Apr 5, 2026, 9:00 PM@GrapheneOS to be fair they don't promise security, only privacy. at least in their foreword on their website here.
I don't think it's by accident that they don't even use the word secure, or security, on the whole page.
I've seen claims before where they claim it's better than GrapheneOS. But in what regard? Maybe degoogling and having alternatives pre-installed? GrapheneOS is probably more involved to get the same apps. That's the only way /e/ is better in my opinion
Apr 5, 2026, 9:02 PM@GrapheneOS but I'm fine with not even comparing them. grapheneos is an OS and /e/ is a ROM
@codebam @GrapheneOS They are both operating systems. ROM is an inaccurate term.
Apr 5, 2026, 9:15 PM@HybridStaticAnimate @GrapheneOS well it is a ROM in the sense that you flash it with TWRP, or you can
Apr 5, 2026, 9:16 PM@HybridStaticAnimate @GrapheneOS GrapheneOS is a factory image and is used with a locked bootloader
@codebam @GrapheneOS Yes, that doesnt mean anything in this context though.
@codebam @GrapheneOS This does not make something a ROM. ROM is an inaccurate term.
Apr 5, 2026, 9:25 PM@HybridStaticAnimate @GrapheneOS fair enough, I was just calling it a ROM in the sense that it's just as insecure, if not more, than the ROMs (or operating systems) people were flashing directly to their /system and /data partitions back in like 2014
They dont provide privacy. So a promise is already broken. But beyond that, privacy cannot exist without security. They arent mutually exclusive, they are intertwined. To ignore security means you are not a privacy project.
E/ is not better at degoogling. GrapheneOS does not connect to any google servers, run any google play code, have any privilege google services, etc. Sandboxed google play is sandboxed and must be installed by the user. All default connections are to first party servers hosted by GOS. It is not more involved to get the same apps, google or otherwise.
@HybridStaticAnimate @codebam @GrapheneOS
That it must be installed by the user doesn't make it different.
IMHO the two app stores included in GrapheneOS are not sufficient for the vast majority of users.
If "every" user needs to install it to have a usable phone, it really is part of the attack surface.
(And yes, I'm aware the Play services are sandboxed on GrapheneOS which improves privacy and security)
It's a bit like delivering a computer without network functionality because it reduces the attack surface, and then blaming the user if they install network drivers.
@realn2s @HybridStaticAnimate @codebam
> IMHO the two app stores included in GrapheneOS are not sufficient for the vast majority of users.
Our own App Store is the only one included in GrapheneOS. We don't bundle third party apps and services into the OS. Using those is entirely a user choice and will remain that way.
Our App Store provides Accrescent and the Play Store. If you think other apps such as Obtainium should be easily available then get those to submit their apps into Accrescent.
@codebam /e/ doesn't have similar privacy protections as GrapheneOS. Unlike GrapheneOS, /e/ connects to a bunch of Google services by default and also unlike GrapheneOS gives extensions privileged access to Google apps and services. We don't use the term degoogled and it's not the purpose of GrapheneOS but GrapheneOS does only connect to our own servers by default and does not give any privileged access to installed Google apps without the user explicitly enabling narrow forms via a few toggles.
@codebam /e/ fails to keep up with standard privacy patches and fails to provide standard privacy protections. /e/ has privacy invasive apps and services included. They have user tracking via a unique random identifier in their update client and multiple invasive services which are marketed as private when they aren't. They've had issues including leaking files stored in their cloud server to other users which turned out to clearly not actually be E2EE. Privacy also heavily depends on security.