6 ms·

No one is forcing you to use proprietary software. See this comment from moxie https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10665520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?i

by uph 10y ago

No one is forcing you to use proprietary software. See this comment from moxie https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10665520 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10665520 Using GCM is only a problem for people running a custom Android ROM without Google Play Services. Using GCM doesn't make Signal less private. Google doesn't see any data via gcm, it's just a tickle. If you want push messages, you gotta use a push network. https://twitter.com/whispersystems/status/695399112833761283 https://twitter.com/whispersystems/status/695399112833761283 Feel free to help out with code https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/43 https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/43 or money https://www.bountysource.com/issues/35722527-create-proper-pull-request-to-add-libresignal-s-websocket-support-to-ows-signal https://www.bountysource.com/issues/35722527-create-proper-p... if using Signal without GCM is important to you. If the only thing that the remaining people here want out of LibreSignal is a websocket-only solution and gmscore isn't an option for whatever reason, I would consider a clean, well written, and well tested PR for websocket-only support in Signal. I expect it to have high battery consumption and an unreliable user experience, but would be fine with it if it comes with a warning and only runs in the absence of play services. However, I also realize that still won't help people that are trying to build a Google-free experience on Google's platform https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/127 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/127 , since we still don't have the things we need https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/127#issuecomment-21763521 https://github.com/WhisperSystems/Signal-Android/issues/127#... to be comfortable distributing software outside of Play. https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-226646872 https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco... Considering how a small minority complain about this everytime Signal is mentioned you'd think they'd do something about it, but take a look at that Bountysource link and you'll see 8 backers. Guess complaining is easier.

kuschku 10y ago
Actually, Moxie has threatened to shut LibreSignal down if they allow LibreSignal users to message normal Signal users, and refused to even discuss alternative solutions. He also uses the GCM library from Google, which pulls in several analytics libraries into the APK, so "Using GCM doesn't make Signal less private." is objectively false. (And in addition to that, Moxie even refuses to allow any distribution that doesn’t come with full analytics, which is extremely user hostile.) > Guess complaining is easier. No, it’s easier to use XMPP than to fix a system that’s broken by design like Signal. EDIT: Seriously? Downvotes for criticising publicly documented user-hostile behaviour from Moxie? Fuck this, the discussion culture here really got worse than even Reddit.
- StavrosK 10y ago
  Downvoting this comment without offering a counterpoint is very bad etiquette. Can someone provide a counterargument? Otherwise it's just pretty much censorship.
  - mentat 10y ago
    I do not think "censorship" means what you think it means. Censorship would be moderators deleting something. Making claims without citations is fully in play to downvote.
    - StavrosK 10y ago
      I guess you're right about the censorship part, but still, just downvoting comments without replying is not useful to anyone. The comments above that reply clarifying the situation are much more informative.
- Jarwain 10y ago
  Could it be because some of your information is spun/misleading? LibreSignal was abandoned according to their github, first of all. Secondly, the issue is that OWS doesn't want "others" using the servers that they own and maintain for Signal.[1] As far as I understand, they disapprove of people using the name Signal or TextSecure or Redphone for their forks, due to confusion by users who believe that the fork is actually the app released by OWS. He doesn't explicitly say whether "LibreSignal" is okay, but would prefer for a namechange to reduce confusion. Afaik, he also encourages people who don't like the GCM build in Signal to swap it out with the rewritten open source one and build with that. [1]https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217231557 https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
  - kuschku 10y ago
    > LibreSignal was abandoned according to their github, first of all. Yes, because Moxie threatened in the discussion you linked? > Secondly, the issue is that OWS doesn't want "others" using the servers that they own and maintain for Signal The issue is that Moxie refuses to federate, or allow others the right to develop third party apps interfacing with his server (Which, btw, he can’t prohibit in the EU anyway). > Afaik, he also encourages people who don't like the GCM build in Signal to swap it out with the rewritten open source one and build with that. Yet he threatens anyone trying to distribute an alternative build with it stripped out. How the fuck is that open source development, if you threaten anyone forking it, and don’t allow any PRs that could make it more open, AND refuse to allow federation? That’s not any better than just using Facebook Messenger.
cyphar 10y ago
> Using GCM is only a problem for people running a custom Android ROM without Google Play Services. Using GCM doesn't make Signal less private. The issue is not privacy, it's the use of a proprietary service. Now, GsmCore from microG does solve the problem somewhat. But then you have to ask "where will you get the app from?". The answer is "not F-Droid because moxie doesn't like it". So you have three options for actually installing the app and keeping it up to date: 1. Use the Google Play Store (proprietary). 2. Build the app yourself and keep it up to date yourself (not fun and doesn't help anyone other than me). 3. Use an unofficial FDroid repo (or do step 2 and host the repo myself). This option means that you have some random administrator controlling updates. I actually agree with moxie that FDroid really should add developer signatures to packages (though IMO the desktop GNU/Linux model of package updates is actually fairly solid -- though you don't have the Open Build Service for android packages :P). Overall, the choices are a shit-show. Now, I get that it isn't of concern to moxie what people like me have to do to get this to work with their phones. That's fine, I understand. But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to mention it if I get the chance -- because it does legitimately make things harder for me. I get that free software on phones isn't a big concern to many people, but it is to me. > Considering how a small minority complain about this everytime Signal is mentioned you'd think they'd do something about it, but take a look at that Bountysource link and you'll see 8 backers. Guess complaining is easier. I contribute (both code and money, and also as part of my day job) to many free software projects, but I refuse to contribute to a project which actively encourages the use of proprietary software in order to use it properly. I get that it makes things easier for users, but that doesn't make it right. So maybe you shouldn't be so condescending?

