| ▲ | goldenarm 12 hours ago |
| Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. Look at the AdBlocker crackdown of Google Chrome. Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it, because it is impossible to maintain features that complex on a browser that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Same story for /e/ and GrapheneOS, the day Google pulls the plug on source code releases, god knows how long they will last. We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. |
|
| ▲ | well_ackshually 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| >Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. There are zero OSes that are 1/ open source 2/ appropriate for phones 3/ with good hardware support. There's absolutely nothing. Running Ubuntu Touch isn't a viable option. Neither is postmarket, librem, tizen, they're all terrible. Security wise, for something as critically important in our lives as a smartphone, I am also not trusting any new pet project that won't be stable for 10 years. Sure, you might be a poweruser that doesn't care about your phone burning its battery in your pocket after 1 hour because you know how to SSH on it from your watch and put it in sleep, but that's not a viable option. Leaving Android is suicide. A large part of its critical underpinnings are already into the kernel anyways, just disabled. (although a distro running binder could be a fun project). APIs are reverse engineerable generally speaking, except for the server part of play services. But then, if your issue is "my bank won't let me access their app without play services attesting me", I have great news, you won't even have an app for it on your new OS anyways, so it will not work by default. There's already not enough people working on GrapheneOS _or_ on mainstream linux OSes, what makes you think the sitation won't be ten times worse for your custom made mobile OS ? >We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. Android is one, and that can never be taken away. Google pulls the plug ? cool, you're stuck on Android 17, which is centuries of work ahead of literally anything else in the open source community. Hell, for all the shit that Google is doing, they're still constrained by having to work with other vendors: the system privileged notification receiver is swappable at build time, the recent app signing/verification system also is, because Samsung wouldn't let them control it all. |
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I do agree, mobile OSS OSes are rough. My point is that we should help them instead of helping Google's toxic relationship. It happened with Chrome/Blink, and everyone already forgot that lesson. About hard-forking Android, no one was brave enough (pun intended) to do that for Chrome, considering the insane complexity and engineering costs (>$1B/y). (Only Apple was able to affort it with Webkit/Safari, but they are in the ad business too.) | | |
| ▲ | samrus 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I kinda dont see how both of you cant be right. We need a mobile OS that google isnt involved in. Why not use pure open source android to do it. It can only be cheaper than making it from scratch, since it has alot of work already done on it | | |
| ▲ | WorldMaker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | AOSP has so few of the features a full phone needs today. Google has moved too much of the Phone OS into "Google Play Services". This is already the Extend phase of the classic "embrace, extend, extinguish". Given how the next most popular AOSP implementation, Amazon's Kindle Fire isn't even trying to compete in the phone space and involves an equally large company throwing nearly as much money into an "also ran" alternative to "Google Play Services", it seems easy enough to argue Android may even already be in the extinguish phase. (ETA: See also Microsoft's many years of trying to build its own "Google Play Services" competitor. Eventually breaking and making use of Amazon's. Then giving up entirely again on a de-Googled alternative to running Android apps.) | | |
| ▲ | well_ackshually 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's not actually much in Play Services. The biggest losses are fused location providers and notification services which you would consider core to the OS. Maps are a loss, but these are very clearly Google branded. Huawei provides HMS for example, a somewhat close feature wise set of APIs for their phones that are still on Android. They can even shim play services API, the same way microg does. If anything, what would be needed would be a common abstraction library with different backends to not depend directly on play services The reason amazon and Microsoft gave up is because they had no commitment, and that operating these services is just pure loss. Yes, the default apps in AOSP suck. Making a proper dialer is a two day job, so is a contacts app. Android's core APIs are good enough, and privileged permissions are only privileged by the manufacturer, and its IPC mechanisms are very well documented. Noone does it because it sucks, it's a thankless job and nobody's going to install your dialer. The very fact that each manufacturer has their own custom software is demonstration of how easy it is. | | |
| ▲ | burningChrome 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think it always comes down to the apps. Windows phone died because of its lack of apps. Same thing with several other mobile OS's. Ubuntu has a really great OS and UI, but no apps for just basic things renders it useless to even the most basic of users like myself. I don't have games, no banking apps, a few email and Microsoft apps and yet I still couldn't find a way to make it work. One of the other technical limitations is network. Ubuntu has yet to solve the VoLTE (Voice over LTE) riddle. This is a major sticking point for US consumers. | | |
| ▲ | WorldMaker 40 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, it somewhat doesn't matter how "easy" it is to use alternatives to Google Play Services, because Play Services is still a moat around a huge collection of existing apps today for Android that Play Services is "good enough" for and/or the only option "worth supporting". |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | (Copying my reply from below) Building and maintainance cost are not linear, especially when you inherit legacy code. The AOSP codebase isn't great, is 4x bigger than the Linux Kernel, and full of "Ship now, patch later" mess. But I agree that it is a significant endeavor. But the OSS community succeeded in similar projects before, and the current state of the Linux desktop makes me hopeful. | | |
