[bernoufakis]

> When you say to people to not use GOS because the lead dev is paranoid or the community is hostile you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The value GOS brings is undisputable. The quirkiness of the leadership is also undisputable. Let's decouple the two. If you wish for the community to get better, become yourself the better contact point amd generally focus on suggestion on that matter. Don't say to people to not use arguably the most secure android rom!

It's one thing to separate the artist from the art, but I think that analogy does not apply when it comes to e.g. an operating system which essentially handles all of your private data. If anything, not being able to separate the art from the artist is the exact reason why GOS exists, the artist being "Google" and all their controversial practices. (Edit: or a simpler analogy, would you trust the food (art) of a cook (artist) that threatens to ruin your life ?)

The OOP is entitled to express his informed opinion and even provided what he based it upon. As a user, I think that is important context when it comes to picking something as sensitive as an OS.

> I used to respect Rossmann a lot, but he fell in my eyes both for the LTT and the GOS incident. I have been watching LTT since a kid and I know that his has grown to be a jerk without looking at his private communications, but his competitors fired shots at him for the wrong reasons (honey case) and so did Rossmann, riding the wave.

I happen to have a similar background as far as LTT (weekly WAN show and what not) and Rossmann are concerned As I mentioned before I (unfortunately) went into the GOS incident rabbit hole and overall still think Rossmann was principled. As far as Rossmann's criticism of Linus about the LTT Honey case, perhaps he could have had a more nuanced approach, yes. Regarding the BilletLabs cooling block, or the "Trust Me Bro", his criticism was substantive, and came from his own business background on dealing with customers (although you can argue that Rossmann has high standards). I don't think Rossmann "fired shots for the wrong reasons", namely since LTT has publicly acknowledge the issues.

> If you want to criticize someone for being a jerk do it, but do it for the right reasons, don't muddy the waters by injecting other stuff in the discussion.

Just curious, but who is muddying waters, and how ?

[gtsop]

> Just curious, but who is muddying waters, and how ?

In the context of this whole rabbit hole, pretty much all of the parties.

When you bring someone's dirt put in the public, not to support an argument but just to attack them because you don't like them, uou are muddying the waters.

MegaLag did it for Linus

Steve did for Linus

Luis did for Linus

Linus did for Steve

Linus did for Luis

Henry did for Daniel

Luis did for Daniel

And of course Daniel pretty much does for anyone :p

These were not conversations based on logic, each had a reason to dislike the other and dag up dirt for clicks and for leverage.

[bernoufakis]

> When you bring someone's dirt put in the public, not to support an argument but just to attack them because you don't like them, uou are muddying the waters.

To take the specific case of Rossmann, how is he muddying the water ? If anything, he is clarifying his position on stopping using GOS. It is important context, not "muddying the waters".

You yourself say that: > And of course Daniel pretty much does for anyone :p

And Rossmann brought up the receipt to corroborate the GOS developer hostile behavior toward him, which was his argument. And even if you take it further back to origin, the "Informative but unfortunate" comment, this was not targeting GOS's quality and claim of security. The argument in that specific case was the questionable behavior of the leadership, which you seem to agree was not a "conversation based on logic". If some people can't be reasoned with, what is Rossmann supposed to do ? He "agreed to disagreed" and cut contact with the dev, kept the GOS situation under the lid as it was still a project he liked, but that was apparently not enough to keep that developer at bay ...

[gtsop]

> If some people can't be reasoned with, what is Rossmann supposed to do ?

Just stop interacting? When you have an argument with your colleague, do you go on twitter and post all your conversations and tell everyone how irrational he is? When you argue with a relative do you make an 1hour long video detailing how they missbehaved? Why did Luis felt the need to make content on his popular channel to expose someone with problematic behavior?

Clicks. Money.

And on top of that he is attacking his work which is actually very valuable.

I don't care if Luis is on the right side of the argument. If he was chatting me up on the bus and told me about it, i would be glad to know. Attacking a person on public for money and leverage is bs.

Edit: Especially in the case of Daniel, if you have made the conclusion that a person is trully paranoid, this is a clinical situation, do you expect to "fix" them by exposing them? Or are you throwing more gas to the fire?

[bernoufakis]

> > If some people can't be reasoned with, what is Rossmann supposed to do ? Just stop interacting? When you have an argument with your colleague, do you go on twitter and post all your conversations and tell everyone how irrational he is? When you argue with a relative do you make an 1hour long video detailing how they missbehaved? Why did Luis felt the need to make content on his popular channel to expose someone with problematic behavior?

Rossmann did exactly in September 2022. If you actually bothered going through the document, would could see that they had an initial interaction that did not pan out. Rossmann wished Daniel best of luck and said he would not be further involved because of the disagreement.

On his social media and other platforms, Daniel did not stop talking about how Rossmann was allegedly attacking (without any concrete evidence). Daniel himself contact Rossmann again out of the blue with borderline threats blackmail umprompted, as can be seen in Rossmann's video on "Why I deleted Graphene OS". Asking nicely did not work, and Daniel threatened to "publicly expose him", so he went public. What was he supposed to do ?

> Clicks. Money.

Rossmann channel is not making him money. It is not monetized. His business is about repairing Macbooks and data recovery. This drama does not generate him money. He does not get paid for people using CalyxOS etc... over Graphene OS. There is simply no incentive

> And on top of that he is attacking his work which is actually very valuable.

