Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

discuss.grapheneos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 343 posts

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#171

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

mvkel wrote: post #64
Cortex5936 wrote: post #14

I love GrapheneOS and I use it daily for more than 2 years. However, and as Louis Rossmann pointed out in one of his videos, they really need to work on the "defensiveness" and "rants" of their communication. Even when they are 99% right most of the time, they sometimes don't come as mature and professional.

Being "right" shouldn't excuse bad behavior, especially if you depend entirely on a community to survive, which we all do.

Defending oneself isnt an unreasonable thing to do. GrapheneOS is entirely funded by donations and receives a lot of donations to this day. Them defending themselves is not an existential risk, the attacks against them are.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#172

Post by [deleted] »

neonstatic wrote: post #30
Cortex5936 wrote: post #14

I love GrapheneOS and I use it daily for more than 2 years. However, and as Louis Rossmann pointed out in one of his videos, they really need to work on the "defensiveness" and "rants" of their communication. Even when they are 99% right most of the time, they sometimes don't come as mature and professional.

It's a personality type / disorder (pick your poison). There's no hope for change. Programming seems to attract such people, because they are fixated on being right and proving that they are right. I know a few more examples. My common sense policy is - if the software these types produce works for me, I will be using it, but I will never allow myself to be dependent on it. That kind of person will gladly burn their…

[deleted]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#173

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

Accacin wrote: post #83

I personally can't understand why anyone bothers doing open source anything. This Micay guy spends so much time and does something hugely beneficial and we're arguing about how he responds to criticism? I'd rather direct and blunt rather than the weasel words and lies most companies put out.

The GrapheneOS team does find corporate speak/slop to be undesirable. I appreciate that a lot.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#175

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

roughly wrote: post #26
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Graphene is not a consumer brand and they do not intend to be a consumer brand. They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. That will absolutely limit their scope and reach, but it also allows them to focus on the one thing they’re trying to do without making compromises.…

[flagged]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#177

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

thenewnewguy wrote: post #10
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Do you have a link to the mastodon interaction where they threatened you with legal action? I ask because I'd be pretty disappointed in GrapheneOS over that kind of thing and it'd probably at least partially change my opinion of them, but it's better to validate these types of serious accusations and get the full context.

I don't. My very vague recollection is that I was alarmed and either deleted it or blocked them. So it either no longer exists, but even if it does I have zero interest in digging it out. I'm always anonymous on social media like HN and Mastodon, but who knows what one can discover if they're the kind of unhinged person who will dedicate enough time to doxing someone...

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#178

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #3

[flagged]

They dont have any history of attacking others. They have a history of defending themselves from attacks.

Other organizations having the resources to continue despite the damage does not mean GrapheneOS can or should deal with the damage it causes. That makes no sense and its excusing horrible behaviour from attackers. They arent rants, the truth just often requires more words than a lie, such is the nature of computer science.

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#179

Post by [deleted] »

roughly wrote: post #26
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #3

[flagged]

Graphene is not a consumer brand and they do not intend to be a consumer brand. They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. That will absolutely limit their scope and reach, but it also allows them to focus on the one thing they’re trying to do without making compromises.…

[deleted]

Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker

#180

Post by HybridStatAnim8 »

ryandrake wrote: post #59
roughly wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Graphene is not a consumer brand and they do not intend to be a consumer brand. They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. That will absolutely limit their scope and reach, but it also allows them to focus on the one thing they’re trying to do without making compromises.…

> They do one thing: make as secure a phone OS as they can. That’s it. If you’re expecting them to do anything in a friendly way, it ain’t gonna happen, that’s not who they are or what they do. These things are not mutually exclusive: You can make a great technical product while being friendly. You can make a great technical product while not being friendly. You can make a compromised or flawed technical product whil…

GrapheneOS needs to defend themselves. There would be more time for other types of posts other than defensive ones if they did not have to defend themselves.
Post reply on HN