I get their reasoning, a lot of small (open source) projects struggle to keep the lights on. This has been an issue for the FOSS community for quite some time. Nothing wrong with exploring different ways of monetization.
But if the goal is privacy, then at least the core should be open. As a privacy conscious users I already don’t trust the companies out there, why add another layer I have to trust as well?
They are selling hardware, so hopefully at one point they’ll earn enough from that to completely open source their software, I’d really like them to succeed
The tricky part is, they want to be successful before they open source everything. But with the “we’re looking for privacy” crowd, it’s very very hard to be successful if your not transparent or if you’re using closed source components. Especially for something like an OS.
Personally, I would never consider an OS that’s not open source. Not just because of trust, but also because if something is broken, I want it to be fixable.
It’s also a principles thing; I’ll support an open source project, but won’t support a closed source which promises to one day be open source.
Thank you all for the interesting discussion here. Without having used it, functionality-wise and regarding its privacy-focus, I really like iodeOS. However, I also agree with @hirnsushi and I will not use it as long as the project is not open-sourced, simply since I cannot trust proprietary software. Even if the developers act with good intents, it is simply impossible to check and balance their product and there is no chance to discover possible weaknesses.
Thus, my personal choice is to use CalyxOS. It has a focus in terms of privacy similar to iodeOS, but is open source with no proprietary apps being part of their builds.
I hope, the iodeOS project finds a way to financially sustain without keeping parts of their OS proprietary, then I would be happy to give it a try and supporting the project.
Yes, but that would be consistent.
Otherwise, I have to trust that everything will be done according to the rules.
And then it is irrelevant in the end whether it is closed or open source.
Either I check it and am sure, or I trust it.
I don’t want to resist the whole idea. I really don’t. I’m also a friend of FOSS. Definitely.
But not necessarily just for the security thought behind it.
I just can’t get used to the idea that opensource should be more secure per se, just because the source code is open.
That is too easy and too naive for me to believe.
But again, I don’t want to start a discussion here. I don’t want to be a tease.
There is not only black or white. There are thousands of shades of gray in between…
Personally, I’d sponsor development of a mobile distribution I can use day to day. Mobile phones have a lot of potential but the software out there is… lacking.
Regrettably, iodeOS is not open source. I think it’s tricky to convince people to financially sponsor an open source project that is that project is currently closed source. This also doesn’t reflect too well on their mentality: it seems there’s a preference for delivering closed-source software.
Sorry, I don’t mean to bash here. Quite the contrary, I’m trying to provide useful constructive criticism: if an organisation wants to have a funding model to ship open source software, then they need to ship open source software.