Post B0tAOSn8UElayGAYz2 by fabio@manganiello.eu
(DIR) More posts by fabio@manganiello.eu
(DIR) Post #B0tAOSn8UElayGAYz2 by fabio@manganiello.eu
2025-12-02T11:45:45.121005Z
2 likes, 4 repeats
#Android is dead and we’d better all leave the ship before it sinks entirely.Earlier this year #Google already took bold steps in moving the development of several AOSP components behind closed doors, removing the open-source foundations of the project one component at the time.Options to unlock bootloaders on Android devices are also narrowing down. Xiaomi removed the ability to unlock the bootloader entirely in MIUI in August (after months spent making it ridiculously difficult), same for OnePlus, Samsung did so in July, and probably Google devices will soon follow suit.And let’s not mention the nightmare of the Play Integrity API that forces all Android developers to register through the Play Store and use Google’s signing keys, even if they don’t intend to distribute their apps through it.Sure, officially Google has taken a step back and has pledged to provide a way for developers and power-users to bypass those restrictions. But we can all expect it to be a cumbersome and change-prone process filled with ridiculous amounts of frictions at every step - and I wouldn’t even expect such a morally bankrupt company to keep maintaining this “sideloading” option.Google once competed with Apple for customers. But in a world where Google walks away from the biggest antitrust trial since 1998 with yet another slap on the wrist, competition is dead, and Google is taking notes from Apple about what they can legally get away with. And the EU, the biggest opposer of its anti-competitive acts, is also becoming softer with Big Tech - both because Vestager has left the job, and because being soft with trillion-dollar monopolist tech titans is seen as a sign of being “technologically competitive”.Your best bet is to purchase a Pixel 9a now, before more manufacturers decide to block bootloaders, and immediately flash it with #GrapheneOS.The long term plan would instead be to throw all of our efforts and energies on Linux phones. The folks at GrapheneOS are doing an amazing job and fighting against all kind of pressures, but at some point we should probably all just acknowledge that anything that is tainted with Android, or runs on a device intended only to run Android, is a liability, and we should no longer build solutions on top of hardware and software that we can no longer trust.Sailfish, PostmarketOS, UBPorts, MeeGo or whatever comes next must succeed. No matter the cost.
(DIR) Post #B0tAOUa5phWQWO5Avo by truls46@mastodon.social
2025-12-02T11:52:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio I hope the rumors that Graphene is talking to a manufacturer to get rid of the Pixel requirement turn out to be true (and result in an affordable phone)
(DIR) Post #B0tAOVXeGHA1V5wjlA by fabio@manganiello.eu
2025-12-02T11:59:47.607047Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@truls46 that’s going to be so hard…a lot of their modifications to the vanilla Android images specifically target Pixel phones, as other manufacturers made it much harder to change those things on their systems.I can see GrapheneOS supporting at some point something like Motorola or Nokia devices that are still close enough to vanilla Android handhelds. But Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo and all the Chinese crap riddled with unmodifiable customizations (and which is making it impossible to even unblock the bootloader) will IMHO be very unlikely.
(DIR) Post #B0tAOWYkTfdQenT876 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T00:50:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio @truls46 GrapheneOS is based on the Android Open Source Project, not the stock OS. It matters very little what an OEM does in their stock OS forked from AOSP. Contrary to what's claimed in the original post, AOSP is fully open source and no part of the hardware-independent OS code has been moved behind closed doors. Android 16 stopped providing as much in AOSP for Pixels as previous releases. Android 16 QPR1 release to AOSP was significantly delayed, but not due to what you're saying.
(DIR) Post #B0tAOXaCfkOPpb9o1I by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T00:51:54Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio @truls46 Android 16 QPR2 was released yesterday and pushed to AOSP on day 1. There was no delay, and we don't expect delays for subsequent releases. There was chaos for Android due to layoffs and other issues. They seemed to want to release Android 16 QPR1 in a properly working state for AOSP without major bugs not present in the Pixel OS due to it using a different launcher, etc. The delay seems based around there being some bugs they didn't have time to fix which we resolved in days.
