RCS client
[deleted] I'm not disputing the pros and cons.
From reading your other comments, I think you do dispute the pros. And you are annoyed and resentful that you keep getting the same advice because you disagree.
But that's okay. Security and privacy is a diverse field with many differing opinions and different philosophies on how to implement good security or privacy.
Your browser extension example is probably one in which our philosophies agree. But on open source, apparently we don't.
I think where I've misunderstood you is thinking that you agree with the pros, but are getting advice that doesn't explain it well.
But now I think you don't actually believe in the benefits of open source. And then responding with that assumption that it's bad advice.
For that, we disagree.
I think it's important to respect opinions and most important to realize that opinions can differ greatly while still being valid.
Your opinion on open source is valid. But please do not discount the very valid opposing opinions on open source, by calling them myths or irrelevant.
[deleted]
- Edited
From reading your other comments, I think you do dispute the pros. And you are annoyed and resentful that you keep getting the same advice because you disagree.
This is true for the second part.
As for the first part, I don't see where I've criticized the advantages of open source? I'm criticizing communication, not development. I wouldn't sponsor GrapheneOS and accrescent on github otherwise.
But on open source, apparently we don't.
Totally. We would have agreed a few years ago. Not since I moved to GrapheneOS. It's mainly here, or with other GrapheneOS-related people, that I've totally changed my mind about open source claims.
But now I think you don't actually believe in the benefits of open source.
That's your opinion.
Mine is not to choose an app on ideological bias, rather than a pragmatic one.
But please do not discount the very valid opposing opinions on open source, by calling them myths or irrelevant.
To be honest, being called a liar just above because I recommend (when I don't even use) google message, it doesn't really push me to consider these opinions.
The problem is that every time, I tell myself it's a subject I shouldn't be commenting on anymore, and I fail every time.
This is my last answer on the subject. We'll only be able to agree to disagree.
[deleted]
It might be interesting to make a dedicated topic. Here it's a bit buried in the middle of another discussion.
I guess you're not the only one who's self-healed or has done so.
Personally, I'm looking into self-hosting a searX instance, if only to test it out, as I'm not comfortable testing an unfamiliar instance in a real-life situation, but I'm afraid I'll end up in the same situation as you: a big investment in time, for a negligible impact.
[deleted] I don't see where I've criticized the advantages of open source
What you've written was interpreted that way. But miscommunication is common on forums.
If you had avoided the loaded words like "irrelevant" and "myth", and just said something like, 'the claims of open source being more secure due to community code review are simply "overrated"', the I and many others would agree.
[deleted] I'm criticizing communication, not development
That's really common here on GrapheneOS too. That developers do amazing work, but communication skills of some are, um, controversial.
[deleted] Mine is not to choose an app on ideological bias, rather than a pragmatic one.
People shilling for Google or any particular company based on reputation of their security team or their past slogan of "not being evil", would be the ideological bias. Open vs. Closed source is a pragmatic decision. Often times, Google IS the better choice.
However, being Open Source is one of dozens of factors that should go into a choice. I don't know of anyone suggesting otherwise. That is why I said, "It sounds like your problem is about getting short, generalized answers that don't include context or nuance." If someone is telling you to ignore all other factors, and just choose based on open-source, then that is wrong. I don't see that advice being given like that... but I understand if that is how you feel/interpret it.
- Edited
csis01 RCS is fundamentally a g* product, as it routes all your messages through g* servers. I don't recommend its use on that basis.
Not entirely true, but for some carriers it is.
RCS really is a standard for carriers and requires carrier support for how is intended to work. When you transfer messages carrier to carrier, each side needs the RCS infrastructure to support that.
Google took advantage of the fact that they're a carrier (for Fi) and setup a carrier RCS server. In order to push the other carriers to actually implement RCS like they agreed to (and missed their own deadlines on doing for years), Google did some shifty work and setup their RCS app to opportunistically use your carrier's RCS server to send to the destination user's carrier RCS server, but replace either/both of these carrier RCS servers with theirs if the carrier in question doesn't have an RCS server yet.
They don't want to have to run the RCS servers for the entire world forever, and there are compatibility concerns with the app and the server so they've restricted who can use the Google RCS server and send RCS.
Now at this point most carriers do have at least partial RCS support, but Google has still not made RCS support available thru the normal carrier interface for some reason and have restricted it to their separate app. Technically someone could write their own RCS messaging app right now, but it would only work for a very small number of users and with a small number of features since compatibility requires both the sender and receiver to be on a carrier with RCS and with overlapping sets of RCS features. But they'd have to implement the whole RCS protocol basically from scratch, which rightfully no one wants to do.
EDIT: typo
Has anyone looked at this project
https://github.com/Hirohumi/RustyRcs
It seems to have promise as a client, But I don't know much else