lastweakness

If you’re gonna use Opera anyway, why not just use Brave and disable the crypto stuff? The native adblocker on Brave is on par with uBlock Origin and performs even better. Opera is probably the worst direction you can go from where you are right now…

Yes, I’m aware, that’s what I was talking about too. As much as I love Vivaldi and want to trust them, i don’t think i can trust them as easily as Brave

That’s essentially the same as not being open source considering the only part that’s open source is the engine code, which is mostly just chromium

Oh thanks! Dearrow looks interesting

Vivaldi is closed source. Brave isn’t. Even with all its very real problems, Brave is the best option aside from Firefox, especially once you turn off all the weird stuff

Yeah

You used a comma once. You could have used it again …

Proton’s labels implementation sucks though. I can’t filter by two labels for example, like “Credit Card” & “Statements”. Kinda makes labels the same as folders… I don’t really see a point in it

They’ve been around for 10 already. They will be around longer too, given that they’re profitable, which they’ve continued to be. They also aren’t under any legal pressure because they’ve complied with government requests, just with limited data because that’s all the data they store. Their client software, which is where the encryption happens, is all audited and open sourced. Any reason to distrust them would really be baseless right now. At the very least, they are definitely better than Google when it comes to trust…

So far, Proton has been doing a better job than Google ever did for me. Especially considering that they don’t even read my mail content, that is genuinely impressive to me

You’d have enough control over the software that you can ensure nothing like this happens

In general, I agree with you. I would very much prefer if they did more open sourcing too. Just want to address some additional stuff.

especially if it’s a scripted client, since it would deliver code uncompiled.

Unfortunately, this isn’t really true anymore because of the necessity of minification. It introduces obscurity but is necessary for performance. But yes, the rest is correct, which is why I specified “web clients”. You can verify the native clients, which is why native clients are so important imo. The concern of a hacked server serving a keylogging web client is unfortunately very real. Kind of makes it impossible to fully trust any SaaS at all.

if you trust audits for logging practices presumably you can trust them for checking that the code base is the same

The thing is, they already do public third party audits already. You can view their audit reports on their site. This is unlike companies like Google and Microsoft who conduct audits and keep the reports private. If you end up having to trust third party audits anyway, it doesn’t help their model of trust since they do already do that in a transparent manner.

But yeah… stuff like the monopoly is kind of intentional. The exports are a mitigation, a huge one at that. Proton Mail exports are supported by services like FastMail, Proton Pass exports are supported by Bitwarden, etc. But in the end, the best case scenario would be some level of open sourcing. It’s just that this “monopoly” is by design. For better or for worse, the fact that there is only one Proton is also good for Proton’s model of trust tbh since the user doesn’t have to wonder if the “instance” they’re using is a good one for example. The fediverse model will not work for something that is so heavily based on trust. Proton wants to appeal to the general user, more than us folks… for better or for worse…

I hope they succeed too. I don’t trust many companies. Proton has been one of the exceptions and I hope it stays that way…

would be good, actually.

Good for us. Bad for business. I explained this in another comment too but Proton’s idea of “open source” is simply to build trust in the security and privacy offered by the service. At least, as much as you can trust any SaaS.

but then why not share the server side code?

And to answer this… Well, business and practicality… One more than the other ofc unfortunately… Why would they take on the additional burden of making it self-hostable, make the backend fully open source, etc just to make competition for themselves? And that maintenance burden is huge btw, especially when the backend was probably never intended for self-hosting in the first place.

If Proton, as a company or foundation, didn’t keep making the right decisions in terms of privacy and security, we might have had a reason to doubt their backend. But so far, there’s been nothing. And steps like turning to a foundation-based model just inspires more trust. By using client-side encryption, even within the browser, they’re trying to eliminate the need for trusting the closed source backend. Open sourcing the backend wouldn’t improve trust in the service itself anyway since you can’t verify that the code running in the backend is the same as the open sourced code. If you’re concerned about data, they also offer exports in open formats for every service they offer.

Why wouldn’t you trust them just because their backend is closed source? Ideologically, yeah I’d like them to open source absolutely everything. But as a service, whose income source is exclusively the service itself, how can it make sense for them to open source the backend when it cannot tangibly benefit their model of trust?

My other comment regarding proton and trust: https://lemmy.world/comment/11003650

They’re not actually good points at all… Proton’s open sourcing of the clients is for the purpose of trust in terms of security and privacy. The backend doesn’t matter because the point is that the data is encrypted before it ever gets to the backend. The goal with Proton’s open sourcing is not the ability to make it self-hostable. Sure, a lot of concerns are valid, but this isn’t like Microsoft or Google. Nearly all of Proton is verifiably and provably secure. Well, at least as long as you trust the web clients being served are the ones whose code is publicly available. But again… You can’t verify that with any SaaS. Such a risk is even present with self-hosting tbh. But that’s another discussion.

Nearly all of Proton’s stuff uses publicly verifiable client side encryption, so idk what all this is about

Why would Microsoft care?

… Okay?

CPU usage is famously terrible with Electron, which i also pointed out in the comment you’re replying to. But yes, having multiple chromium instances running for each “app” is terrible

Yes, it really is that bad. 350 MBs of RAM for something that could otherwise have taken less than 100? That isn’t bad to you? And also, it’s not just RAM. It’s every resource, including CPU, which is especially bad with Electron.

I don’t really mind Electron myself because I have enough resources. But pretending the lack of optimization isn’t a real problem is just not right.

They didn’t just quadruple. They’re orders of magnitude higher these days. So content is a real thing.

But that’s not what’s actually being discussed here, memory usage these days is much more of a problem caused by bad practices rather than just content.