(DIR) Post #B0tAOcx4i8euTytdrc by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T00:53:02Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio @truls46 We would have greatly preferred if they simply pushed the code on day 1. It doesn't matter if there are some issues they didn't notice due to using different apps in the Pixel OS. They should be properly testing AOSP quarterly releases too especially if they expect OEMs to be shipping quarterly releases in the future but clearly they weren't doing a good enough job. Android 16 QPR1 being delayed was not anything to do with Android being made closed and QPR2 was pushed on day 0.
(DIR) Post #B0tSmx2xRs4EvlOdea by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T00:28:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio Your claims about Android and the Android Open Source Project are extremely misinformed. AOSP has not made any part of the cross-platform OS closed source. The only changes to what's published was specifically for Pixels. They still provide most of what they did before for Pixels.A huge portion of the coverage of Android in tech media is inaccurate from people who don't understand it. Android releases were always developed behind closed doors and released as open source on launch day.
(DIR) Post #B0tSmyHsprbImLO4Ya by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T00:30:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio Devices disallowing installing another OS impacts any OS, not specifically ones based on the Android Open Source Project. Play Integrity API impacts any OS which wants to provide compatibility with those apps, not only the ones with a base OS based on the Android Open Source Project. You won't avoid either of those by moving to an OS based on the desktop Linux software stack.Planned checks for sideloaded apps don't apply to an AOSP-based OS not licensing Google Mobile Services anyway.
(DIR) Post #B0tSmz2g1t1z7THRUe by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T00:32:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio > The long term plan would instead be to throw all of our efforts and energies on Linux phones.Android Open Source Project and GrapheneOS are Linux distributions.Your first listed recommendation, SailfishOS, is a largely closed source operating. It doesn't have an equivalent to the Android Open Source Project. You're promoting moving from a high quality open source OS with strong privacy and security with lots of apps to a largely closed source OS with none of that.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn020Ls5UBfyQ5I by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T00:34:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio The operating systems you've listed have atrocious privacy and security. They massively roll those back to desktop operation system standards or below. It's the direct opposite of the direction taken by GrapheneOS.> that is tainted with Android, or runs on a device intended only to run Android, is a liabilityThis is nonsense, and you promote unsafe options without basic privacy and security over it. Those far less trustworthy and mislead people about what they're providing.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn1FVp8UDxrIimG by fabio@manganiello.eu
2025-12-04T01:14:51.276044Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS AOSP has not made any part of the cross-platform OS closed source. The only changes to what’s published was specifically for Pixels.Thanks for clarifying - this detail wasn’t actually reported by most of the tech outlets.Yes, I know that AOSP is still open.But I expressed my concern that this will keep being the case.We’re basically relying on the good faith of Google in releasing for free to everyone, and not only to commercial partners, the source code that they mostly develop in house - which I wouldn’t take so much for granted.Devices disallowing installing another OS impacts any OS, not specifically ones based on the Android Open Source Project.I’m very well aware of that.That’s why in other posts we argued that true peace of mind can only come once we also have friendly hardware producers onboard who won’t lock up their bootloaders without notice.Any other OS is still impacted by a dwindling number of devices supporting unlocking and many of those that do crippling functionality if you unlock. They’re even more impacted by a lack of compatibility and governments only supporting using Android/iOS. How do you think it addresses any of this?As me and others on this thread already proposed, by working with hardware manufacturers who are not jerks.Just like Graphene must rely on Google’s goodwill in keeping the AOSP open, it must also rely on its goodwill not to lock up the Pixel bootloaders in the next iterations. This is a liability.Partnering together with e.g. Fairphone, Purism or Jolla for example could help. Sure, they aren’t perfect, but your deep knowledge of the Android ecosystem and the best hardening practices could provide invaluable insights on how to build 100% (hardware and software) FOSS devices whose bootloaders won’t be suddenly permanently locked tomorrow.If instead most of your online activities focus on showing how much better your solution is compared to what everyone else provides, and how each other single hardware and OS manufacturer sucks, then these strategic partnerships are harder to forge.Your first listed recommendation, SailfishOS, is a largely closed source operating. It doesn’t have an equivalent to the Android Open Source Project. You’re promoting moving from a high quality open source OS with strong privacy and security with lots of apps to a largely