> 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...

> 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 ...