users to use as they wish is not giving them freedom. Taking it away doesn't make it freedom respecting or open.
(DIR) Post #AvGuW5FEzZZhNQWOm0 by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-19T00:41:10.306630Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @lxo > Open source software is in fact a black box to most people. If someone has an issue with Free Software, they can go to someone with the skill and tools necessary to audit and change it. Software Freedom gives them that ability.> Even for software developers, they're still trusting the people making it.There's a certain degree of trust, sure, which is why it's crucial that we build a basis for that trust in > The idea that preventing people updating firmware or even preventing replacing it with different firmware is somehow more free is nonsensical. Of course you're free to update firmware if you have the tools. But if the firmware is proprietary, what you are doing is incorporating proprietary software into your life -- a harmful act to the world around you. And the control you get is illusory and fleeting - it will work until it doesn't, and then you have no idea why. It behaves *like almost-impossible to troubleshoot hardware*.>Taking away a capability from users to use as they wish is not giving them freedom.the analogous situation is this"Not being able to run proprietary software on my free OS doesn't make you more free" Perhaps so - having some functionality to load firmware even proprietary firmware is justifiable. Just like being able to run proprietary games on linux is desirable by some people. But the actual loading of that firmware is an antisocial and harmful act, and an act that introduces an incredible amount of complexity and distrust into a device and a situation. And in fact, not having proprietary games *does* make you more free, even if you *can* install it -- to a measurable amount. Similarly for firmware: most non-cpu devices will simply not work if the firmware isn't present. Perhaps there are some that will work more poorly - that is a *hardware design flaw*.Generally speaking, however, take your issues about being *allowed* or not to upload oem-poisoned firmware to someone else. I'm not stopping you from uploading firmware on your own hardware. But it'll stay as disabled as I can make it on mine.
(DIR) Post #AvGv10JnMJGX4gObWC by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-19T00:32:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika Many of the firmware vulnerabilities are found by security researchers publishing information on them.Taking away choices from users and hiding important information from them is not protecting their freedom.Assuring people's insecurity is not managing the complexity of the devices. You don't like the way it works in practice so you'd rather force them to be terrible and will mislead people into it.
(DIR) Post #AvGv118UJpobbu75X6 by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-19T00:46:45.772657Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika >Many of the firmware vulnerabilities are found by security researchers publishing information on them.publishing...where? To who? And now we have to trust not just the manufacturer of the firmware but some rando 'researchers' with no vetting? "just trust me" code is not security, it is the opposite of security. "just trust some rando" is even worse.> Taking away choices from users and hiding important information from them is not protecting their freedom.The ones "hiding important information" are those who manufacture proprietary firmware updates. > Assuring people's insecurity is not managing the complexity of the devices. Sure it is. > You don't like the way it works in practice so you'd rather force them to be terrible and will mislead people into it."the way it works in practice" to who? Microsoft?? To my devices it doesn't work that way, and for anyone who listens to me.
(DIR) Post #AvGvPsP5vDjZlejbrU by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-19T00:51:16.278882Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @lxo @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris >Most people find it to be ridiculous nonsense, not only us.Appealing to the *appearnce* of ridiculousness is a logical fallacy. What's *actually* ridiculous is expecting us to trust a firmware update on faith alone.
(DIR) Post #AvGwQCsnsfQ5EkLtcu by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-19T01:00:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
sorry to disappoint you, I won't stoop down to name calling like thatthat you don't understand and misrepresent our principles doesn't entitle you to as much as claim you disagree with it, or to make false statements and incorrect assessments about it.let me try to present it in terms that will hopefully make sense to you.a rock respects your freedom. it does nothing. it sits there, without denying you freedom. that's what "respecting freedom" means. it doesn't mean enabling you to do things, it means not standing in the way of your doing things. got it?a piece of computing hardware doesn't normally stop you from doing such things as studying it, changing it, or copying it; that these activities are often impossible is not a consequence of someone's evil plan to block you from doing them, but from the nature of computing hardware. ICs are not transparent, not amenable to modification, and require extremely expensive equipment to make. so there are difficulties, but it's not necessarily like the hardware (or someone designing it) is actively placing roadblocks to stop you from doing those things (I'm sure there are exceptions, and they should be dealt with as such), it's just that these freedoms are not readily available for hardware as they are with softwarethis is true whether components of the hardware are hard circuits, programmable circuits, or programs equivalent to circuits. when one replaces a hardware circuit with an equivalent program, there's no loss of freedom for users, and there's generally no ill motive for the replacement.now, if the program is taken out of the black box, then it takes an active decision to keep it proprietary, to deprive users of freedom over a program they can no longer be oblivious to. that's the very same ethical issue that's brought about the free software movement, and also free hardware and even free culture, to some extent.so, no, we're not saying the black box is free, or that some software hidden in it is free; but we do say that it respects your software freedom, because whatever software there is inside the black box is immaterial, and it might as well have been hardware proper, without any (further) freedom deprivation. it doesn't boost your freedom, but it doesn't deprive it either, it merely respects it, i.e., it leaves your freedom alone.hopefully this will help you avoid embarrassing yourself by uttering nonsense about that which you do not understandCC: @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social
(DIR) Post #AvGwkHpJD5NiMRIBWq by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-19T01:02:28Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
you know that saying about projections that every accusation is a confession? well... I have bad news for youCC: @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social
(DIR) Post #AvGwu8QH1nOw5jHJpo by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-19T00:57:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo You want people to trust software on faith alone based on licensing. You also expect them to trust the hardware and firmware on faith alone as long as it doesn't allow updating the firmware. You folks simultaneously promote proprietary hardware/firmware while telling people they can't trust proprietary software. There's no consistency or logic to it. You pretend to care about things you clearly don't to sell people on the strange ideology.
