Why are reproducible builds only on one platform (Android)? Desktop version could have a built-in backdoor and data would be transferred not from the phone, but from the PC)

  • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    9 months ago

    For the same reason its not on F-droid. They say “open source” but want to keep the source code to themselves. They are hostile to anyone who wants to fork it or create alternatives

    • noodlejetski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      9 months ago

      they’re hostile to anyone who forks and creates alternatives using their servers. you’re more than welcome making a fork on your own infrastructure.

    • FarLine99@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      9 months ago

      Molly still exists. They are against those forks that have Signal in their name. But in general, yes, the software development/delivery process is more similar to corporate than open source

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      How can you be hostile to someone creating forks? If the code is there you can fork it. Do you mean they are hostile to people using alternative clients to connect to their servers?

    • ono@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Moxie always did keep rigid control of Signal’s development and operations, often running contrary to users’ concerns and needs. I don’t think that has changed since he left.

      He has argued at length against decentralized messaging. Requiring phone numbers is another example. Being bound to Google services is yet another: Signal dragged their feet on that issue for years, and when they finally did offer a non-google build, they hid it away on an unlinked page of their site and placed it below a “Danger” warning.

      For all their talk of security and their contribution to the field of data privacy, some of their choices seem very strange, and the reasoning they offer is often dubious. I am not convinced that their motivations are aligned with my best interests. Their actions are certainly not.

    • angelorohit@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      This comment doesn’t make sense. They can’t be hostile toward people forking code that they already open sourced.