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.

For contrast, Signal is a very secure messenger which also wants to be user friendly so as to get the largest user base they can, which leads to all kinds of compromises - everything that’s come out that looks like a vulnerability in Signal originates in some feature or capability added to make the product more user friendly. Graphene will not make those trades.

Neither approach is de facto right - they spring from fundamentally different philosophies on how to maximize user safety, and both have been extremely successful in their missions, but you’ve gotta recognize what you’re looking at when you look at Graphene.

> Something along the lines of "you know regardless of whether or not you're factually correct, these public attacks on other people companies are really bad for your image"

Sometimes they aren't even factually correct and get a bit upset about it when called out.

Anyways, I have gotten the same impression and these seem like red flags to me as well.

Which is why I'd take everything in that response with a mountain of salt (and I'd pay attention to what they're not saying).

Why would debunking factual inaccuracies be a red flag? It's the rational action to take, actually. Big corporations often don't respond because their lawyers tell them not to. Surely you're not saying that's a green flag?

I think this is the case of a lot of successful OSS. Intrigued people of all horizons comes and interact with few people building something meaningful, mostly on their free time, and expect to be welcomed as customers by the company spokesman. Torvalds had a famous way to express himself freely and hurt some feeling on the Linux mailing list, yet Linux is still a successful OSS project.

I would go on a stretch to say that people that express themselves naturally, without detour, are maybe more trustful than the usual silver-tongued corpo.

One of the main criteria to differentiate "rants" from "correcting falsehoods" is proper citing of sources. In the case of Grapheneos, unfortunately I often see very few sources in what they post online.

(But, if you ignore the rants, that's a fantastic OS.)

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.

"They have a long history of long rants attacking people and projects" in response to a long post...

You are very much saying that OP is an attack post.

Or at least implying the point that it is tonally dissonant to claim otherwise.

If you didn't believe it was wrong you would comment on the post but you are explicitly avoiding doing that.

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.

Do you have links to #2

Agreed.

I like the product, and even recommend GOS to those who want a hardened phone OS. But goddamn, their social media gives me major red flags and I hate remembering that they exist.

I genuinely think that the information in this post is accurate, and at the same time, I think that it is painted in a way that feels off. Like the data is correct, but there are aspects that are clearly emotionally manipulative and combative.

I also have had some less than great interactions with GrapheneOS devs, when I was not seeking out interaction from them on social media (they came to my post and were combative) and played victim that I bullied them and was in league with the harassment campaign when I just asked them to leave me alone.

Overall, I just think that GrapheneOS is a good product, but unless you want to join their cult, just never talk about it neutrally or negatively unless you are ready for weird interactions.

Is there a similarly bombastic take on Motorola somewhere?

#1 imo is the fact that some orgs are resilient to libel, and some are heavily affected. If someone is lying about your security protect in order to harm your reputation, I don't find it odd to respond with some zeal.

#2 on the other hand sounds unhinged, though no source is provided. Threatening legal action for broad criticism of project management is wild.