(DIR) Post #AvGwu9hgGYv440Qjbc by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-19T01:00:33Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo If you want us to respect your views on it, start being consistent by not drawing an arbitrary line where blocking updating firmware/software makes it not count. If you stop doing that the focus could be on making actually open and freedom respecting hardware instead of playing games pretending hardware/firmware isn't proprietary if it can't be updated or that it's not relevant in the same ways. As is it's just unserious and downright silly.
(DIR) Post #AvGx1190UIIzXpU3hg by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-19T01:09:11.400674Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo I think the compromise here is acknowledging there's prorprietary firmware bits on existing hardware to get rid of, and not adding to them, but something tells me you don't agree with that.
(DIR) Post #AvGxAZcZfliF4xs1yq by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-19T01:09:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
indeed, we don't have a monopoly on ethics. we don't even have a monopoly on the ethical foundations upon which the movement is built, such as the golden rule, that we shouldn't do unto others if we don't wish it done unto ourselves.it's very common for those who have become dependent on those who mistreat us all to turn against us, as if we were the ones doing the mistreating. because of their dependency, they don't see that the harm comes from those who mistreat us. our standing against the mistreatment is not wrong; giving it to it, and enticing others to join in tolerating the mistreatment is.rational people can see that further empowering the abusive parties won't solve the problem; that making it more difficult for them to infiltrate and navigate in our free cyberspace is more conducive of a solution that allowing them to rein in. but those who've become dependent on them often resent that the abusers' hooks aren't welcome.CC: @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social
(DIR) Post #AvGy1IN0XgdwvKjG4G by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-19T01:19:00Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
no, sir, thinking that freedom arises from licensing is a view very alien to that of the movement I espouse. it is one that is frequently pushed by confused open source promoters, though.you gain trust over something by inspecting its behavior and/or its blueprints. the former is how we make science out of things that don't have blueprints available; the latter is how we deal with man-made artifacts whose inner workings are relevant/essential to our uses thereof. when it comes to IT and avoiding its use as a tool of control over us, the former works for hardware, and to simple software that doesn't change from under us; the latter is required for most other software. without blueprints (that change along with the objects, when you wish to change them), analysis of unchanging behavior is what remains, and then, the older the thing is, the more likely it is that we have a solid picture of how it behaves.CC: @jeffcliff@shitposter.world @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @toatrika@plasmatrap.com
(DIR) Post #AvGyQnpihU0rkDK0oq by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-19T00:34:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris You are removing security patches and removing security warnings. You are misleading users and tricking them into having insecure devices while convincing them they're better off based on your ideology. You are not fighting for freedom, privacy and security. You are fighting for completely arbitrary rules where blocking people updating components somehow cancels out the fact that they're proprietary. That has nothing to do with what you claim to value.
(DIR) Post #AvGyQoswmyBl0Vq6UK by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-19T01:23:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
either name the security warnings we're supposedly removing, or admit (implicitly) to spreading misinformationCC: @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social
(DIR) Post #AvGyX1aqSBT89rKaDw by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-19T01:25:50Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo The eventual goal is that we want open hardware, open firmware and open software with a balance of privacy, security, usability and compatibility. What we make today is what we are capable of doing which balancing priorities. Our specific focus differentiating what we are working towards from other projects is serious work on privacy and security. Current software, firmware and hardware has atrocious privacy and security. It is our focus.
