It would’ve been a cool world if we got Linux that could work seamlessly between desktop and mobile. Imagine if you had architecture where apps were built as services with an API, and then you could connect either desktop or mobile UI to them. Heck, at that point you could even make custom UIs across apps, or pipe them together the way you do with shell scripts. And then you could also have a device like a phone which has all your apps and data, and you could plug it into a dock with more memory, GPU, etc. So, you wouldn’t have to juggle a bunch of devices and sync data between them.

Is it oversampling or just the fact there are a lot of users from China?

You can install Google app store in a container, and all the apps I’ve used work fine on it out of the box. It absolutely works fine as a daily driver.

I’d argue that Graphene is a better thing since it’s based on an OS that’s been designed for mobile from the ground up. I expect it’s going to be a while before Linux UX on mobile catches up to desktop, but Graphene works great already.

I just got a Pixel 9 last week and put GrapheneOS on it. Couldn’t be happier with it so far. The install was completely painless using web installer. All my apps worked out of the box. Google Store works fine in the sandbox. UX is good, and you don’t have any of the crap Google normally loads like all the adaptive services, and all the other junk that runs in the background.

that’s the hope

even a broken clock is right twice a day

Yeah, that’s fair. If you’re already stuck on Signal, then it’s difficult to make a move to something else. I’m mostly talking about people who are using something like WhatsApp, and it’s better to make a fresh move to a platform that doesn’t have the issues Signal has.

The thing is that there’s nothing special about Signal that makes it better than alternatives like SimpleX. I just don’t see why it should be promoted instead of them. Yes, it’s better than WhatsApp where meta has a master key and can read your messages, but why settle when you can use a platform without compromises?

Yeah, there are network effects at play here. Getting people to move off a platform is very difficult because they need their contacts to move to, and their contacts need theirs in turn. Some people are willing to use multiple messaging apps, but most don’t. I’d argue that’s why it’s important to promote alternatives to Signal. The more popular they become the easier it is to get people to move to them.

The question here is why not get people to switch to a better platform like SimpleX or even matrix with something like Element. I don’t find that Signal does anything better in practice.

For the record, I absolutely do hate living in a world where conspiracy theorists got things mostly right but for completely wrong reasons.

Pretty much yeah, and they’ve had a really good marketing campaign too. They got a whole bunch of prominent tech influencers incessantly pushing it, and it just feels like a massive astroturf campaign to me. Like you said, if a random person pitched this idea, they’d be laughed at, but you get some people with clout to do it, and it sticks because everybody respects them and trusts them.

I don’t think we’re saying anything new here. I’ve explained my point and the problem with Signal collecting phone numbers. You can make your own decisions on whether you think that’s acceptable practice or not.

Except you have no idea what’s actually running on the server. Only people who operate it know.

Citation for what exactly? Go read up on how networking works, entire textbooks are available. The server has access to all the data the client sends it. How do you think you get paired with another person to chat, by magic?

No, I don’t think we live in an ideal world. I repeatedly said you ultimately have to use the platform that your contacts use. I’m merely pointing out that you should understand the trade offs.

It’s not really a partial solution, it’s just sophistry to obscure the problem. The fact that I’ve had this same discussion with many people now, and it always takes effort to explain why sealed sender doesn’t actually address the problem leads me to believe the the actual problem it’s solving is not of making the platform more secure. The complete and obvious solution to the problem is to not collect personally identifying information in the first place.

You have a very charitable view of Signal making the base assumption that people running it are good actors. Yet, given that it has direct ties to the US government, that it’s operated in the US on a central server, and the team won’t even release the app outside proprietary platforms, that base assumption does not seem well founded to me. I do not trust the people operating this service, and I think it’s a very dangerous assumption to think that they have your best interests in mind.

I also find it really weird how aggressively Signal is being pushed everywhere, and how any criticism of it gets dismissed or ridiculed. It feels a bit like a cult at this point.

Sure, you can absolutely decide that it’s a reasonable trade off, but your original claim was that sealed sender addressed the problem. Sounds like you’re now acknowledging that’s not actually the case…