closed source OS with none of that.To be clear, I’m a Graphene user myself, and I largely prefer it over most of the alternatives out there.But we should also acknowledge that there are multiple dimensions to take into account when considering Google Android alternatives.Some folks don’t want the full spyware package, but they are ok to accept the microG trade-offs if they come with the comfort of using some apps that rely on the Play Services. /e/, Iode or LineageOS could then be viable options.Other folks don’t want to have anything to do with anything touched by Google, and want to have a stack as similar as possible to their Linux desktop. And maybe also easy root access. For those folks UBPorts, PMOS or Sailfish can be ok, even if of course it means less security.Other folks want everything in their device to be FOSS. And for those, at the current state, an AOSP-based solution that doesn’t close up anything it builds on top of it is a better option than Sailfish (but hey you’ve also got PMOS that is actually open).Of course if you want something that is simultaneously 100% FOSS, de-Googled, secure and always up-to-date with the latest patches you go for Graphene. But there’s a whole spectrum of alternatives that it shouldn’t be ignored just because it accepts one trade-off or another.We discourage people from replacing a bunch of the core OS with a rootkit but do nothing which prevents doing it or makes it harder.Sorry, I used “make it harder” instead of “discouraging”. But the message is similar. Stuff like LineageOS actively provides guides on how to flash rootkit. GrapheneOS discourages it and offers no support to users who do it. People usually choose one or the other according to their needs. If I want a device where I can run my Termux scripts as root I probably would opt for Lineage, not Graphene, even if it’s technically possible on Graphene. And, of course, I take full responsibility of running custom scripts as root on my device. No need for anyone to remind me that it’s very insecure if it’s a trade-off I may accept (and no need to criticize those who accept those trade-offs).All in all, I love and I fully support what you’re building. But your aggressive interactions alienate people - and I don’t think I’m the only one here.Most of your posts fall along the lines of “look how much better/open/secure/purist what we build is compared to X, Y and Z - and whatever everyone else builds is awful”. And of course I acknowledge that your points are 100% valid most of the times, but they ignore that different people who choose de-Googled products may have different reasons and may accept different trade-offs, and they also ignore some of your own liabilities (like your reliance on Google’s goodwill both for AOSP and Pixels). This isn’t the kind of constructive behaviour that empowers communities.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn21MxCleMHgwN6 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:21:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio > Thanks for clarifying - this detail wasn’t actually reported by most of the tech outlets.Please correct your post which has been widely propagated and has already created a substantial workload for us correcting misconceptions.> But I expressed my concern that this will keep being the case.You're expressed that as part of a post with many inaccurate statements about it which has been widely spread and caused many people to misunderstand the situation and express concerns to us.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn2sXlVIn1CZPFo by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:22:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio > As me and others on this thread already proposed, by working with hardware manufacturers who are not jerks.We are working with a large Android OEM. It isn't easy to make a device with proper updates and hardware-based security features. We aimed to have it ready for 2026 but the Snapdragon flagship they're using had a deficiency for MTE support.> Fairphone, PurismBoth companies are scamming people with very false marketing for extremely insecure products without proper updates.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn3aV84SpDX8Vlo by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:24:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio Purism's devices are extraordinarily insecure. They falsely market them as open despite it being closed source hardware and firmware. The company is based around pretending closed source hardware and firmware is open because their OS doesn't provide firmware updates or load the firmware. They choose much less secure components based on avoiding loading firmware from the OS. They block updating some of it to conform to nonsensical rules making it less open and less secure.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn4BitgEp4yYEmu by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:25:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio Fairphone's devices are marketed as having good updates and long term support but it's not true. Fairphone 4 launched in the same month as the Pixel 6 in October 2021 but has an end-of-life 4.19 kernel branch they weren't updating and lags 1-2 months behind on incomplete privacy/security patch backports. Pixel 6 was on Linux 5.10 and moved to 6.1. It will likely move to 6.6 before end-of-life. Fairphone lags 1-3 years behind on major OS updates and spins that as longer support.