[KirinDave]

Who exactly is talking about anti-openness here? We're talking about which open source piece of code to reuse. Someone gave a bad argument against one company's offering.

Microsoft of the 90s, which no one emulates these days and it's a wrongheaded comparison anyways, would have said that all the open options are bad to begin with.

If you meant to say "anti-free software" then maybe we could have a conversation, but that's hardly the problem Microsoft faced in the 90s and 2ks.

Seriously, what does your post mean? Could you maybe be specific? And while we're at it, what's your connection if any with the company that sells Purism phones.

[andrenth]

“Open source is not safer because people won’t read the source”, “having control doesn’t matter”, and trying to raise doubts about the trustworthiness of the people involved... that’s old Microsoft textbook approach.

At least MS wasn’t built on open software, unlike Google.

> And while we're at it, what's your connection if any with the company that sells Purism phones.

None at all. I’ve just heard of this project a few days ago via a DDG search.

Believe it or not, not everyone is a corporate shill.

[KirinDave]

> Open source is not safer because people won’t read the source

That's not what I said. To sum it up: Open source is not really a security proposition. It eliminates problems related to negligence.

> having control doesn’t matter

In what concrete way does the Purism OS give you more control over your device than AOSP?

It really seems like you are confusing open source and free software for this entire conversation, as literally every line of code we are discussing is shared under a license that allows you to look at, modify and use as you see fit.

> None at all. I’ve just heard of this project a few days ago via a DDG search.

The depth of your consideration was already fairly easy to guess, but thanks for being honest.

> Believe it or not, not everyone is a corporate shill.

Physician, heal thyself.