| ▲ | robcohen 3 days ago |
| Honestly, for people who value privacy and security: What exactly is the plan? It seems like we're going from a reasonably acceptable option (GrapheneOS), to nothing. |
|
| ▲ | everdrive 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Avoid using your phone, don't install apps, don't rely on it for anything, and stick it in a drawer most of the time. Phones have ALWAYS been a bad bet for privacy, and we've been losing this cat and mouse game for years. I agree that what's happening lately seems like a real watershed moment, but the writing has been on the wall for a long time. |
|
| ▲ | seanw444 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If ever there was a time for Linux phones to gain renewed development interest, it's now. |
| |
| ▲ | sensen 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | There's a part of me that wishes Firefox OS remained viable and overcame its problems where it could've become a viable alternative. I'm hopeful for the future of Linux phones, but I've yet to see a product that looks like it's reliable and works well.. | | |
| ▲ | mycall 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I hope Google continues to send money to Firefox or they will die. |
| |
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem extends far deeper than just FOSS for mobile and IoT. There isn't competitive OSHW. The entire pipeline for silicon hardware development (PCB dev is relatively easy) is virtually locked away behind gates that require identity and/or address verification, node-locked trial licenses or sometimes big license fees paid to one or more big 3 EDA vendors. And that's even before getting anywhere need talking to a fab. | | |
| ▲ | rs186 3 days ago | parent [-] | | This. If memory serves me right, in early days of Android, Google engineers were writing drivers on behalf of manufacturers because OEM drivers were too buggy. Think about the amount of work and the kind of talent this requires. If you are starting from scratch today as a no-name company, I doubt any hardware manufacturers even want to talk to you. |
| |
| ▲ | uyzstvqs 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'll add to this that libadwaita is really good, and manages to scale applications between desktop and mobile extremely well. Far better than any other mobile-desktop convergence I've seen before. Flatpak also offers a very good method for distributing apps in an easy and largely decentralized way. | |
| ▲ | beanjuiceII 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | its a great idea but i think the work to make something practical is extremely high | |
| ▲ | kasabali 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Year of the Linux phones? |
|
|
| ▲ | bri3d 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is orthogonal to GrapheneOS; GrapheneOS's utility is being eroded by Device Attestation, but this change is irrelevant as GrapheneOS will already fail strict attestation. |
|
| ▲ | sfotm 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe I missed it, but assuming GrapheneOS doesn't adhere to this verification, or provides some OS-level way to disable it, what makes Graphene worse after this change? |
| |
| ▲ | traverseda 3 days ago | parent [-] | | GrapheneOS is only allowed to live because google lets it. This signals a wider ecosystem change that tells us that GrapheneOS is going to stop being usable when this generation of hardware dies. This generation or maybe the one after it. | | |
| ▲ | johnwayne666 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But why start from scratch with a “Linux phone” when we can continue on the basis of GrapheneOS. The source is there and it works. Apps that require Google Play Service or some form of attestation will not run on a Linux phone either. | |
| ▲ | palata 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | What do you mean with "Google lets it"? GrapheneOS is based on AOSP. GrapheneOS only runs on the Google Pixels, and Google may decide to render future Pixels unusable for GrapheneOS (e.g. by preventing to unlock/relock the bootloader). But another Android manufacturer could get to the point where GrapheneOS endorses them. It feels like it shouldn't be that hard for an Android manufacturer, and they would immediately get quite some attention. Maybe not mainstream attention, but largely profitable, I think. | | |
| ▲ | pdesi 3 days ago | parent [-] | | GrapheneOS exists only because the Pixel's bootloader can be unlocked. Google could remove that option anytime, making it impossible to install GrapheneOS. | | |
| ▲ | drnick1 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Graphene is in talks with an OEM to make compatible devices. AOSP is free software, the only issue here is finding devices where it can be installed. | |
| ▲ | palata 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm confused... how is it different from what I said? |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | logicchains 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Buy a Linux phone or contribute to development of the Linux phone ecosystem, and accept that while it may lag behind in features, it makes up for that in freedom and privacy. Potentially keep a cheap Apple/Android around for stuff like banking software that only works on them. |
|
| ▲ | lawn 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It seems to me that people are overreacting a little. There's only speculation that GtapheneOS will stop existing. They're working with a manufacturer to get first-class support for a new phone, which will be hard for Google to simply kill off. Short and medium term GrapheneOS will continue and long-term I'm also hopeful. |
|
| ▲ | vivzkestrel 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| wasnt there a lot of excitement in between for Fuchsia OS and Sailfish OS what happened to those? |