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn4zhtqDjZzw9hI by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:26:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio When it takes Fairphone 3 years to ship a final major OS update, they portray it as providing 3 more years of OS updates than an OEM which shipped it 3 years earlier as their last major OS update. That doesn't make sense. It's an extremely misleading way to present things and they know it. Despite that, their marketing is heavily based around this.Fairphone 5 is not an old device but the kernel branch is end-of-life this month (December 2025). They weren't updating it anyway.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn5lD3EDZxKA5js by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:28:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio > If instead most of your online activities focus on showing how much better your solution is compared to what everyone else provides, and how each other single hardware and OS manufacturer sucks, then these strategic partnerships are harder to forge.We're addressing misconceptions and misinformation about GrapheneOS. Several of the companies you've promoted are heavily invested in misleading people about GrapheneOS with inaccurate claims. You've made the situation worse now.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn6Y87LLkP339zU by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:31:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio > Some folks don’t want the full spyware package, but they are ok to accept the microG trade-offs if they come with the comfort of using some apps that rely on the Play Services. /e/, Iode or LineageOS could then be viable options.GrapheneOS provides our own approach to this with a higher level of privacy, security, usability and app compatibility. microG is not the only project reimplementing Play services functionality, we're doing that ourselves while meeting our requirements.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn7b0E9F3eFOy6i by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:33:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio > For those folks UBPorts, PMOS or Sailfish can be ok, even if of course it means less security.These have very poor privacy and security, worse than even traditional desktop operating systems. SailfishOS is a closed source OS. We'll be making our own threads addressing it because you made your post.They're not avoiding Google. Google does most of the upstream Linux kernel hardening and fuzzing work. They contribute a massive amount to Linux, LLVM, GCC and many other projects.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn8EhqX07dNyfzc by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:34:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio > Stuff like LineageOS actively provides guides on how to flash rootkit. GrapheneOS discourages it and offers no support to users who do it. That's not true. LineageOS doesn't provide official documentation or support for it. They discourage it and leave it up to third parties. It's the same as GrapheneOS. Those third parties implementing their code modifying the OS provide the documentation and support for us.GrapheneOS doesn't provide official docs on userdebug builds with root.
(DIR) Post #B0tSn9LTiq0p4g9bBg by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:36:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio > All in all, I love and I fully support what you’re building. But your aggressive interactions alienate people - and I don’t think I’m the only one here.You're spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS while not correcting or retracting the inaccurate claims. This creates a massive workload for us needing to answer many people's panicked questions and concerns because of misinformation you're propagating. If you don't want us publishing as many threads about us, take down your post.
(DIR) Post #B0tSnATfVs9qaMzeam by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:38:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio Defending ourselves from people endlessly spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS is not aggression. Countering false marketing from for-profit companies enriching themselves from scamming people with false marketing including misinformation about GrapheneOS is not aggression. You claim that when we post accurate information about these things, it's somehow aggression. It's somehow fine for you to spread misinformation and refuse to correct or retract it but not for us to address it.
(DIR) Post #B0tSnB855cU4bhtvaC by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:41:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio > This isn’t the kind of constructive behaviour that empowers communities.You're misinforming people at scale with misinformation about GrapheneOS and the overall topic. You're doing the opposite of supporting actual privacy and security on mobile devices or independence from Google either. You're creating a substantial workload for us, taking away time from development and harming our ability to improve and expand the project. Using it while doing this makes it worse, not better.
(DIR) Post #B0tSnBw45mSz6jHqUa by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:46:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio If you leave up your post, we'll be publishing a detailed thread debunking the misconceptions, misinformation and the false marketing of the products which are being promoted. We'll explain the lack of privacy, security, usability and compatibility of those products along with the false marketing used to promote them. We'll explain that SailfishOS is in fact largely closed source contrary to the Android Open Source Project. Each of the products you've promoted can be addressed.
