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?

Some people can also just have health issues, but i get your point

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.

So we're just going to ignore stuff like Electron, unoptimized assets, etc... Basically every other known problem... Yeah let's just ignore all that

They're rewriting their mobile apps to make it possible

Cyberpunk 2077 is an actually great game now. Always had the potential to be one, but the devs fucked it up. But at the core, it was still a good game. And then the devs dedicated the time needed to make it actually great. If Starfield becomes the same in a couple of years, what's wrong with picking it up then? Just don't pick it up right now.

People like you are why the Linux community is viewed as being toxic.

T-Mobile is awaiting regulatory approval to acquire Mint and has otherwise reached an agreement to do so.

Or maybe they just want to disclose as little of their personal information, including services relied on, on an open platform like this. Idk if that's the case, but playing devil's advocate here