I feel like there’s maybe a handful of these “what if github was an app store” type apps. Personally I don’t see the appeal. F-Droid is the best way to get apps imo, and if it’s not in F-Droid it’s probably on IzzyOnDroid, and if it’s in neither of those they’re publishing releases on their git repo and you can just use Obtainium for those. These “github store” type apps just seem to try to be “Obtainium but easier” but at the cost of centering github as “the store” which considering how hostile github is is not the best idea

But I never saw the appeal of avoiding f-droid just to “cut out the middleman” because then you lose the third-party verification that the apk actually corresponds to the source code and you can meaningfully exercise your four freedoms.

Honestly if I had to deal with degooglers and Linux fanboys as much as he did I’d probably go batshit insane. Kudos to him

There are some things that can be described as philosophy of Linux (e.g. “don’t break userspace”, “I only care about the code”), but the idea that “Linux is about [freedom|choice|privacy|openness]” is entirely mythological. It’s just a neat free software operating system kernel that has been used to build operating systems, many of which are free software.

Of course, Linux is “too fragmented” because there isn’t a standard “linux desktop environment” (or package manager, or shell, etc) unless it’s systemd in which case it’s “about choice” and we need “init freedom.”

Personally, as a free software enthusiast, I feel entitled to the “four freedoms” with every tool I use, no matter how large or small. I have no problem paying for free software and have done so in the past. For me the four freedoms are the point. A proprietary license is either a dealbreaker or a very large downside.

So, for me:

Is source‑available meaningfully different from closed‑source?

No. “Source available” in this context is a type of proprietary license. The fact that source code is visible does not make it not proprietary, because it is shared under a license that favors the interest of the rightsholder above those of its users. I talk about this often when contrasting so-called business and ethical licenses with true FOSS licenses. A true FOSS license grants modification and distribution rights and does not impose usage restrictions, a proprietary license imposes usage restrictions. With a FOSS license I don’t need to worry that whatever I’m using the software for somehow infringes the rightsholder’s personal ethics, and it encourages forking and code reuse.

In other words, thinking about it in terms of whether the source code is open or closed or “available” is missing the point entirely for the free software community. The point is what are you are allowed to do with the software and what restrictions are the rightsholder imposing on your usage of the software. Keep in mind most users are not programmers and thus being able to see source code does not impart any direct advantage to them, but allowing the community (which does include programmers) the four freedoms means things like forks and customizations can be spread.

Do you expect small tools to default to open‑source?

As said above I use free software wherever possible. Thinking about it I guess I generally do expect a small hobbyist tool (as opposed to something that exists to be a product) to be free software, but then again I use platforms that are favored by free software enthusiasts. On Windows I suppose it’s more common to see these as proprietary freeware apps.

Does hosting something on GitHub imply a FOSS expectation?

For me it does not, I’ve learned to always look for a license to make sure, but I think a lot of people do not understand that GitHub can host proprietary projects too.

For someone planning a larger ecosystem later, which model is the most reasonable starting point?

You’ll need to elaborate on this more. If you are planning to grow a free software community then using a true free software license is important. Free software and open source licenses are known to not impose usage restrictions that favor the rightsholder’s interests above the user’s, as I have said. On the other hand, if your goal is to create a business around the project, you need to balance your users rights against your business interests. Starting out with a free software license then switching to a proprietary source available license once you have a captive ecosystem will create resentment and guarantee a community based fork of the last true FOSS version.

The silver lining of “AI” is that it’s a convenient excuse to be anti-user. It’s okay as long as you are “fighting the AI”

I expect to be chugging verification cans in 2027

It is also (as far as I can tell) proprietary

Is mobian still maintained? I had a quick look a couple days ago and their last blog post was 3+ years ago.

October 2025 by my reckoning.

https://blog.mobian.org/posts/2025/10/new-stable-rotating-keys/

Linux, the kernel, is the thing that containers run on top of. The container does not actually contain an instance of Linux, it shares it with the host.

If by Linux you mean “literally everything except Linux” though, then sure. But I prefer to say what I mean and mean what I say

You never needed a VM to run Linux apps on Android. Android can run Linux apps because it is already a Linux operating system. This is like referring to a docker container as “running Linux on Debian” or whatever.

Free software is about freedom, not price. It’s perfectly acceptable to sell it. It being a paid download doesn’t necessarily mean it’s proprietary. He’s not required to actually post the source online for all to access, he can send it only to paying customers. As long as the customer receives it under a free software license it is free software.

However, without mention of a free software license, I am inclined to believe it is proprietary - although it is described as open source on the page, he might mean to say source available.

russian proprietary software

The “Russian” part is not the problem here

Isn’t this proprietary?

What makes Sailfish OS unique over competitors like GrapheneOS and e/OS is that it’s not based on the Android Open Source Project, but Linux.

Not only are AOSP and its derivatives also based on Linux, they are actually free software unlike Sailfish OS which contains some amount of proprietary code (I know at least the Android compatibility layer - which I’m told isn’t simply the AOSP runtime (as Waydroid uses) but some proprietary thing).

s/Linux/systemd/g

Ironically though this makes the reverse a bit more defensible (i.e. using an LLM to reverse engineer a proprietary app) because that proprietary app’s source code is less likely to be among the publicly available dataset.

But I imagine the corpos aren’t going to look fondly on that for obvious reasons.

I wouldn’t characterize myself as “the GOS camp” (I use LineageOS) I just happen to agree with them sometimes, and this is one of those times.

I do imagine this response is to some degree influenced by their beef with /e/ (an OS I don’t have a high opinion of either, but for other reasons). It just seems to me that people see “not google” and think it’s a good thing, but a gatekeeper determining which OS you are allowed to use with what apps is fundamentally a bad idea even if it’s not google.

GrapheneOS is critical of this initiative here and I think their criticism has merit. This simply moves the gatekeeper from Google to a handful of OEM’s who won’t let you use anything other than their blessed OS’s.

I think the fact that the maintainer is intimately knowledgeable about the original codebase is enough for it to not be a clean room re-implementation, no? That’s what makes it “clean”

You’re being downvoted but it’s true. The GNU Image Manipulation Program is held back by its inappropriate name. Not only does it have several problematic connotations it is also just not a very flattering term in general. To describe something as gimped is not a compliment.

As techies we’re sympathetic to the project and are likely to give funny or inappropriate names a pass, but think about how “normies” would see it, especially in e.g. a business or education context, with knowledge of the derogatory meaning(s) of the word.