(DIR) Post #AvGyeRaODCQcneeiNU by jeffcliff@shitposter.world
2025-06-19T01:27:31.145264Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo That's nice stop using github
(DIR) Post #AvGyiyhB3Np6e4zbTE by mischievoustomato@tsundere.love
2025-06-19T01:28:20.249995Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@jeffcliff @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo github is fine
(DIR) Post #AvGyyjJY0YRDZiS1mS by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-19T01:29:34Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
try finding that line here: https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/draft/blob-fallacyas in, try to understand something before implying you disagree with itCC: @jeffcliff@shitposter.world @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @toatrika@plasmatrap.com
(DIR) Post #AvH0lRiMKekn8MqlPs by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-06-19T01:41:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lxo @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris linux-libre removes warnings about outdated microcode. The warnings exist due to known security patches. Nothing about that is misinformation. Many of the security vulnerabilities are public knowledge and that includes ways to exploit them, so it's possible to test for whether they are patched or not separately from microcode versions. Not shipping microcode/firmware updates means not patching vulnerabilities. Removing warnings about it is hiding that.
(DIR) Post #AvH0lSsK16JijYWEaG by lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br
2025-06-19T01:49:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I know it removes pointers to blobs and recommendations thereof, including to microcode. but the warnings about microcode vulnerabilities should be there. what is the warning message about microcode vulnerabilities (rather than recommendations to install microcode with wider vulnerabilities) that you expected but that we've supposedly removed?CC: @SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social
(DIR) Post #AvHePrKQPq5sMzusaW by churkia@cum.salon
2025-06-19T09:15:27.678623Z
2 likes, 3 repeats
@GrapheneOS @jeffcliff @Starkimarm @tris @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo why did u upload daisys destruction to calyx os xmpp
(DIR) Post #Awhv3z3eNzO6B5nkp6 by pernia@cum.estate
2025-07-31T23:16:36.701234Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris >jeez, software i have never used nor have a use case for isn't my definition of free? that means it doesn't work!>i prefer decisions by proyects with completely different goals that achieve comparatively nothing!>anyways, i don't even use phoneswhy are gnuniggers like this. what insect got into your head.
(DIR) Post #AwhvgFj8rHygsfSNoO by pernia@cum.estate
2025-07-31T23:23:31.203207Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo isn't utility a requirement? would you use a free toaster if what you needed was an oven?
(DIR) Post #AwhwzRWRKQvqv2EJuK by pernia@cum.estate
2025-07-31T23:38:11.813489Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sun @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @lxo free software like ssh, openssl, clang, toybox, BSD (which released one of the first, if not the first tcp/ip implementation to the public, among other things)?gnu niggers will claim they invented the world. they've only set everyone back
(DIR) Post #Awidz5dazVCL4eegHw by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T07:39:51.045Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pernia@cum.estate @sun@shitposter.world @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br Without pressure from the free softward movement BSD would've never become free either
(DIR) Post #AwivR57AEBOWmTQ1Ka by pernia@cum.estate
2025-08-01T10:55:29.616230Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @tris you are a stupid fucking cocksucker. just the dumbest piece of shit. i don't expect less of a gnu nigger, i physically can only picture the worst.The first release of BSD, 1BSD, is older than the FSF. It was distributed unencumbered, on a tapedrive, for 50 USD, around UC Berkley and other colleges, with sources and binaries. Bill Joy wasn't gonna get royalties from you either, that shit was yours to keep, sell, whatever, as far as anyone was concerned.even if the FSF and the free software movement had started in the age of dinosaurs, even if richard stallman himself had held the people at berkley at gunpoint, that shit was gonna be free. It was shared freely before it was even a full OS. No one "pressured" anyone to do anything, if anything, AT&T pressured the CSRG to replace the dependance on propietary Unix code with free code. you are fighting to demostrate a sliver of relevance of your retarded hippy nigger proyect and failing.The one regrettable thing in BSD's history is that BSDi vs. USL lawsuit that set back releases of BSD 2 years. Linus Torvalds himself said Linux wouldn't have been created had BSD complete then. Perhaps GNU would've died 20 years earlier than it did and we wouldn't have to deal with its utter dogshit software and its worthless, subhuman community. But alas.
(DIR) Post #AwivoKGC5BpoPlj4y0 by pernia@cum.estate
2025-08-01T10:59:41.823226Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @Starkimarm @sun @toatrika @tris muting thread, i wont fall for this bait again. kill all gnuniggers, hang all gnuniggers, boil gnuniggers in feces, etc.
