| ▲ | mikae1 2 days ago |
| Obtanium[1], F-Droid[2], Aurora Store[3] and FFUpdater[4] are some options. Signal self updates from the APK download[6]. I recommend putting proprietary Play Store apps grabbed with Aurora Store in the work profile with Shelter[5]. [1] https://obtainium.imranr.dev/ [2] https://f-droid.org/ [3] https://f-droid.org/packages/com.aurora.store/ [4] https://f-droid.org/packages/de.marmaro.krt.ffupdater/ [5] https://f-droid.org/packages/net.typeblog.shelter/ [6] https://signal.org/android/apk/ |
|
| ▲ | rkrisztian 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| On the GrapheneOS forum you will see a lot of bad opinions about F-Droid, for example this: > It doesn't matter that the app is trustworthy, because F-Droid are extremely incompetent with security and the apps you install from F-Droid are signed by F-Droid rather than the developer. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/20212-f-droid-security-in-s...
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/18731-f-droid-vulnerability... They also say, if you use F-Droid, at least use F-Droid Basic: > Dont use the main F-Droid client. Android is pretty strict about SDK versions and as F-Droid targets legacy devices, it is very outdated. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/11439-f-droid-vsor-droid-if... > If the app is only available on F-Droid / third party F-Droid repo, use F-Droid Basic and use the third party repo rather than the main repo if available.
>
> If the app is available on Github then install the APK first from Github then auto-update it using Obtanium. Be sure to check the hash using AppVerifier which can be installed from Accrescent (available on the GrapheneOS app store). https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/16589-obtainium-f-droid-bas... By the way, while GrapheneOS recommends Accrescent, I don't use it anymore because they can't even add apps like CoMaps, while some of the apps they actually added are proprietary. |
| |
| ▲ | prmoustache 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >the apps you install from F-Droid are signed by F-Droid rather than the developer. That doesn't seem like a con if you take into account the context: F-droid is not shipping pre-build binaries from the developper, it asks for a buildable project from the developper. If the source repo of the upstream dev are compromised, so will be hid own binaries anyway. | |
| ▲ | indigane a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > [A]pps you install from F-Droid are signed by F-Droid rather than the developer. Having recently gone through the F-Droid release process, I learned that this is not necessarily the case anymore. F-Droid implements the reproducible builds concept. They re-build the developer's app, compare the resulting binary sans signature block, and if it matches they distribute the developer-signed binary instead of their re-built binary. This is opt-in for developers so not all apps do it this way. I'd sure like to know how common this is, I wonder if there are any statistics. | | |
| ▲ | rixed a day ago | parent | next [-] | | If the signatures are the same, what difference does it make which binary is distributed? | | | |
| ▲ | strcat a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | F-Droid only uses reproducible builds for a tiny portion of apps, and there are still significant disadvantages. It depends on the app developers always complying with F-Droid's rules otherwise users are left without updates. F-Droid only checks that the build matches, they do not review/audit the apps and will not catch hidden malicious behavior or simply non-compliance with their rules. WireGuard's app deliberately broke F-Droid's rules by including a self-updater which was not noticed by F-Droid and shipped by F-Droid. WireGuard used this to start taking over updates for itself to migrate their users away from F-Droid. F-Droid eventually found out when the WireGuard developer brought it up many months later and couldn't do anything beyond dropping the app. It had taken over updates for itself already and F-Droid wasn't in the picture anymore. The process adds a significant delay for updates but it does not actually protect users from developers in any meaningful way. This real world example with WireGuard demonstrates that. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | tkel 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Work profiles are inferior to separate user profiles, which are built-in to GrapheneOS. Also "private space" is now available with Android 15 and can provide the same separation within a single user profile. |
| |
| ▲ | piaste 2 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Work profiles are inferior to separate user profiles, which are built-in to GrapheneOS. Different use cases. User profiles are only active when you manually switch to them, while work profiles are active _alongside_ your main profile. So for untrusted apps that you only use occasionally and on-demand (like the myriads of travel / shopping / random services apps), user profiles are great. For apps that you want to keep in the background, such as the proprietary messaging apps that all your friends use, a work profile is much nicer. | | |
| ▲ | strcat a day ago | parent [-] | | Private Space is very similar to a user profile but nested inside of another user. GrapheneOS adds shared clipboard control for Private Space which was the main disadvantage compared to a secondary user. GrapheneOS supports having a Private Space in secondary users instead of only a single one in Owner. Supporting multiple Private Spaces per user is a planned feature at which point work profiles will be fully obsolete. The remaining use case for work profiles is to have both a Private Space and work profile in the Owner user. |
| |
| ▲ | Unroasted6154 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Don't you have user profiles in Pixels? I can create another user an switch. Just not super convient.
Work profiles are actually pretty good good... For work. |
|
|
| ▲ | Andromxda a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just to add to that: Even some proprietary applications let you download their APK right from the website. WhatsApp is one such example (I don't recommend that you use it, Signal is much better, but if you require it, you don't have to use the Play Store). |
|
| ▲ | cf100clunk a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Also check out Neo Store: ''An F-Droid client with modern UI and an arsenal of extra features.'' https://github.com/NeoApplications/Neo-Store |
|
| ▲ | shaky-carrousel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I put them in the private space. Is there an advantage on putting them in the work profile? |
| |
| ▲ | Happily2020 2 days ago | parent [-] | | Private space is identical to work profile. In the past, private space didn't exist and people used work profile instead as a workaround, but now that's not needed. | | |
| ▲ | strcat a day ago | parent [-] | | Private Space has a superior approach to isolation and encryption matching user profiles. Work profiles have some compromises for historical reasons. Private Space should be preferred over a work profile and the only reason to use a work profile for your own local usage is to use both a work profile and Private Space at the same time. Once GrapheneOS has support for multiple Private Spaces within a user, the use case for work profiles will be limited to the intended Bring Your Own Device enterprise deployment purpose. The intended purpose of work profiles is companies not having to give their employees work phones but rather owning/controlling a specific profile on their device with some influence over the overall device via rules for lock method, etc. |
|
|
