A few weeks ago I stumbled across iodé.
I liked the product description but wondered if there was a real reason to use /e. instead of iodé. In many recent German articles about /e/ (especially about the Murena One) the comments refer to refer to the supposedly “much better alternative” iodé. I haven’t found anything special that makes iodé different or better than /e/, except for maybe the ad blocker or the firewall (which can also be installed later with /e/OS); on the contrary: /e/ and Murena even offer optional cloud services and more. Well, not everyone likes the Bliss Launcher, but it can be replaced. Maybe I’m in the wrong forum, but does anyone know what the reason is for this apparent “iodé hype”?
Actually I am donating e is but I am using iode since about 12/month.
I want to go back to e OS due to the cloud service mainly but i still use iode as my daily driver.
Why is that?!? Well so far the blocker is simply awesome but more importantly… Someone I had less “hiccups” with iode compares to e OS. It simply works and also in general all apps.
I mean not the iode apps but the apps you install.
Battery life is awesome but that shall be en pare with e OS.
I even wished both companies would combine the forces. It seems one united privacy respecting OS would be the more sustainable choice for Europe.
Anyhow…I like e OS but kind of stuck with iode. Thus…try it and you can make up your mind and check what fits beat to you.
I think the difference when it comes to functionality is pretty small. Both have microg, both have App Tracking Protection now, both are more or less degoogled experiences.
But iode wouldnt be a option for me since its not open source. So if some people claim that 3rd party Apps run better on iode, probably they included at least some proprietary libraries from Google maybe?
I think making it sound like it would be some kind of Windows doesn’t do it justice. Parts of it aren’t Open Source yet, there’s a process going on interested parties can watch and judge.
That’s a distinction … while I agree that if using Open Source software is among a user’s priorities, then “partially Open Source” doesn’t fit the bill.
I don’t think it’s great that iodé is partially propietary, but I would use some propietary software, e.g. if the developer wants to make money with it. But if the software is then propietary to hide the bad privacy or the developer behaves as cheeky as Microsoft, I try to avoid such software.
This may be a difference: I don’t know if that’s a good thing in terms of security (security updates), but by being offered on many old devices, /e/ allows to extent devices lifetime. And /e/ communicates in this sense.
I totally agree with this. This is my main motivation for working with /e/OS and LineageOS for microG. It’s also why I am sad that iodé have not opened their source: without open source it is not possible to have iodé available on such a wide selection of devices, new and old.
If they do ever get round to opening their source, I may look closer at their offering, and I may even have a stab at building it for my collection of Sony devices.
And I don’t think security updates are a problem: Lineage OS continues to deliver security updates for their code and for the linux kernel. It’s only problem for the vendor-specific parts of the software which are no longer updated by the manufacturers, and those parts have few (known) security vulnerabilities.
I guess eine thing one shall respect is that both OS are trying to gain more privacy and offer an alternative to apple and google.
In the end all this effort also needs to be functional and “user friendly” of some sort.
E OS now also offer the advances security with blocker and IP cover but iode did this first. E OS has the much more advanced ecosystem with their cloud activities and even though iode is not fully open source I give them as well as e os ( because it is open) credits to move in a good direction .
Iode was in the last year for me the good solution for an average user with not too much of experience on fixing issues on mobile phones.
I ran e os on an old xiaomi and iode on an s9.
I like both as mentioned and I do not see it as negative that iode is not fully open yet.
I’m thinking, maybe there is a good reason for the E Foundation to split activities between /e/ the OS on one side, and the Murena brand on the other.
Murena is there to bring revenue, and make the whole initiative sustainable. They make money selling hardware. Iodé has the same business model, I believe.
For the phone models that they sell, both Iodé and Murena offer the OS for free and the possibility of installing it on our own. It doesn’t cost them any additional resources, I think, because they work on these OS builds anyway, since it comes built-in on these particular devices that they sell.
Allocating resources to work on the OS builds for devices that they don’t sell is something else. It’s not a business activity. That’s more like the Linux for pc distributions, I think. Still, /e/ has done that from the start, maybe because they see themselves as whistleblowers. Maybe they want to show us alternatives. The services they provide serves as a platform to communicate a message, including obsolescence.
And there is a reason they split the two, because I’m sure they are trying to leave as much work as possible to the community for everything that is not related to Murena. They started what we can call a movement but they realized along the way - seeing the number of Gitlab issues increasing exponentially with the number of devices they support - that they cannot go on like that forever in a sustainable way. To help doing so, they have now a program that pays some money to those who solve Gitlab issues. These are my assumptions. I’m tagging @AudeM and @GaelDuval in case they want to say something. I’m a big fan of Gael’s posts that we find here and there.