(DIR) Post #AwiwfQ6n4MMTtue3M0 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T11:09:12.307Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pernia@cum.estate @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @tris@chaos.social The first release of BSD, 1BSD, is older than the FSF. It was distributed unencumberedThat's not true, the original BSD distributions contained proprietary code from Unix all the way until the 90s.Indeed one of the reasons why Unix code got removed BSD was because of the stupid AT&T lawsuit, I agree.But the very first version of BSD that was free was 386BSD in 1992. Keith Bostic, who spend 4 years (from 1988 to 1992) removing proprietary code from BSD in 1988, said the following (direct quote) "I think it's highly unlikely that we ever would have gone as strongly as we did without the GNU influence"Without GNU, there would not have been an unencumbered version of BSD, or at least it would've arrived much later.Linus Torvalds himself said Linux wouldn't have been created had BSD complete then.That is totally fine. I find it likely to believe that in this potential alternative timeline GNU would've probably continued development without Linux. I don't think the project would've died.
(DIR) Post #Awix6oZCF60PZiziN6 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T11:14:12.058Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@pernia@cum.estate @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @tris@chaos.social You can call me all the profanities you want but without the work of Keith, Stallman and the GNU project the BSD project probably would've have been free until at least 1996.
(DIR) Post #AwjDKomvoXLLaD7OBU by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T14:15:55.956377Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @tris If it's ROM, it's not software, it's hardware - as nobody can change it - it's irrelevant that the circuits happen to encode microprocessor instructions - the only question is if there is a malicious circuit.
(DIR) Post #AwjEmHvvf3TFkQzOpE by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T14:32:10.506406Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris >That is what your "libre" projects do. They mislead people, hide important information from them and leave them vulnerable. Ah yes, the libre projects that document the problems are misleading people.Replicant doesn't hide things, the problems are documented;https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/GalaxySIIGTI9100https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/GalaxyS2I9100LoadedFirmwareshttps://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/I9100BootloaderNo free software program prevents the user from loading anything - the user is free to load whatever they want, or not load what they don't want.It's only proprietary software that prevents the user from loading what they want and prevents them from not loading what they don't want.Meanwhile, GrapheneOS ships a crapload of proprietary software, seemingly without even properly documenting it! (you need to look through the release images and work out which parts are proprietary?).When it come to proprietary mobile software, you are honestly vulnerable no matter what, as such software is always backdoored; https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/SamsungGalaxyBackdoorTelling the truth is "attacking people with false claims"?
(DIR) Post #AwjFzVqBMi8obEAfOS by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T14:45:46.725780Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tris @SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo GNU/Linux-libre likely has hundreds of thousands, or millions of installs (as that's what Trisquel and other free distro's are) - but it's hard to arrive at a specific number, as the users are not spied on.
(DIR) Post #AwjG8SU3DRD2nJ5KS0 by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T14:47:24.607Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @tris@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br It's probably actually very safe to say that many more people use GNU/Linux-libre as GrapheneOS is only limited to Google devices while GNU/Linux-libre runs on almost everything.
(DIR) Post #AwjGGdJyo1P6itGwds by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T14:48:53.984119Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tris @SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo GNU/Linux-libre likely has hundreds of thousands, or millions of installs (as that's what Trisquel and other free distro's are) - but it's hard to arrive at a specific number, as the users are not spied on.
(DIR) Post #AwjGfAbygWYIvAOIMa by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T14:53:18.389207Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@mangeurdenuage @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo There is the GPLv2 and GPLv3.Neither of those licenses require anything if you haven't distributed the software.Requiring people to work out that x package is used and demanding the source code is not compliant distribution (although nobody will really care if you actually supply the actual source code, of the correct version) - depending on the distribution method, there needs to be a written offer, or the source needs to be included, etc.There is the AGPLv1, AGPLv2 and AGPLv3.The AGPLv3-or-later does not require code be public by default - you don't have to do anything if you don't distribute or modify the software.It's only if you modify the software does the users of the network service need to be provided the source code (such modified versions do not need to be public - those only need to be available to the users for the network service - although the users may choose to make the modified versions publicly available, as that's freedom).
(DIR) Post #AwjHXj62ge7tVmT3lQ by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:03:09.259813Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @tris @pernia All BSDs I've looked at contain many unlicensed files and lots of proprietary software, thus the BSDs are in fact still proprietary.
(DIR) Post #AwjHkqDxUuWrNlQMTY by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T15:05:32.690511Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun
(DIR) Post #AwjHrThFeXAZXdI3hA by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:06:44.281354Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @tris @pernia GNU would have put more work into development of the Hurd (which started before Linux) without Linux and arrived at a convenient enough, fully free OS, that would have stayed free a couple of years later.BSD code was pretty much unusable at the time, as the licensing was not in order (much of it still isn't).
