For those unfamiliar, GrapheneOS is a privacy and security enhanced custom ROM endorsed by Snowden. Despite these big names, plenty of people give it backlash

Even @TheAnonymouseJoker@lemmy.ml gives it backlash despite being a moderator of Lemmy’s biggest privacy community. A quote here: “grapheneOS trolls are downvoting every single post and comment of mine, and committing vote manipulation on Lemmy. They are using 5-6 accounts.” That was in response to downvotes on a comment posted in the c/WorldNews community, which is entirely unrelated to technology.

One of the reasons is that GrapheneOS can only be installed on Google Pixels due to security compatibility, which makes complete sense considering Android should be most compatible with Google’s own devices. GrapheneOS even lists the exact reasons they chose Pixels, and encourage people to step up and manufacture a different supported device.

One year ago, Louis Rossmann posted this video outlining his reasons for deleting GrapheneOS. Mainly, he had multiple bad experiences with Daniel Micay (the founder and main developer of GrapheneOS) which put his distrust in the GrapheneOS project. Since then, he has stepped down and will no longer be actively contributing to the project.

So, I am here to learn why exactly people still do not like GrapheneOS.

  • toastal@lemmy.ml
    0·
    1 month ago

    GrapheneOS only works on Google hardware. Part of the advantage of Android is device variety, but GrapheneOS forces you down a narrow path. Want a rugged device, a headphone jack, microSD? Well Google doesn’t offer those so GrapheneOS can’t meet your device requirements.

    • Forbo@lemmy.ml
      0·
      1 month ago

      GrapheneOS has defined a set of security standards for their operating system which have hardware requirements. These standards have been published and there have been efforts to engage with hardware manufacturers to adopt the required hardware. Blame the manufacturers for skimping on security, rather than Graphene being unwilling to compromising their values.

        • randint@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyzEnglish
          0·
          1 month ago

          On top of it, they have lied about testing. https://i.imgur.com/woNxPhx.jpg

          Yeah, no. Pretty sure that’s just a rando with GrapheneOS logo as their avatar. The way they talk doesn’t sound like the dev to me, and I also don’t think the dev would ever misspell a word like “cellular” as “cullar”.

        • Forbo@lemmy.ml
          0·
          1 month ago

          “What is this level of grand security…” Enumerated here: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

          Once manufacturers can implement those things, then you will have an alternative to Google hardware for running Graphene. I’m not telling people to trust anything, don’t put words in my mouth.

          Who is PrivacyPhones and why should I believe they are in any way affiliated with Graphene?

      • toastal@lemmy.ml
        0·
        1 month ago

        It would be possible to ship generic system images with separate updates for the device support code. However, it would be drastically more complicated to maintain and support due to combinations of different versions and it would cause complications for the hardening done by GrapheneOS.

        Sounds like they could, but have resource limitations to do it. It’s also a knock against Google whose hardware has gotten worse. Personally, IDGAF about these project-imposed requirements if I can’t have the standard headphone jack on portable device.