(DIR) Post #B0tSnCywCaMILvdebo by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T01:52:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fabio Posting accurate information to counter misconceptions, misinformation and false marketing which directly brings up GrapheneOS is not aggression. If you don't want us having to address these things then please stop creating the work for us. Your top-level post is highly inaccurate and should be taken down and retracted. We'll have to spend substantial time addressing the misconceptions you've propagated regardless of what you do now, but you could make it into much less work for us.
(DIR) Post #B0tSnDgtZ9WKYGCl7o by fabio@manganiello.eu
2025-12-04T01:58:32.766909Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS Purism’s devices are extraordinarily insecure.Fairphone’s devices are marketed as having good updates and long term support but it’s not true.These have very poor privacy and securityYou see the pattern here - and also in most of the other things you publish?I mean, from a technical point of view you’re 100% right. But does it give you the right to constantly criticize so much others who are trying to solve the same problem?Have you even talked to some folks from Fairphone, Purism or Jolla to understand if it’s even possible to help one another?Remember that hardware manufacturers who don’t allow users to unlock their bootloaders and companies who try to push their “Integrity APIs” are supposed to be the enemies here. Not Fairphone.They’re not avoiding Google. Google does most of the upstream Linux kernel hardening and fuzzing work. They contribute a massive amount to Linux, LLVM, GCC and many other projects.So by using Linux I’m not avoiding Google because Google engineers also contribute to the Linux kernel? Do you realize that this doesn’t make any sense?You should take down the highly inaccurate post you made and publish corrections for the majority inaccuracies. Otherwise, we’ll wait for peak hours and publish a thread directly addressing the misinformation, the unsafe products which are being promoted and how those products are falsely marketed in order to scam people for profit. If you don’t want us heavily investing in writing about this then stop propagating misinformation about GrapheneOS with the clear goal of promoting those.I had a lot of respect for you folks and for your work, but you’ve taken it all away.I still respect your work, to be clear, and I’m still a happy Graphene user.But I’m not sure if I respect someone who repeatedly threatens users on the Fediverse if they don’t take down their posts and spends all of their communication resources bitching about everyone else.I have edited the post to remove the link to the article that claimed that AOSP is being dismantled because it was objectively inaccurate.But everything else (from hardware manufacturers pulling back on unlocked bootloaders, to the Integrity API, to Google’s alarming monopolistic strategies, to the fact that relying on Google’s goodwill is a liability) is true. Why should I pull it down? And, in case you didn’t notice, I also stated in it:Your best bet is to purchase a Pixel 9a now, before more manufacturers decide to block bootloaders, and immediately flash it with #GrapheneOS.Why do you want me to pull it down then?Why have you been shouting “misinformation”, “misconception”, “false news” DOZENS of times in this thread?Why don’t you chill down and take a deep breath before hammering on the keyboard and giving everyone else the impression of a toxic bunch who hates everyone else?Because I also said that my long-term wish is to have a full Linux phone with open hardware and mainline kernel and I also mentioned a few of the alternatives?Do you realize how toxic you sound to anyone who reads your messages?
(DIR) Post #B0tSnEJXFUQeU6HcLw by nicholas@aklp.club
2025-12-04T04:24:23.236657Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Ngl, I think you're missing the forest for the trees a bit here. This isn't a silicon valley tech startup with community managers and a slick PR firm writing their press releases. It's a small team of borderline autists obsessed with mobile security. Yeah I'm sure it sucks to catch the aspirin spray, and no you didn't deserve to, but that same disagreeableness that makes the social interactions acrid at times pays dividends in the engineering bay. We can't all be good at everything and when it comes to security I'd much rather have a pit bull in my corner than a Bichon Frise even if it chews the couch cushions from time to time.
(DIR) Post #B0wDORMGhMm5rWA9AW by lispi314@udongein.xyz
2025-12-04T02:19:26.622987Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @fabio Is there a reason other than laziness why they don't reverse-engineer the firmware and write their own libre one?