(DIR) Post #AwjI8K1Yrrk4Swp1IO by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:09:46.813089Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@pernia @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo >free software like sshYes, openssh is the single free software package from the BSDs that is technically superior to other ssh implementations - it still relies on GNU libraries and others on GNU/Linux.>opensslIt seems that relies on GNU and it could not have been written without GNU.>clangClang could not have been written if it wasn't for GCC.>toyboxThat garbage is as useful as a box of toys.>BSDAll BSDs are proprietary software.
(DIR) Post #AwjIIccUaIN72F0WR6 by sendpaws@mitra.pawslut.party
2025-08-01T15:11:39.918996Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun every open source project needs Jerry Springer as the wallpaper now
(DIR) Post #AwjIQvcHq5DAGjs87E by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T15:13:09.703713Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sendpaws @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun I only care about Linux for the e-drama. The software, I could take it or leave it.
(DIR) Post #AwjIgc3WKiXcEg5bVo by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T15:15:59.541031Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo This is like Dennis Ritchie taking credit for Doom
(DIR) Post #AwjIhbil40lxUEqtl2 by sendpaws@mitra.pawslut.party
2025-08-01T15:16:11.341607Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun rss feed on the desktop of the latest mailing list and fedi fightsAll with missing features and a torrent client for downloading Windows 11 24h2 ISO
(DIR) Post #AwjIqjl8Xwyz1WJn2u by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:17:48.075332Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun >"Open"BSD developers are liars that accuse other people of being wrong.Colour me surprised.There is no meaningful difference between a ports tree full of proprietary binaries and a ports tree full of makefiles that go and download proprietary binaries.The src tree of "Open"BSD (installed by default) contains proprietary software and thenfore "Open"BSD is proprietary software;Proprietary license;https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/atmel/atmel_at76c503_i3863_fw.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/atmel/atmel_at76c503_rfmd2_fw.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/atmel/atmel_at76c503_rfmd_acc_fw.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/atmel/atmel_rfmd2958-smc_fw.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/atmel/atmel_rfmd2958_fw.h?rev=1.2&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/atmel/atmel_rfmd_fw.h?rev=1.2&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/urtwn/microcode.h?rev=1.2&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/rsu/microcode.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/rtwn/microcode.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/tusb3410/tusb3410.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainWeak license, no source code;https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/adw/adwmcode.c?rev=1.9&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/adw/advmcode.c?rev=1.2&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/afb/microcode.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/bnx/bnxfw.h?rev=1.6&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/cyclades/cyzfirm.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/esa/esadsp.h?rev=1.3&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/asm_1040.h?rev=1.3&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/asm_1080.h?rev=1.3&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/asm_12160.h?rev=1.5&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/asm_2100.h?rev=1.7&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/asm_2200.h?rev=1.8&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/asm_2300.h?rev=1.6&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/asm_2400.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/asm_2500.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/asm_sbus.h?rev=1.7&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/isp/Attic/asm_pci.h?rev=1.8.2.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/kue/kue_fw.h?rev=1.2&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/myx/eth_z8e.h?rev=1.3&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/myx/ethp_z8e.h?rev=1.3&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/myx/Attic/myxfw.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/neomagic/neo-coeff.h?rev=1.3&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/typhoon/3c990img.h?rev=1.6&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/zydas/microcode.h?rev=1.3&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/ral/microcode.h?rev=1.9&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/rum/microcode.h?rev=1.6&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/symbol/spectrum24t_cf.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/tht/microcode.h?rev=1.4&content-type=text/plainNo license;https://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/cyclades/cyzfirm.h?rev=1.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/tigon/ti_fw.h?rev=1.1.2.1&content-type=text/plainhttps://cvsweb.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb/~checkout~/src/sys/dev/microcode/tigon/ti_fw2.h?rev=1.1.2.1&content-type=text/plain
(DIR) Post #AwjJ11ngKE6fsAPpaa by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:19:40.273578Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo Dennis Richie did do a lot of the work designing the language DOOM is written in (C).Why would you deny Richie credit for C?
(DIR) Post #AwjJHPiVAjeWgJo2ZU by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T15:22:38.810847Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo I don't deny him credit for C, I deny him credit for Doom, in the same way I don't list the inventor of the cardboard box as a co-founder of Amazon.
