Hacker News Reader

> (...) not Signal's weird "link your phone up to your MacBook" solution

What are the properties of this solution that you dislike?

My main criticism is that it requires Chrome, which I don't want.

So use chromium? Or have your messages stored by a third party in clear text - which seems like a far worse option than having a browser you don't otherwise have to use at all, installed.

There are other browsers than Chrome and Chromium, you know.

I think you missed the point. Use another browser by all means, I do. Chrome or Chromium is required to run the Signal desktop client.

No, you missed the point. They don't want Chrome, and if their aversion could be solved with small tweaks to the branding they'd have probably just gotten over it.

If you don't want to use chrome or chromium to run one single app to have proper encryption on your desktop in addition to your mobile device - which doesn't need a browser at all, and as a result of that "aversion" would prefer your messages are kept in clear text on a server your aversion is not worth considering further.

Or I'm wrong, what's the aversion that is more important than having your messages stored in clear text by a third party?

I may be wrong but doesn't this solution also require an Android device?

I believe compatibility with the iOS client is being worked on

Reply on news.ycombinator.com