| ▲ | codethief 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Building and maintainance cost are not linear, especially when you inherit legacy code. The AOSP codebase isn't great, is 4x bigger than the Linux Kernel, and full of "Ship now, patch later" mess. And yet the GrapheneOS devs seem to be managing just fine. > But I agree that it is a significant endeavor. Yes, in fact it is orders of magnitude more significant an endeavor that just building upon and improving the existing AOSP stack. | | | |
| ▲ | setopt 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Should not the Netscape -> Mozilla example be a good inspiration in that regard? |
|
| |
| ▲ | hactually 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | chrome was the fork. KHTML from Konqueror became webkit became Safari and chrome. | | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I still use Konqueror occasionally. It no longer uses KHTML (it uses blink now iirc through Qt webengine (which just got webextension support, someone's working on adding them to falkon so I'm sure Konqueror isn't too far behind)) but it works surprisingly well. It's still a great file manager if any of you remember how good it was |
|
| |
| ▲ | tremon 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Google pulls the plug ? cool, you're stuck on Android 17 And you're stuck on the current hardware generation. Pretty much the only reason why Android sucks less than other mobile OSes is that hardware vendors have a pressing reason to make it work. The further the Google Android kernel diverges from its last-open version, the harder it will become to backport drivers -- and that's assuming that hardware vendors even bother to comply with the GPL when Google decides not to. | | |
| ▲ | barbazoo 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > And you're stuck on the current hardware generation. As someone using a Pixel 3a as their main device that gave me a chuckle. | | |
| ▲ | edoceo 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I had Pixel3 until Nov 2025 - when it suffered its final drop. I was kinda grumpy I couldn't convert to Graphine cause the hardware was not supported. | |
| ▲ | nine_k 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What do we do when the supply of second-hand Pixel 3s on eBay dries up? A viable project can't be tied to hardware which is not made any more. |
| |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The further the Google Android kernel diverges from its last-open version Can it even diverge though? The kernel code is GPL so I don't think Google can close it down even if they wanted. | | |
| ▲ | kaashif 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Unless they invent kernel as a service or undertake a remarkably ambitious AI license laundering project, I think you're right. | |
| ▲ | ktm5j 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes it definitely can diverge while still staying open source. Happens in the Linux kernel for example whenever the ABI changes. | | |
| ▲ | littlestymaar 34 minutes ago | parent [-] | | It can, and has in the past, diverged from the baseline Linux kernel, but not from “the last open Android kernel” as it must remain open source per GPL. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | yjftsjthsd-h 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Sure, you might be a poweruser that doesn't care about your phone burning its battery in your pocket after 1 hour Not even the original pinephone has that poor of battery life. Hyperbole doesn't help your argument. | |
| ▲ | observationist 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The whole notion of smartphones is designed for intrusive user surveillance, from the regulatory side to the hardware itself to the software designed for it. We need tablet computers that don't have hostile hardware like cameras and mics and sensor suites that can be remotely controlled, under proprietary firmware, completely out of owner control. We need radio hardware and software that is entirely under owner control, with protocols and standards based connection controls; the notion that spectrum and cellular make network connectivity magically necessary to put under the draconian gatekeeping and surveillance of cellular carriers is flaming dumpster garbage. The carriers are a primary threat vector. The hardware is a primary threat vector. The software is a primary threat vector. There is absolutely no way to fix the current cellular phone security status quo, every single facet is designed to be leaky and allow "good guys" backdoored access "for the right reasons" and so on, whether it's "user experience telemetry" or "we have a warrant". Running bog standard linux with sensible security defaults and a good softphone over an internet connection would be fine. There's nothing magical about phones or UX or wtfever this month's marketing rationalization is. Handheld tablet computers with optional hardware, or even modular hardware, are going to be the future. The current paradigm of parasitic cellular carriers, invasive governmental regulatory bodies working on behalf of all sorts of corrupt interests, and complicit hardware manufacturers are 100% all in on milking consumers for every last unearned penny or intercepted PII they can get their grubby hands on. | |
| ▲ | Vinnl 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > you're stuck on Android 17, which is centuries of work ahead of literally anything else in the open source community. It's far ahead, but at the same time, I think we shouldn't over-emphasise how much. Functionality at the beginning of a project's lifetime is way more important than incremental improvements (or just changes) made later, and thus while much more effort has been invested into Android, new projects primarily need to catch up when it comes to e.g. phone call support and stability, and won't have to redo a lot of the effort of e.g. implementing Material You 3 or whatever. Which is to say that we're still years out from a viable competitor, but at the same time, there could be one five years from now, which is also not that long. | | |
