> First off, thanks for all your work on graphene! I run cyber security for a company in the defense space, with data-sovereignty requirements, and you guys are the only serious project around. You should think about selling support contacts, I know a lot of BlackBerry refugees still looking for something serious. I bet you could sell support and a barebones MDM as subscription /very/ successfully.
It's something we can consider in the future. We do plan to make our device management system with a unique approach not available elsewhere in the industry. We'll wait until we have it implemented to explain it.
We have funding to continue expanding the project and need to focus on that before trying to get funding in more ways than donations. We've been successfully expanding the development team. It's the non-development aspects which are barely in place.
Bear in mind our open source project has been around since 2014 but the non-profit organization was only formed in March 2023. There was a false start through forming a company in 2015 to support the project, then having it go off the rails and try to take over the open source project followed by years spent trying to destroy the project when that didn't work. It resulted in a lot of lost time, energy, money and opportunities. From a development perspective, GrapheneOS is a very mature project. From an organization perspective, we're still rebuilding from what happened in 2018. The focus is very much on development and building out the non-profit isn't easy for us.
> It's really not satisfactory.
We know it didn't turn out the way it was planned. Someone made the initial implementation for our use based on our design specifications and input. It was meant to become an official GrapheneOS project. We gave our design concepts to someone who began working on it, but the takeover attempt in 2018 lined up with this in a way that it got derailed. Today, this backup project is controlled by people directly involved in the takeover attempt and subsequent attacks on GrapheneOS. Believe me, we're not fans of the project and intend to either incrementally rewrite it or outright replace it.
The basic concept we created was an encrypted backup system able to support local backups, backups to an external drive, direct transfers from one device to another, arbitrary sync providers, etc. There was a whole vision for what it was meant to be but only certain aspects of it got implemented and mostly not in the way we intended at all. The fact that it exists acts as a barrier to making something better because we don't want to rip it out and start over with something not fully functional. It's easier to start a new project to add a missing feature than to figure out what to do about replacing an incomplete and low quality implementation of what we wanted from this. We need to figure out a whole migration plan away from it to something new where the old system doesn't go away until the new one at least does what it can do better.
> silly codeword system
It's a standard BIP39 seed phrase. It was meant to be a lot less limited than it is. There was a vision for what it should be which was partially communicated. The current team working on it doesn't understand the original vision for it and is not capable of creating something on the level we wanted to have.
It's something we can consider in the future. We do plan to make our device management system with a unique approach not available elsewhere in the industry. We'll wait until we have it implemented to explain it.
We have funding to continue expanding the project and need to focus on that before trying to get funding in more ways than donations. We've been successfully expanding the development team. It's the non-development aspects which are barely in place.
Bear in mind our open source project has been around since 2014 but the non-profit organization was only formed in March 2023. There was a false start through forming a company in 2015 to support the project, then having it go off the rails and try to take over the open source project followed by years spent trying to destroy the project when that didn't work. It resulted in a lot of lost time, energy, money and opportunities. From a development perspective, GrapheneOS is a very mature project. From an organization perspective, we're still rebuilding from what happened in 2018. The focus is very much on development and building out the non-profit isn't easy for us.
> It's really not satisfactory.
We know it didn't turn out the way it was planned. Someone made the initial implementation for our use based on our design specifications and input. It was meant to become an official GrapheneOS project. We gave our design concepts to someone who began working on it, but the takeover attempt in 2018 lined up with this in a way that it got derailed. Today, this backup project is controlled by people directly involved in the takeover attempt and subsequent attacks on GrapheneOS. Believe me, we're not fans of the project and intend to either incrementally rewrite it or outright replace it.
The basic concept we created was an encrypted backup system able to support local backups, backups to an external drive, direct transfers from one device to another, arbitrary sync providers, etc. There was a whole vision for what it was meant to be but only certain aspects of it got implemented and mostly not in the way we intended at all. The fact that it exists acts as a barrier to making something better because we don't want to rip it out and start over with something not fully functional. It's easier to start a new project to add a missing feature than to figure out what to do about replacing an incomplete and low quality implementation of what we wanted from this. We need to figure out a whole migration plan away from it to something new where the old system doesn't go away until the new one at least does what it can do better.
> silly codeword system
It's a standard BIP39 seed phrase. It was meant to be a lot less limited than it is. There was a vision for what it should be which was partially communicated. The current team working on it doesn't understand the original vision for it and is not capable of creating something on the level we wanted to have.