(DIR) Post #AwjK2DxkguAXpzGCEy by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:31:04.863640Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo No-one invented the cardboard box - a bunch of different people decided to fold cardboard into a box and saw how well it worked.To deny that Dennis did anything to allow for DOOM denies him credit for C.To deny that GNU packages that are being used as GNU libraries, buildsystems and tools is denying GNU credit for GNU.I am not giving credit to rms - I am not asking you to call Linux; "Stallmanx".All I am asking is that credit is given to GNU for things that GNU is doing, rather than such credit being excluded.
(DIR) Post #AwjKp3A9dLgEX1LLKC by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T15:39:55.624430Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo No, you're downplaying the work of everyone else in favor of your surrogate father figure. I've never seen you insist on everyone crediting Theo deRaadt in their software, despite OpenSSH being used everywhere.
(DIR) Post #AwjLBh8xfOxSttaDOC by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:43:59.425601Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo I have never insisted that openssh be called some other name and I do state that openssh comes from the BSDs.I don't go running around demanding that people call things "Stallmanx" do I?GNU does not necessarily imply rms.But people run around insisting that all the credit goes to Linu(s)x and you're not complaining about that?Linux implies Linus.
(DIR) Post #AwjLVFJqpJomOe01dA by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T15:47:33.039892Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo Please refer to GNU, Linux, and GNU/Linux as OpenSSH/GNU, OpenSSH/Linux, and OpenSSH/GNU/Linux from now on please.
(DIR) Post #AwjLYbbmPdkWOTzHSC by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T15:48:10.172Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker@cawfee.club @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social @pernia@cum.estate @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br But not all installations of GNU/Linux are running OpenSSH.
(DIR) Post #AwjLo1K75RekUX4fdw by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T15:50:57.074259Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris @pernia All installations of GNU/Linux uses software that relied on OpenSSH at some point in their development process and therefore should credit OpenSSH.
(DIR) Post #AwjM4FbbknOjQ6zqa0 by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:53:52.436606Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo If you feel that openssh deserves mention, you should call it GNU/OpenSSH/Linux; https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#manyI would prefer to run GNU ssh really (GNU's ssh implementation is quite old).
(DIR) Post #AwjMJkIhucHwxmXp2W by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T15:56:40.412001Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo No it's OpenSSH/GNU, stop trying to make your piddly project co-opt the top billing.
(DIR) Post #AwjMMu4e23V28vTMKe by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:57:14.443497Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo Some people do not use ssh, or use ssh for development and therefore it is not true that all packages on GNU/Linux relied on openssh during their development process.The same is true for Linux - some people develop on GNU/kBSD's or GNU/Hurd or GNU with another proprietary kernel - thus Linux can be excluded from the same, although it is included to give credit where credit is due for GNU/Linux.But if you want to develop something that is free software, you'll certainly need GNU.
(DIR) Post #AwjMU4qAOvKVYt7a2y by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T15:58:31.771172Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@Suiseiseki @parker @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo Linus Torvalds wrote the Linux kernel, sparking the open-source movement that successfully built an operating system around it. Your moobment‘s kernel doesn’t even work on real hardware because nobody likes you or wants to work with you, precisely because of these kinds of autistic semantics. Deal with it.
(DIR) Post #AwjMW8kwoTD6HlfDgO by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T15:58:54.433571Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @pernia @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo GNU long predates OpenSSH and GNU is clearly far more substantial than OpenSSH.
(DIR) Post #AwjMejIgpIJ1wTXg8W by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:00:28.994681Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Suiseiseki @parker @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo GNU is a part of a standard Linux operating system (exceptions prove the rule). Linus did not create GNU. These statements are not mutually exclusive.
(DIR) Post #AwjMfpoc5cFKRB08Ku by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:00:38.936Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @parker@cawfee.club @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social @pernia@cum.estate @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br GNU/Hurd actually works on real hardware, but the choices are just very limited. GNU/Linux is a much better option because it has had much more development effort put into it. We all realize that.
(DIR) Post #AwjMlTxaGBNyOLtEuW by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:01:40.338Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga@poa.st @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @parker@cawfee.club @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br Linus wrote a kernel for the GNU operating system. He even said that himself in the early days.
