[flagged]
Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
51–60 of 343 posts
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#52I 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.
When Louis Rossmann thinks your communication has a problem with going on rants, it must be pretty out there.
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They "handle the business" while someone else does 99% of the actual work, then ask to split 50/50. As a response, Micay decided to destroy the update signing keys for all the CopperheadOS devices out in the wild. Resulting in financial damages to Donaldson. Hardly a level-headed response, even if you disagree about the financial share of something.
The keys got wiped for way spookier reasons than Micay wanting money. Intelligence wanted in, and Donaldson seemingly would have been happy to oblige.
[flagged]
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#54I 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.
[flagged]
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They "handle the business" while someone else does 99% of the actual work, then ask to split 50/50. As a response, Micay decided to destroy the update signing keys for all the CopperheadOS devices out in the wild. Resulting in financial damages to Donaldson. Hardly a level-headed response, even if you disagree about the financial share of something.
The keys got wiped for way spookier reasons than Micay wanting money. Intelligence wanted in, and Donaldson seemingly would have been happy to oblige.
What is your source for this?
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#56Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#57[flagged]
A lot of the readers here think Wired is still pre-2006 / pre-Condé Nast ownership.
I was personally involved in a story they did in 2015 that was paid for by a three letter gov agency to bad mouth a companies tech into changing. I know only a few of their tricks, and they’re dirty as hell.
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#58Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Immature maybe Yeah, that’s the issue. I don’t want people who behave immaturely, impulsively, or vindictively, having a key role in something as important as my phone os. I want stability, maturity, and thoughtfulness.
Understandable wishes, but you might have to put something from yourself into it if this is a pressing concern. Or you will be left to your own corporate devices.
What exactly are you suggesting? If i go help out at the graphene os project, that won’t change their leadership. Should I make my own fork?
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#59[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.…
> 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 while being friendly. You can make a compromised or flawed technical product while being unfriendly.
This comes up pretty often in other HN threads, unrelated to Graphene. There's this weird personality type who insists that they aren't legally obligated to be friendly or nice or pleasant, therefore it's fine for them to be unfriendly or jerks or unpleasant.
Re: Original GrapheneOS responses to WIRED fact checker
#60[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]