It exists for whom wants it and is a recommended app source, that's all. Something not recommended would not be explicitly supported, deciding whether to use it or not is ultimately on the user who will not be warned against something that is supported...
It is not recommended over vastly more sane alternatives like Accrescent and getting apps directly from their respective developers (as signed by them) given you have an update mechanism of your own (or the app embeds one) and a manner of verifying the app's public signing key's provenance as something actually belonging to the developers you got said app from (where the former is a proper app store in construction and the latter is nigh impossible to perform cleanly due to typical developer non-cooperation). Nonetheless, Play Store ranks below these two for a third-party app source as it engages in weird practices like Play App Signing, etc. Users are not advised to get Play Store apps from non-Play Store app sources because Play Store already ranks the furthest behind, meaning nothing is recommended beyond it.
Aurora Store is recommendable in exceptional cases, namely when an app can't be downloaded from Google Play due to Play Integrity gating on the app's store listing, but which is known to work (eg. not perform Play Integrity checks itself in the intended manner, etc) after somehow downloaded and installed.
Although as you can verify, this recommended app source ladder is pushed on social media and official chat platform community spaces of GrapheneOS, not the website.
As someone outside of GrapheneOS community and preferring an alternative phone to GOS, I do see flagging and downvoting of my posts on HN. I even stated clearly more than once that I am happy about the GOS development but just prefer something else that you can't get from it.
Nevertheless my (and others') comments are often considered as attacks. Examples of flagged comments:
Other people have noticed that GOS community attacks almost every other alternative, instead of joining forces against Google and co.: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49564756
The GrapheneOS crowd is constantly accusing everyone in attacks and spreading misinformation about their phones (including in this discussion). Simple replies to misunderstandings and links to earlier reply would be much more polite. At the same time, I also see FUD and misinformation about alternative phones from GOS supporters on HN, e.g., https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47855369
You do realize that people use the flag feature all the time, right? People have abused the feature to remove our comments in the past too. It's beyond unacceptable to accuse us, without basis, that we're flagging all of your comments.
You are accusing us of "attacking" other groups when we're repeatedly pulled into conversations and we give objective answers and respond to misinformation about GrapheneOS. We have every right to correct misinformation about GrapheneOS. We have every right to defend ourselves against harassment.
Objective facts aren't "attacks." Why are you misrepresenting what we say? Isn't it better if people can make informed decisions?
> It's beyond unacceptable to accuse us, without basis, that we're flagging all of your comments.
You are right that I have no evidence that this group flagged the comments. I just say that I see such pattern in GOS-related discussion. I did not accuse anyone about "all my comments" though. This would indeed be beyond unacceptable.
I am happy to receive objective answers to the misunderstandings. I do have a lot of misunderstandings, too. Replies from the GOS supporters are often helpful. However they often lack some respect to the alternatives. Words like "atrocious security" do not bring us closer.
You very actively seek out discussions about GrapheneOS where you make inaccurate claims about both GrapheneOS and our team. You frequently use it as an opportunity to heavily promote products which are the direct opposite of privacy and security hardened devices. Those products are heavily promoted by those companies with false marketing and misinformation.
Immense harm has been caused through the misconceptions the companies behind those products have propagated to make money. It harms actual privacy, security and open hardware efforts. We aren't on the same side as those companies and aren't working towards the same things. We aren't going to agree on that unless you eventually end up moving on to promoting different products without those issues.
We're on the same side as several legitimate projects you promote including QubesOS. However, you promote those as part of attacking GrapheneOS and usually group it together with phony privacy products.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point but all of those seem like examples of my own point. They all have major downsides/tradeoffs. Cars being the most obvious on the list of downsides. The massive environmental cost, the fact that 2% of the land area of the US is paved so that cars could work, the smog and pollution, etc.
If it were true that cars were a complete improvement and cheaper then we wouldn't have bikes anymore. All technologies have tradeoffs
If GP and you were both correct, Android going fully proprietary should not be a problem at all. Either you're lying(you're not), or GP is wrong and the problem is NOT in the lack of options but adoption of such an OS.
My point is that they need to be adopted at scales that almost dwarfs Nintendo, in the realms of billion devices in circulation(why does that phrase remind me of a certain purple-blue-yellow UNIX company...)
reply