Personally I think the comment could’ve been worded better as it can be interpreted either as

… is always the excuse for fascism …

(I.E. Fascists use the excuse, provably correct and can be generalised to authoritarianism in general) However I do see that it could potentially be taken the other way as

… is always the excuse for fascism …

(I.E only those who used the excuse are fascists, completely false) I used the principle of charity and assumed the inital argument was logical, though its understandable if others aren’t willing to do that

You seem to have made what’s known as a converse error in your logic:

The person you replied to said that

All fascist ideologies will use the argument of “Protecting the children”

You seem to have mistakingly confused that with the false claim

All arguments that use “Protecting the children” are made by fascist ideologies

And as such you have responded to a statement the commenter never made.

And equivalent mistake would be claim that since every time it rains it is cloudy, therefore whenever it is cloudy it is always raining. Honestly logical errors happen for everyone, I hope this helps.

Pretty much impossible, especially with so many eyes on the project. It is possible to intentionally introduce vulnerabilities into open source code and use that as a backdoor but for projects like tor keeping that hidden for long periods of time is incredibly difficult due to the number of people independently auditing the code.

Sneakernet is getting worse and worse these days, I’m learning the ancient art of astroprojecting into random people’s rooms to consume media.

Because people grow up in religious environments which result in many of there friends and beliefs being tied to that religion. People only stop believing when they are faced with undeniable evidence (which for most is impossible because religious teachings are unfalsifiable) or more often when there is an emotionally charged conflict between there religion and another part of a persons’s life.

For an example of the latter, I once knew someone who started questioning (and eventually became agnostic) because the church they had always went to had started preaching homophobic messages which was irreconcilable with there closest friend being gay.

Anna’s Archive seems to be doing a good job of that

victim of properganda

At the very least, you have adequately shown me that the developer is too unstable to be able to guarantee the OS remains secure. Next time I’ll use Calyx OS since they are pretty much the sane anyway.

I do want to point out that:

No, he hates them because he was mocked deservedly by Tor devs

Technically the email you linked showed that he hated TOR beforehand, then the devs (rightly) mocked his reasoning, we were both right.

[by your logic] He should make it maximum compliant with governments and spying agencies

Please do not twist my words, though I understand once you assume someone is a bad actor you (quite understandably) give up. My point is that software should not be configured to break the law by default. Why would a user want something that breaks the law when first installed, when most users want to follow the law? Ideally software like this should have separate “legally compliment” and “freedom” branches but I argue having the first one is better then the second one in most cases.

All that being said, enjoy your day

is part of the Linux kernel

Saddly no it’s not, its a component embedded by the compiler that can be separately installed to replace the programs default allocator implementation. Also I can’t find a fork of android I know of that supports it.

If I understand you correctly, graphene OS is bad because:

1. The developer is using his fans to market the software he helps make, resulting in more people using it.

Arguably that’s a good thing as it at least makes people aware that other android forks exist, encouraging people to switch to one of the more private forks of android.

2. The developer hates Mozilla and unfairly hates TOR because he sees them as Mozilla shills.

How does the developer having bad takes effect a piece of software? Firefox in mine and others experience, still works well on the device. Yes I am aware of his vanadium project, if he wants to waste time, power to him.

3. By default the OS complies with government laws both defacto and official.

Why is that a bad thing, especially since it sounds like the alternative is breaking said laws? Yes there are often moral arguments against laws such as that, but the advantage of open source is that you can switch to something that gives you the freedom to break the law if you want.

The only thing you have shown me (which I already agreed with) is the lead developer (who is not the only one working on the project) is immature and paranoid, you have not showed why I should not use the software that he helped make, only that other forks support more hardware.

Thanks for being willing to discuss this stuff, I appreciate you are willing to take the time to write a detailed response.

So if I understand you correctly, Graphene OS does everything it says it does but overhypes its differences with other forks. That doesn’t sound like snakeoil, only effective marketing.

Why shouldn’t I use it over the other forks then, particularly because useful features like hardened_malloc are only avalible on Graphene despite being widely ported to linux distros?

They also do not shill for Big Tech or Google/Apple.

What’s the story behind this? I’m genuinely curious.

I will say I strongly dislike how the developer has handled criticism, but that seems to be more a failing of the dev then a problem with the OS.

Seems like it, I switched to my current instance explicitly to avoid dealing with this stuff

The fact that the company Valve went with KDE instead of GNOME for there popular linux device seems to indicate that it is at least stable. I could get some user testomonies on /c/Linux about KDE if you want?

Yep, since I mostly pirate obscure games I don’t need to worry about the VPN. Lutris works great for fitgirl-repacks

Police are there to help *maintain the status quo

Fixed

Writing in the 1990s and 2000s, author Albert Jack and Messianic Rabbi Richard Pustelniak, claim that the original meaning of the expression was that the ties between people who have made a blood covenant (or have shed blood together in battle) were stronger than ties formed by “the water of the womb”, thus “The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb”. Neither of the authors cite any sources to support their claim.

Nice, do you have a source for that so I can fix the wikipedia article? Either way it doesn’t particularly matter.

Why not? It seems to be working fine.

Too many people involved I think, someone will have to check this but all those members with names attached look like real developers who were significantly contributing to the project. It is perfectly possible for a dictator for life to have festered a toxic culture that got worse over time, and has happened multiple times before.

All cachyos does differently is have repos with the best optermisations applied. In practice its just a faster version of arch with an optional archinstall GUI.

Technically yes by rewriting ipfs’s code, but due to ipfs’s flaws you would be better off using something like freenet/hyphanet which has been designed for that purpose and has been successfully running since 2000, with the added benefit that the data is actually stored in the network by others instead of just by you (at least when you often request the data)

Unfortunately the reality of IPFS is that despite its huge funding it was poorly designed from the start and still to this day has much slower loading times then my I2pd instance (despite i2p transmiting messages through multiple encrypted proxies), to the point where the company working on the rust implementation determined it was so bad they had to scrap the whole thing to make something that actually worked. Not to mention that I managed to have my server taken over by some kind of malware by downloading a particular piece of content.

Good for you [retracted after new information]