(DIR) Post #B0wDOShDix820myOSu by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-04T18:04:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lispi314 @fabio Purism's primary goal maximizing revenue while minimal expenses. Secondary goal is fulfilling the nonsensical Respects Your Freedom standard.Under the Respects Your Freedom standard, a smartphone with completely closed source hardware, firmware and software would be considered fully freedom respecting as long as absolutely none of that can be updated over-the-air. If it can only be updated by opening up the case and flashing firmware, they consider it to be freedom respecting.
(DIR) Post #B0wDOTv5AtoLo4Syi8 by crying_drekavac@mastodon.social
2025-12-05T12:08:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @lispi314 @fabio I would consider it freedom respecting as well.
(DIR) Post #B0wDOUi0F0wWFnM2xk by lispi314@udongein.xyz
2025-12-05T12:14:32.020534Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@crying_drekavac @GrapheneOS @fabio A statically malicious (or so faulty it might as well be malicious) device is still malicious and still infringes on the freedom of the user, just in a different way.Rather, in being static it prevents the user from fixing it.
(DIR) Post #B18LmuLngh04GEdndY by Ree@shitposter.world
2025-12-11T08:46:57.580183Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Setok @joshua @fabio I rather be scared of the feds and going to jail because they hate you than for people enjoying other products
(DIR) Post #B18M2Aa1d4TWwIZW9A by Ree@shitposter.world
2025-12-11T08:49:44.282619Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Setok @fabio @joshua and before you tell me I'm attacking you I'm not. Just telling how the world is nowadays and I see you do nothing but whine so what if a group is saying x or y ignore them.
(DIR) Post #B18M4DlQlK3lORsv3Y by joshua@hooray.computer
2025-12-08T16:21:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cyberlyra @GrapheneOS @fabio echoing the building everyone up part, those gorillas will tear us apart if given half a chance.
(DIR) Post #B18M4F9vZjFViiLzsW by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-08T18:47:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@joshua @cyberlyra @fabio Jolla is a for-profit company misleading people about what they providing. Their OS has extraordinarily poor privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project or iOS. Their own OS code is mostly closed source and there isn't an open source subset that's usable. Jolla has spent years falsely claiming the Android Open Source Project isn't Linux and misleading people into believing a largely closed source distribution is more open than an open source one.
(DIR) Post #B18M4GLJAtwlOIgbFw by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-08T18:50:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@joshua @cyberlyra @fabio They've mislead people about privacy and security to an extreme, convincing people that a device lacking a proper sandbox, permission model, exploit protections, widespread use of memory safe language and many modern security features is more private and secure. They have their own invasive services too.Informing people about the reality of their products is our response to years of misinformation about the GrapheneOS project from their team and community.
(DIR) Post #B18M4HOXGO7eebCgvQ by Setok@attractive.space
2025-12-10T09:21:25Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @joshua @cyberlyra @fabio huh, you're being pretty bloody aggressive. What exactly is your major beef?Jolla is a for-profit company. I would expect most companies to be for-profit so as to continue operating. When has Jolla stated AOSP isn't Linux? The OS has sandboxing and a permission model. What invasive services?Personally I'm most interested in whether an OS can offer a beneficial experience. Given your tact against a small company, I would now rate you lower.
(DIR) Post #B18M4MKSuwpzxQL0m8 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-08T18:53:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@joshua @cyberlyra @fabio > We should be building each other up, not tearing each other down.Companies selling phony privacy products which do not provide basic privacy or security patches, do not have a modern privacy/security model and do not have modern exploit or privacy protections aren't above being criticized due to portraying themselves as part of open source. They've put massive effort into misleading people about the Android Open Source Project and OSes like GrapheneOS based on it.
(DIR) Post #B18MO1C7CnT0CWo3V2 by Ree@shitposter.world
2025-12-11T08:53:41.232243Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@GrapheneOS @Setok @fabio @joshua all I'm going to say who ever is running this account because all the crying. It is unprofessional and doesn't make me want to find a compatible phone to try graphene. They might get all pissy and leak everything I have including my dick pics
(DIR) Post #B18O3rC2sal3IeHuD2 by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-10T22:55:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua @fabio > there are so many inaccurate claims about SFOS here --posted as if they are truths-- that it is seriously detracting from your community's reputation.Everything we've posted about SailfishOS here is accurate. Most of their own code is closed source and it has no equivalent to the Android Open Source Project despite being falsely marketed as more open. It does not provide reasonable privacy and security but rather rolls it back to comparable to a desktop OS.