(DIR) Post #AwjN4ezTTONg6Wv2Qq by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:05:07.952209Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq >@toatrika@plasmatrap.com @sun @lxo >sparking the open-source movement "open source" infidelity didn't begin until 1998 and that had nothing to do with Linus - it was Christine Peterson, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond who pushed the term, none of which have much to do with Linux.Linux was released as proprietary software in 1991 and became proprietary software again in 1996, thus it clearly has nothing to do with "open source".The "open source" movement was build on top of the GNU/Linux OS, as an attack against those who made it all possible.>that successfully built an operating system around itGNU built the OS, that many others added too - including Linus, who added a substantial missing piece.>Your moobment‘s kernel doesn’t even work on real hardware What are you trying to achieve by lying to someone who knows about such things?GNU has multiple kernels that all work.GNU GRUB's kernel works on real hardware.GNU Linux-libre works on real hardware.GNU Hurd works on real hardware, although it has a limited amount of drivers (unlike a certain BSD, no GNU/Hurd OS image that only boots on a VM has been released).
(DIR) Post #AwjNGz9qJkd87ve6fA by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:07:21.993Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @BionicNigga@poa.st @Starkimarm@23.social @parker@cawfee.club @tris@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br Don't forget GNU/kFreeBSD
(DIR) Post #AwjNRsMxtfCSG5ycKW by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:09:20.021623Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo If it has GNU, it's clearly not a "Linux operating system" is it?That makes a GNU/Linux or LiGNUx operating system.Linux is clearly not an operating system, as alone it is not a system that operates.
(DIR) Post #AwjNWzcsLPHaDErIdk by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:10:17.057969Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @BionicNigga @Starkimarm @sun @parker @lxo @tris There is also GNU/kWindows, but the kernels of "Free"BSD and windows are clearly not GNU.
(DIR) Post #AwjNXnYKiZMH3d7NVA by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:10:25.709401Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @sun @lxo > GRUBlmao f outta here> Linux-libreOh dear, you wouldn’t be taking credit for other people’s software now, would you? Unless you really think that simply removing bits that don’t pass your ideological purity test makes you the author of a piece of software.
(DIR) Post #AwjNb8W1EfVEwOcx8K by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:11:00.928Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @BionicNigga@poa.st @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @parker@cawfee.club @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social That is true bit adds to list of kernels that technically work with the GNU operating system.
(DIR) Post #AwjNiHrcsP0dxh8xoe by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:12:20.416141Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Suiseiseki @SuperDicq @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @toatrika @sun @lxo No such thing. You may however be thinking of the original Windows Subsystem for Linux which provided compatibility for Linux binaries such as bash. :trollface:
(DIR) Post #AwjNjW8bIBkGWLfapE by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T16:12:32.498293Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @BionicNigga @sun @lxo All insisting on GNU does is make people not want to say GNU. Unless you're autistic, in which case you were probably already saying it.
(DIR) Post #AwjNoWu9rrz2LcIwzY by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:13:25.631Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker@cawfee.club @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @Starkimarm@23.social @tris@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @BionicNigga@poa.st @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br Not insisting on GNU also doesn't make people say GNU. So what should we do instead according to you?
(DIR) Post #AwjNsIcAwKdbBbgtRw by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:14:08.829942Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo If it has systemd, it's clearly not a "Linux operating system" is it?That makes a systemd/Linux or Lisystemdx operating system.Linux is clearly not an operating system, as alone it is not a system that operates.
(DIR) Post #AwjNx2ijSgZXL51HUG by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:14:58.674Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga@poa.st @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @Starkimarm@23.social @parker@cawfee.club @tris@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br Again just like the OpenSSH example, not all GNU/Linux systems run systemd.
(DIR) Post #AwjO15kW8u8jtImkcK by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T16:15:43.212712Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @toatrika @BionicNigga @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Absolutely nothing. If someone is the kind of person to say GNU, they'll figure it out themselves without you nannying them. Otherwise all you're doing is making people think "man, that stallman guy really is a cunt, his Free software movement must be really stupid"
(DIR) Post #AwjO3QcjVF4ND9G57A by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:16:08.479783Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @sun @lxo GNU Linux-libre clearly states that it is a set of cleaning scripts that take Linux and removes the proprietary software and proprietary software loading machinery.Nobody else is GNU enough to get such important work done and credit is due for such work.Removing the proprietary software has practical benefits - one is that it is actually possible to distribute Linux without infringing its license (if you infringe Linux's license by distributing it combined with proprietary software, your license is immediately terminated).
(DIR) Post #AwjO55QZHTXW3FMJxA by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:16:27.830991Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @parker @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris Stop caring and write software that people actually like and want to use. There’s a small chance that the former at least falls within the realm of possibility.
(DIR) Post #AwjO6rZDmhozdwFmiG by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:16:44.705Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker@cawfee.club @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @BionicNigga@poa.st @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social I'm pretty sure a lot of people would've not been aware of the GNU project if people didn't insist on calling it GNU/Linux.