by uph 10y ago

kuschku 10y ago

Actually, Moxie has threatened to shut LibreSignal down if they allow LibreSignal users to message normal Signal users, and refused to even discuss alternative solutions. He also uses the GCM library from Google, which pulls in several analytics libraries into the APK, so "Using GCM doesn't make Signal less private." is objectively false. (And in addition to that, Moxie even refuses to allow any distribution that doesn’t come with full analytics, which is extremely user hostile.) > Guess complaining is easier. No, it’s easier to use XMPP than to fix a system that’s broken by design like Signal. EDIT: Seriously? Downvotes for criticising publicly documented user-hostile behaviour from Moxie? Fuck this, the discussion culture here really got worse than even Reddit.

StavrosK 10y ago
Downvoting this comment without offering a counterpoint is very bad etiquette. Can someone provide a counterargument? Otherwise it's just pretty much censorship.
- mentat 10y ago
  I do not think "censorship" means what you think it means. Censorship would be moderators deleting something. Making claims without citations is fully in play to downvote.
  - StavrosK 10y ago
    I guess you're right about the censorship part, but still, just downvoting comments without replying is not useful to anyone. The comments above that reply clarifying the situation are much more informative.
Jarwain 10y ago
Could it be because some of your information is spun/misleading? LibreSignal was abandoned according to their github, first of all. Secondly, the issue is that OWS doesn't want "others" using the servers that they own and maintain for Signal.[1] As far as I understand, they disapprove of people using the name Signal or TextSecure or Redphone for their forks, due to confusion by users who believe that the fork is actually the app released by OWS. He doesn't explicitly say whether "LibreSignal" is okay, but would prefer for a namechange to reduce confusion. Afaik, he also encourages people who don't like the GCM build in Signal to swap it out with the rewritten open source one and build with that. [1]https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issuecomment-217231557 https://github.com/LibreSignal/LibreSignal/issues/37#issueco...
- kuschku 10y ago
  > LibreSignal was abandoned according to their github, first of all. Yes, because Moxie threatened in the discussion you linked? > Secondly, the issue is that OWS doesn't want "others" using the servers that they own and maintain for Signal The issue is that Moxie refuses to federate, or allow others the right to develop third party apps interfacing with his server (Which, btw, he can’t prohibit in the EU anyway). > Afaik, he also encourages people who don't like the GCM build in Signal to swap it out with the rewritten open source one and build with that. Yet he threatens anyone trying to distribute an alternative build with it stripped out. How the fuck is that open source development, if you threaten anyone forking it, and don’t allow any PRs that could make it more open, AND refuse to allow federation? That’s not any better than just using Facebook Messenger.

cyphar 10y ago

> Using GCM is only a problem for people running a custom Android ROM without Google Play Services. Using GCM doesn't make Signal less private. The issue is not privacy, it's the use of a proprietary service. Now, GsmCore from microG does solve the problem somewhat. But then you have to ask "where will you get the app from?". The answer is "not F-Droid because moxie doesn't like it". So you have three options for actually installing the app and keeping it up to date: 1. Use the Google Play Store (proprietary). 2. Build the app yourself and keep it up to date yourself (not fun and doesn't help anyone other than me). 3. Use an unofficial FDroid repo (or do step 2 and host the repo myself). This option means that you have some random administrator controlling updates. I actually agree with moxie that FDroid really should add developer signatures to packages (though IMO the desktop GNU/Linux model of package updates is actually fairly solid -- though you don't have the Open Build Service for android packages :P). Overall, the choices are a shit-show. Now, I get that it isn't of concern to moxie what people like me have to do to get this to work with their phones. That's fine, I understand. But that doesn't mean that I'm not going to mention it if I get the chance -- because it does legitimately make things harder for me. I get that free software on phones isn't a big concern to many people, but it is to me. > Considering how a small minority complain about this everytime Signal is mentioned you'd think they'd do something about it, but take a look at that Bountysource link and you'll see 8 backers. Guess complaining is easier. I contribute (both code and money, and also as part of my day job) to many free software projects, but I refuse to contribute to a project which actively encourages the use of proprietary software in order to use it properly. I get that it makes things easier for users, but that doesn't make it right. So maybe you shouldn't be so condescending?