What "attack" ? Is a comment "Informative but unfortunate" on a video criticizing Daniel's behavior an attack ? Is giving the project a 40K USD grant no string attached an "attack" ? Is proposing an to do interviews to further promote the project an "attack" ? Is making videos to actually dispel misconceptions about GOS and praising how good it is on his channel and "attack" ? None of you who carry water for Daniel and his toxic behavior have any evidence of Rossmann directing attack at GOS, and even loss so Daniel himself.

> I don't care if Luis is on the right side of the argument. If he was chatting me up on the bus and told me about it, i would be glad to know. Attacking a person on public for money and leverage is bs.

Again, no evidence it is about money and leverage.

> Edit: Especially in the case of Daniel, if you have made the conclusion that a person is trully paranoid, this is a clinical situation, do you expect to "fix" them by exposing them? Or are you throwing more gas to the fire?

Keeping it private the first few time did not seem to work, might as well try. If Daniel himself is beyond help, at least make it so other people know what kind of person they are entrusting they phone security and privacy to.

By the way, I managed to find their archived conversation which are not available anymore in the video description. Curious about your opinion on it: <https://www.swisstransfer.com/d/d75ff782-4a7d-4497-b04e-edd1...>

[tholdem]

Your logic seems to fall apart here.

> an operating system which essentially handles all of your private data.

This is exactly why one should continue using GrapheneOS as it is by far the best, most secure and private option. If you do not agree with one project member about something that is not related to the technical features of the project, it does not matter, since you can not be targeted with any GOS updates. Same updates would have to go to all GOS users and as stated before, the previous project leader has a stellar reputation when it comes to their work and prior actions regarding users security and privacy.

> the artist being "Google" and all their controversial practices

You believing this is a problem, you should then be using an iPhone anyway.

You are worrying GOS devs might push a malicious update, even when there are no proofs of that happening? What prevents the same from happening with other projects that are already inferior in every way? You are implying people should switch to less secure options because of this one thing that also applies to all other options? It does not make any sense and seems dishonest.

[bernoufakis]

> Your logic seems to fall apart here. >> an operating system which essentially handles all of your private data.

I will concede that my statement is not the most accurate. However it is not a matter of logic, but description. What I meant to say is that the OS is the substrate of all applications running on the phone, and all the relevant data. Having privileged access to the OS opens the user to the most critical vulnerability.

> This is exactly why one should continue using GrapheneOS as it is by far the best, most secure and private option. Rationally speaking yes. When the developer of the OS threatens to "public expose you" and accuses you of directing harassment / swatting against them without evidence however, a layman (that has no obligation to understand how GOS updates work) is justified in feeling unsafe or uncomfortable using said software. A determined enough (hostile) developer could find a way to target him personally. Even if you personally feel it is unlikely, the probability is ultimately non-nil.

The GOS x Rossmann matter was never a technical issue, it was about the (in my opinion) toxic approach of that lead GOS dev to Rossmann. A huge misunderstanding I dare say. But the damage was done and Rossmann is within his right to criticize his approach and stop using his software.

> Same updates would have to go to all GOS users and as stated before, This is a irrelevant point. Stuxnet was harmless to most systems, while still targeting very specific Iranian systems. All GOS user, (me included) don't audit the code every time there is an update.

> the previous project leader has a stellar reputation when it comes to their work and prior actions regarding users security and privacy. Stellar reputation is quite the exaggeration. That lead GOS dev has an indeniable controversial and abrasive reputation. Imagine the ingenuity and persitence that you perceive about his "work and prior actions regarding users security and privacy", and imagine it being deployed toward someone that dev does not deem as a "simple user", but a personal enemy / enemy of the project ? Nobody would want to be on the receiving side of whatever such person is capable, and neither does Rossmann, understandably.

> > the artist being "Google" and all their controversial practices > You believing this is a problem, you should then be using an iPhone anyway.

I will assume you are good faith, and just misread what I wrote. My point was that in the same way we cannot trust Google software (at least privacy wise) because of the profit incentive of its leaders, another OS like Graphene OS can also inspire distrust if their leadership demonstrate hostile behavior (even if just toward a single specific user).

> You are worrying GOS devs might push a malicious update. Me personally, no. I am not worried. I know enough about software to know that it is unlikely. And I am a nobody. Rossmann is, because he is a layman, and the lead dev was clearly hostile against him. We don't get to deny his perspective.

> even when there are no proofs of that happening ? Not having proof of it never happening so far, is not a proof that it will never happen in the future.

> What prevents the same from happening with other projects [...] Nothing prevents it, and no one involved either in this discussion, nor in the original incident stated this.

> You are implying people should switch to less secure options because of this one thing that also applies to all other options? Again, nobody implied that. I personally never said it. My argument was that I found the leadership lacking, and to a certain extent, the community (examplified by this kind of "water carrying" arguments you have presented). Even Rossmann himself never said it. He only made public his reasons for not mainly using GOS since the altercation, and still recommends it whenever he discuss phone privacy. The grandparent however did bring up this issue with GOS leadership as a data point, which would still be good to have for prospective GOS users.

> It does not make any sense and seems dishonest. If anything, you moving the goal post with such strawmen arguments is what seems dishonest...