(DIR) Post #AwjO95FTt61oeg4y6S by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:17:10.785031Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @sun @lxo > GNU Linux-libre clearly states that it is a set of cleaning scriptsOh, so you don’t have a kernel.
(DIR) Post #AwjOAsd3mJqM5wxrlY by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:17:28.748Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga@poa.st @parker@cawfee.club @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social The GNU project both develops software that many people like and want to use, but they also complain and for good reason if you ask me.
(DIR) Post #AwjODBVCZxWfCzO6s4 by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:17:55.144185Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @parker @lxo @tris I definitely see a lot of the latter.
(DIR) Post #AwjOHhmaVFnuTzfwqO by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:18:43.329685Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@parker @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @BionicNigga @sun @lxo Most people have never heard of GNU - only "Linux".If people learn that GNU actually exists and it is a free software OS, written to respect the users freedom, that is a small victory.I was professionally diagnosed as not autistic.
(DIR) Post #AwjOJYFaukk9Uy7isq by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:19:03.700Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga@poa.st @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @Starkimarm@23.social @sun@shitposter.world @parker@cawfee.club @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br @tris@chaos.social You're probably not even aware of how much GNU software you run on a daily basis.
(DIR) Post #AwjOK01NfC0jczglcG by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:19:08.841750Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Suiseiseki @parker @Starkimarm @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo (translation: he’s autistic by choice)
(DIR) Post #AwjOLyy6Y5TUwS6O5Q by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:19:29.657157Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @BionicNigga @Starkimarm @sun @parker @lxo @tris https://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.htmlI myself never realized GNU existed until I saw GNU/Linux.
(DIR) Post #AwjOMmrn1q8HhLX3BY by parker@cawfee.club
2025-08-01T16:19:38.273303Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @toatrika @BionicNigga @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris I'm sure you're about to tell us all about it
(DIR) Post #AwjORT1kDcPNcCQ5xo by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:20:29.238816Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @parker @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @lxo @tris You’re a troon insisting on xir pronouns.
(DIR) Post #AwjObLTZ9IIp5i8xIO by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:22:16.141814Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo "WSL1" was a release of GNU without Linux - resulting in GNU/kWindows.Bash doesn't care about what kernel you use - it is linked to glibc.For GNU/kWindows, there was a proprietary library that re-implemented Linux's SYCALLs, to allow versions of glibc compiled to use Linux SYSCALLs to perform operations without Linux.
(DIR) Post #AwjOgnvwlrq2nc1OSW by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:23:16.542930Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@SuperDicq @Suiseiseki @GrapheneOS @toatrika @Starkimarm @sun @parker @lxo @tris Not much, being someone who likes his computer to actually work. :retro_apple:
(DIR) Post #AwjOkGk07f230p5OBk by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:23:53.936184Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @sun As stated multiple times, GNU has multiple kernels and Linux is only one of them.
(DIR) Post #AwjOpKgItqeEgHls1I by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:24:48.867550Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @sun LiGNU balls
(DIR) Post #AwjOw7JqyhqBGZVNya by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:26:02.024242Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @toatrika @sun @lxo >someone who likes his computer to actually work>apple logo.Lol, lmao.MacOS did include GNU software for quite a while, as well that was required to have a non-garbage OS experience (although much of that was later swapped out for inferior implementations under weak licenses).
(DIR) Post #AwjP2n12rcmsK7tD8a by SuperDicq@minidisc.tokyo
2025-08-01T16:27:14.616Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @BionicNigga@poa.st @Starkimarm@23.social @parker@cawfee.club @tris@chaos.social @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @toatrika@plasmatrap.com @sun@shitposter.world @lxo@snac.lx.oliva.nom.br I thought MacOS still included a lot of GNU software? Did this change?
(DIR) Post #AwjPHFvOB8FE2L8rM8 by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:29:50.743648Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @GrapheneOS @toatrika @BionicNigga @Starkimarm @sun @parker @lxo @tris I haven't recently checked, but it seems by default they no longer ship GNU, but it is possible to install GNU bash and gcc etc (although if the user tries to install gcc, LLVM/clang may get installed instead against the users wishes).There is the 3rd party "homebrew" package manager, that attempts to make macos usable by providing packages of GNU software and many other programs that work with GNU libraries.
(DIR) Post #AwjPOb6RpuRZkOocGO by Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com
2025-08-01T16:31:10.346626Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@BionicNigga @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @sun LiGNU/Ballx
(DIR) Post #AwjPSFpyqL9Ox3rAbw by BionicNigga@poa.st
2025-08-01T16:31:48.580731Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@Suiseiseki @Starkimarm @parker @tris @GrapheneOS @SuperDicq @sun Touché