just wondering if that would be wanted for /e/OS to appear in:
or not really?
just wondering if that would be wanted for /e/OS to appear in:
or not really?
Hi, I think it’s a good idea since GrapheneOS and LineageOS are listed !
Here’s your answer, and why Privacytools refuse to add /e/
Thanks for your response. I think I don’t really understand the whole discussion. Is the answer from Privacy tools is being written by five-c-d commented on 14 Apr 2019?
Read the whole issue and the different post. I’m unable to edit the link, due to the forum having issues working with NoScript.
This particular comment was linked in this duplicate issue. https://github.com/privacytools/privacytools.io/issues/1393
For me it would be easier to copy&paste a direct answer of rejecting eOS from Privacy Tools recommended operating system candidate.
What I see in the chat which you’ve shared that many of the reasons are outdated because some applications have changed already and so on. Also there are private opinions that I don’t want to read nor interested to, at all. So basically there is no direct answer why eOS nowadays can’t be published on Privacy Tools, at least I couldn’t find such info.
Yes there is, it’s the very last message dated of March 26 of this very year
We won’t be adding this at this time.
From what I can tell it’s a fork of LineageOS, with a bunch of applications from F-Droid that have been forked. The ROM looks to be monetizing by pushing an ecosystem of services to users.
We don’t believe users should centralize on a single platform’s services without considering their needs and/or competing services.
We’re not adding every ROM, (just take a look at all the flavors on XDA-Developers), regardless of whether source code is available.
And I think it’s pretty clear. PTIO team thinks /e/ is just another fork of LineageOS and is centralizing data of its users. I don’t agree on the first part but it’s logical. /e/ is still a confidential ROM and doesn’t have the reputation required to be recommended next to Lineage or Graphene. The other part is inherent to /e/ business model and would be difficult to sell to PTIO…
In my opinion, /e/ is just not mature enough. It’s still a beta, and still doesn’t compete on privacy and security with GrapheneOS. I’d really like /e/ to make a security/deGoolaged audit. I myself don’t use e.email to important things because of no E2E + I trust protonmail better on email security.
It would be a great idea to retry once the v1 is released though.
Does anyone believe you can “DeGoogle” a phone OS, then install popular apps like Facebook or Twitter, from a “third party” app store, and avoid tracking? That’s what Eelo is selling, and it’s a lie.
Although this isn’t some nice advice but it does gives me a hint…I guess there should be a tracker blocker shipped along with the ROM, Adaway would be a nice choice
@Baguette, I agree with what you are lining out.
And yes, I believe too it might be wise to wait until /e/ reaches v.1.0 before retrying.
There’s just one thing where I suppose it will not change from /e/‘s side: developing services within the /e/ eco-system that are paid and that allows to run the /e/-project in an economically long-term viable way (at least I hope so). But this might collide with Privacy Tools’ position:
I think, that’s a point it will be necessary to push Privacy Tools’ position a bit forward.
I am aware, that there are lots of software companies developing software who’s business model is based on the idea to monetize it on the back of users/customers (and ideally keeping them locked into that ecosystem). I fully understand it PT does not want to promote those approaches.
But related to that there’s the too often unanswered question: How to finance software development - especially in a long run and especially open source software? Answers to these questions are especially important to ensure that the open source approach becomes a long-term success story.
Just condemning someone because he/she is earning money with his/her project, that is too short thought. We rather need more in-depth thinking, defining what business models are definitely too creepy and what others can be considered as being okay and in line with the open source spirit. When times come, we could ask that question to the Privacy Tools guys…
I think you are missing the point here. By design, centralizing data is a bad idea. If the same company, however good minded, have all your data on their servers it means that if you’re hacked, you’re screwed. I mean if you have your mail, contacts, notes, files … Pretty much your all life in the same place and a breach or hack happen, you basically gave it all to hackers. So if /e/ is one day recommended by PTIO, it will have a warning sign saying that they recommend not to store all your data on /e/ (which is good practice in my opinion)
I agree on this but I prefer TrackerControl. I’m not sure but I remember such a service was discussed or added on the roadmap
Thanks @Baguette for your comment. The reason why I asked my question in this forum is that I thought that maybe someone already asked received an answer to that question, especially because it’s a case of this forum. Although, I feel a bit tired to dig in conversation and processing all garbage messages to get the target one. Anyway thanks for posting it here!
Isn’t it like Graphene OS is based on AOSP Project?
Also regarding centralizing data I also think that on a different fields of our current life centralizing anything is not the optimal way to thrive. Especially when the goal is to be a really big and significant project associating many users. Don’t we experience it with “gugle”, already:
e-mail, navigation, office, cloud, address book, chat, video calls, AI and many many more???
To be more precise the big brother is not something bad. It’s just a consequence of human need of comfort maybe laziness and current time when we don’t have or rather we don’t allow ourselves to find a moment for relax cause there’s always something to do. At least those two affect so huge and fast development of big or even giant corporations. Which were in the beginning a tiny group of people, I guess.
Firstly, what I know “Eelo” is the past. Now we have /e/ Foundation. Secondly, I’m not sure what the person’s comment is referring to. If it’s true that eOS has filtered out google code and replace the default applications by at least decent ones which respect privacy then it’s on the user’s side to not use such spying applications. Nevertheless, I guess it’s not easy to develop brand new application from the scratch, particularly when many applications need to work smoothly at one time to call your product an operating system. So I believe in this case eOS (and not the only one) uses already developed open source applications. I’m not focusing on the relationship between a team which an application has been forked from.
I don’t feel that I know much the e Foundation and it’s history, but this is how I understand their current work.
Where is this claimed? This question (?) does not make that much sense. Yes the phone is freed from Samsung, Apple, Google, face book and so on. No action needed. Just check it. If you put all of the apps and services back? Sure, then your phone is nolonger free of them.
A man goes to the doctor and says, “Doctor, wherever I touch, it hurts.”
The doctor asks, “What do you mean?”
The man says, “When I touch my shoulder, it really hurts.When I touch my knee - OUCH! When I touch my forehead, it really, really hurts.”
The doctor says, “I know what’s wrong with you. You’ve broken your finger!”
Keep in mind, all /e/ tools/products are or are going to be optional and open source (ready to be forked).