It’s worth watching, yes.
To understand the purpose of CalyxOS, you must understand the purpose of the project, of course.
We can’t simply say that it’s a terrible Custom ROM for privacy, as he did. It was quite wrong and in bad faith to say that a project that, yes, is much better than using a Stock ROM, however, the fact that he compared it to other Custom ROMs that also claim to focus on privacy and showed that CalyxOS doesn’t differ much from them is completely valid and truly a fact.
DivestOS, with only one developer at the helm, was much more hardened than it. Which makes one wonder why CalyxOS, with an entire team behind it, doesn’t follow the same example. It really is disappointing.
Want to prove it? Check out the website (https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm) he shows in the video and see for yourself.
Not only is comparing these not the point (CalyxOS has a different purpose than GrapheneOS), the chart is heavily biased towards Graphene. Take for example the whole section on privacy. They list Graphene specific features, note that Graphene has them, and make other roms look bad for “not having them”, or even provide incorrect information. “Storage Scopes” and “Contact Scopes” for example, two Graphene features, intended to make closed source apps “happy” with giving them fake permissions. Although there’s definitely a use for this feature, being much more FOSS focused, Calyx provides the option to isolate non-foss apps into a work profile. This is effectively doing something very similar, although more limited to the user. Or the “Tracking through Android Advertising ID?” column, which lists only Graphene as “Not part of the system”, and everything else as “Randomized ID”. Graphene runs the official Google play services “in a sandbox”, without modifying or patching anything significant. This also means Google’s implementation of Advertising ID is being used. This is not randomized, and worse for privacy than anything using MicroG. Calyx MicroG and Graphene Google Play Services are both opt in, yet the chart favors Graphene by claiming it doesn’t have the anti-feature.
“Which makes one wonder why CalyxOS, with an entire team behind it, doesn’t follow the same example”
When you already answered your question in the beginning…
“To understand the purpose of CalyxOS, you must understand the purpose of the project, of course”
If you compare CalyxOS to DivestOS or GrapheneOS, then you’ve missed the point of CalyxOS, “the purpose of the project”. They are intended for different people, though there is some overlap. CalyxOS respects FOSS much more than does GrapheneOS, and to me that’s a very valuable thing. They tighten privacy, but are not as focused on security alterations beyond stock android, beyond making it less leaky when it comes to personal data, which in its own way is a reinforcement of security.
Also, DivestOS has “divested” itself of participation in the privacy/security game and stopped all development. It’s sad, but I’m happy that the developer is getting to live his life to a fuller degree now. He contributed a lot of value to the open source world in the past.
Regarding the implementation of GrapheneOS’s Google Play Services sandbox, I particularly like it and if it is to be considered something to popularize the use of open source OS (GrapheneOS), limiting Google’s data collection (since the use of Google Play Services sandbox is completely opt-in), it also maintains compatibility and avoids many issues so as not to alienate the general public from enjoying the other benefits of using an open source OS, something that MicroG does not do, however, I use it and I think it is an incredible project, but take into account the perspective of popularizing open source by the general public without associating it with software issues.
That is why, when I refer to understanding the purpose of the CalyxOS project, I really understand, what I mean is that there is no prospect of changing and becoming a more hardened Custom ROM benefiting its users. A lot of things could be improved. There are resources for that.
NOTE: I know about the end of the Divested Project development, which is worthy of applause for the time of contribution to the community and of thanks without a doubt. I only used it as an example of a truly hardened Custom ROM and that should be the goal for those who say that their OS is suitable for journalists like the CalyxOS team.
It’s worth watching, yes. To understand the purpose of CalyxOS, you must understand the purpose of the project, of course. We can’t simply say that it’s a terrible Custom ROM for privacy, as he did. It was quite wrong and in bad faith to say that a project that, yes, is much better than using a Stock ROM, however, the fact that he compared it to other Custom ROMs that also claim to focus on privacy and showed that CalyxOS doesn’t differ much from them is completely valid and truly a fact. DivestOS, with only one developer at the helm, was much more hardened than it. Which makes one wonder why CalyxOS, with an entire team behind it, doesn’t follow the same example. It really is disappointing. Want to prove it? Check out the website (https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm) he shows in the video and see for yourself.
Not only is comparing these not the point (CalyxOS has a different purpose than GrapheneOS), the chart is heavily biased towards Graphene. Take for example the whole section on privacy. They list Graphene specific features, note that Graphene has them, and make other roms look bad for “not having them”, or even provide incorrect information. “Storage Scopes” and “Contact Scopes” for example, two Graphene features, intended to make closed source apps “happy” with giving them fake permissions. Although there’s definitely a use for this feature, being much more FOSS focused, Calyx provides the option to isolate non-foss apps into a work profile. This is effectively doing something very similar, although more limited to the user. Or the “Tracking through Android Advertising ID?” column, which lists only Graphene as “Not part of the system”, and everything else as “Randomized ID”. Graphene runs the official Google play services “in a sandbox”, without modifying or patching anything significant. This also means Google’s implementation of Advertising ID is being used. This is not randomized, and worse for privacy than anything using MicroG. Calyx MicroG and Graphene Google Play Services are both opt in, yet the chart favors Graphene by claiming it doesn’t have the anti-feature.
You end your comment by saying…
When you already answered your question in the beginning…
If you compare CalyxOS to DivestOS or GrapheneOS, then you’ve missed the point of CalyxOS, “the purpose of the project”. They are intended for different people, though there is some overlap. CalyxOS respects FOSS much more than does GrapheneOS, and to me that’s a very valuable thing. They tighten privacy, but are not as focused on security alterations beyond stock android, beyond making it less leaky when it comes to personal data, which in its own way is a reinforcement of security.
Also, DivestOS has “divested” itself of participation in the privacy/security game and stopped all development. It’s sad, but I’m happy that the developer is getting to live his life to a fuller degree now. He contributed a lot of value to the open source world in the past.
Regarding the implementation of GrapheneOS’s Google Play Services sandbox, I particularly like it and if it is to be considered something to popularize the use of open source OS (GrapheneOS), limiting Google’s data collection (since the use of Google Play Services sandbox is completely opt-in), it also maintains compatibility and avoids many issues so as not to alienate the general public from enjoying the other benefits of using an open source OS, something that MicroG does not do, however, I use it and I think it is an incredible project, but take into account the perspective of popularizing open source by the general public without associating it with software issues.
That is why, when I refer to understanding the purpose of the CalyxOS project, I really understand, what I mean is that there is no prospect of changing and becoming a more hardened Custom ROM benefiting its users. A lot of things could be improved. There are resources for that.
NOTE: I know about the end of the Divested Project development, which is worthy of applause for the time of contribution to the community and of thanks without a doubt. I only used it as an example of a truly hardened Custom ROM and that should be the goal for those who say that their OS is suitable for journalists like the CalyxOS team.