GrapheneOS (@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social)
grapheneos.social
@lunar_dust_463@mstdn.social They want you to use an OS which doesn't provide firmware updates and therefore doesn't protect you from serious known vulnerabilities. The firmware is still present when using an OS not updating it. Pretending as if the hardware and firmware isn't closed source by not updating the firmware simply harms users. They're a group known for having nonsensical, inconsistent beliefs and spreading misinformation/spin to promote them. Stop getting info from charlatans.

They say that GNU is spreading misinformation and “stop getting info from charlatans”?

  • ramenu@lemmy.mlEnglish
    1·
    3 months ago

    I’m not a fan of GrapheneOS, but the point they bring up here is valid. There is already proprietary firmware on your computer. There’s no reason why you shouldn’t be updating it to protect yourself from serious exploits. The FSF takes an ideological stance rather than a practical one, unfortunately.

    • snek_boi@lemmy.mlEnglish
      1·
      3 months ago

      I agree with you: the FSF can seem unwavering in their stance, even in the face of practicality. I’m really sorry for this incredibly nit-picky detail, but I think practicality is ideological too. For better or for worse, we can’t escape ideas or be free from them, so we have to choose which we value. For example, while I tend to choose software freedom over practicality, I also have, at times, chosen practicality over freedom.

    • jwiggler@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      0·
      3 months ago

      I’m afraid to ask this because I’m not a dev, but I have a fair amount of linux experience. Why is it that the ability to install Google Play Services on GrapheneOS makes it not FOSS/open source, while the ability to install Google Chrome (or any proprietary software, I guess) on Linux doesn’t make is non-FOSS/open source?

      I’m not articulating that question very well, and I’m assuming I’m missing some key component, but they seem comparable to me, as a regular user. Is it something like the level of access that GPServices has to the kernel?

  • D_Air1@lemmy.ml
    1·
    3 months ago

    I think we need uncompromising people in this world. Doesn’t mean we have to listen or follow everything they say though. Those are my thoughts on GNU.

  • communism@lemmy.ml
    0·
    3 months ago

    I think your question is answered by the thread you linked. Is there something in particular you don’t understand?

    GNU/the FSF says that GrapheneOS does not qualify as free software (which is true, it’s not completely FLOSS as per the FSF’s definition—the linked GNU article classifies plenty of popular Linux distros we consider to be FOSS as non-free, btw, they’re not singling out Graphene), and GrapheneOS is saying they don’t want to fit the FSF’s definition of free software because it would mean a lack of security (which is also true; they need proprietary firmware updates from Google). The FSF has a strict definition of free software which a lot of software does not meet, and usually an entire operating system would only meet the FSF’s definition out of a deliberate, conscious, ideological decision to exclude all non-free software. In their article they even list Debian as a distro which no longer meets their standards, despite Debian being known for their strict policy around only including FOSS in their repos.

    This is an instance of two different entities (GNU and GrapheneOS) having fundamentally different goals (one values a strict definition of free software at all costs, one values security at all costs). You are more than welcome to do things GNU’s way if you don’t like GrapheneOS’s way, or vice versa.