(DIR) Post #B18O3sH2rULqeRdPdo by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-10T23:01:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua @fabio The smear campaign against GrapheneOS includes attacks from Jolla and their community as you're doing right here in this thread.> privacy and security space in a very different way than Jolla.Jolla is doing the opposite of addressing those things. They're marketing products and services with dramatically worse privacy and security than iPhones as being superior.False marketing and dishonest attacks on GrapheneOS as you've done here will be countered.
(DIR) Post #B18O3tiNVLoF7VQksq by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-10T23:09:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua @fabio > But enough of the rage-posting already. it's not doing your project any favors.Jolla and their supporters have engaged in years of trying to market their products by putting down GrapheneOS. We're more than capable of writing a basic overview with accurate and verifiable information similar to https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private in response to the attacks on GrapheneOS in this thread. We can ask security researchers to look into themselves and link their posts.
(DIR) Post #B18O3udS59SlyW8KqO by Setok@attractive.space
2025-12-11T07:30:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @cyberlyra @joshua @fabio you once again claim Jolla is putting down GrapheneOS. Where have they done that?No doubt some Jolla supporter may have mentioned something negative somewhere. That’s the Internet for you. Though I have never witnessed that myself. Indeed I can’t remember GrapheneOS being mentioned much at all in the Jolla community (though admittedly I don’t religiously follow it).
(DIR) Post #B18O3vSV1MIQWq16PY by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-11T07:55:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua @fabio Jolla has attacked ALL AOSP-based projects for years including GrapheneOS. That's visible out in the open throughout their marketing.Direct libel and harassment towards our team explicitly supporting Kiwi Farms harassment content is plainly visible in the SailfishOS forum thread and elsewhere in their forum. They haven't removed the posts, either in this recent thread or past cases of it. That's their forum and it's within their power to stop the harassment.
(DIR) Post #B18O3w3imy4QOHQpQe by Setok@attractive.space
2025-12-11T08:47:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@GrapheneOS @cyberlyra @joshua @fabio You mentioned they disparage GrapheneOS explicitly. Please point to where they do that. If that is not forthcoming then at least point to evidence where Jolla is attacking AOSP. I have never noticed that to be a significant message from them (as mentioned I was running an AOSP based company), but I'm sure there must be something specific you are referring to.
(DIR) Post #B18O3weEbDHGDWVzLE by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-11T09:09:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua @fabio > You mentioned they disparage GrapheneOS explicitly. Please point to where they do that. Jolla has endlessly attacked AOSP-based operating systems in general. People have brought up GrapheneOS through no fault of ours and it has been subjected to that too.We plan to make a detailed article similar to how we countered attacks from Murena which you'll be able to read with similar links to third party content and various examples of what we're documenting.
(DIR) Post #B18O3xEOQmCW1fQrhY by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-11T09:10:40Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua @fabio > If that is not forthcoming then at least point to evidence where Jolla is attacking AOSP.It's a core part of their marketing to present their product as great because it isn't based on AOSP and to strangely claim AOSP is somehow not Linux. They make inaccurate claims about how the privacy and security compare to it, among other things. People often ask us about the inaccurate claims made by these companies so it's an ongoing burden for us and we're aware.
(DIR) Post #B18O40yaVTw1do4Ica by GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social
2025-12-11T08:15:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua @fabio This started because of inaccurate attacks on GrapheneOS by several people supporting Jolla's products. We wouldn't have posted about it without their supports continuing to attack GrapheneOS and other projects based on AOSP similarly to what they've done. We have every right to respond to that including pointing out people are promoting an OS where most of what's specific to it including the UI and application layer is closed source, unlike AOSP which is open.