• moonpiedumplings@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    5 days ago

    Sovereign OS is pointed out to be source available only in the comments.

    GrapheneOS replies to many of the addressed points, and notes that SovereignOS is actually really just a fork that seems to charge for some bs features and preinstalled apps.

          • Kairos@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 days ago

            Ah yes I’m sure there’s a better alternative /s

            These don’t prove your point. They’re not backdoors. If they were they would have never Bern assigned a CVE.

              • pmk@piefed.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 days ago

                If you say “GrapheneOS may be the best, but you should treat it as untrustworthy.”, is it fair to single it out as the “BackdoorOS”? It seems more like your position is that no closed source hatdware can be trusted? On that level we also can’t trust any software because of Ken Thompsons “Reflections on trusting trust”. So is your point that phones/computers can’t be trusted in general, or that GrapheneOS is especially unsafe compared to available alternatives?

          • Kairos@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 days ago

            Why would they use closed source Qualcomm blobs? Are there no Qualcomm modules in the phone?

    • lemmysmash@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Judging by the name alone — some hype-exploiting crap, possibly with some backdoors in it, and certainly created for the sole purpose of milking either some public money or naïve users money, whichever would be easier.