| ▲ | well_ackshually 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Material 3 is mostly not part of the AOSP tree (aside from some very, very deep code like shadows) and is just UI libraries. I actually wonder if M3 has View implementations, or if everything has been migrated to Compose. You're also underestimating the amount of fundamental work that goes in Android. The vast majority is hardware integration. It's not all fancy little bells and whistles. It would have the added benefit of not having to relearn the security mistakes like LIST_ALL_PACKAGES or READ_SMS permissions being open to all, at least. |
| |
| ▲ | mapcars 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > There are zero OSes that are 1/ open source 2/ appropriate for phones 3/ with good hardware support. There's absolutely nothing Sailfish? | | |
| ▲ | well_ackshually 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fundamentally, not enough. Linux's default security mechanisms are simply too weak for something as potentially hostile as a mobile device. Firejail is a good start, but proper user isolation as Android does is the right solution (each app is a different user, and accessing their data/user data is only done through Providers, or IPC), and anything else is naively trusting and not enough, no matter how many layers of sandboxing and suid-ing you do. Doubly so when all of its apps are written in C++. Can't wait to deal with use-after-free on my mobile device. In addition, its compatibility with android apps is also chains: why would I bother developing for sailfish (especially since it involves Qt / Qt Creator) when I can just develop an Android app, and say it'll run well enough (unless it needs play integrity, which is the same problem, or somehow falls behind in android/androidx compatibility) | | |
| ▲ | dbdr 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Linux's default security mechanisms are simply too weak for something as potentially hostile as a mobile device. Honest question: why are mobile devices more hostile than laptops/desktops? | | |
| ▲ | well_ackshually 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It is _the_ 2FA device. from SMS, to authenticators, to password managers, etc. It also has access to all of your personal information, your pictures, your contacts, your email. It actively receives notifications and messages from the outside world, from potentially any sender. It's connected through WiFi, GPS, 5G, bluetooth, UWB, every possible connection system imaginable. It can listen to your phone calls, read your text messages, interact on your behalf with pretty much everything in your life, and is a single facial recognition away from automating emptying your bank account. Not to mention the fact that mobile software does tend to want to at least survive a little bit when offline, so plenty of data is stored locally. It's a key to your life. The perfect target for any attacker. | | |
| ▲ | wao0uuno 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My Linux laptop is my 2FA device (email), it holds my passwords, and personal data like photos, contacts, email. It receives notifications and messages from outside world from potentially any sender. It connects through Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, Ethernet, 5G (built in WWAN). It even has cameras, microphones and I use it for my online banking and shopping. The only reason why smartphones "need" to be ultra secure is because everyone and their mother have one and the truth is most people can hardly tell a difference between their head and their butt. | |
| ▲ | eikenberry 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You just described a computer. There is nothing in your list that is mobile specific. |
| |
| ▲ | mixmastamyk 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They aren't, unless you want to run untrusted apps outside of a distribution. Flatpak sandboxing is a thing however, and probably good enough in the meantime. | | |
| ▲ | AuthAuth 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Flatpak sandboxing is not good and development is very slow. | | |
| ▲ | mixmastamyk 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's good enough for people running trustworthy apps. Certainly, no worse than your PC. Also we don't need flatpak to be developed quickly. |
|
| |
| ▲ | codethief 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because regular users (non-techies) install all kinds of apps on their phones, from all kinds of sources/vendors, but not on their desktop. Most people use only a handful of applications on their desktop (browser, office suite, …) but they have dozens if not hundreds of different apps on their phone. |
| |
| ▲ | JCattheATM 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Linux's default security mechanisms are simply too weak for something as potentially hostile as a mobile device. Linux has SELinux as a default option which Android makes good use of, some forks more than others, and setup correctly it is better than user isolation. You could also recreate the protection user isolation provides through policy alone. |
| |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not entirely FOSS, unfortunately :( (though, it would be cool to see someone take their kernel and implement Plasma Mobile on it) |
| |
| ▲ | yndoendo 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | FLX1s running FurioOS, a Debian variant. [0] World would be better off if they De-Google and De-Apple! You have to pay me to use Google and Apple! [0] https://furilabs.com/ | | | |
| ▲ | bornfreddy 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What about Sailfish OS? I heard good things about it, but didn't dare switch... yet. Does anyone have some 1st hand experience? | | |
| ▲ | wao0uuno 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I believe it's a paid OS now. Requires subscription. It was already dead before they announced it so I guess it's deader than dead now. Edit: So apparently they're launching new hardware so maybe it's not as dead as I thought it is. |
| |
| ▲ | encom 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >critically important in our lives This is the sad part. I've resisted that slippery slope as much as possible. In part because of ideological reasons, and in part for usability reasons. I have large hands and poor eyesight - using a phone for non-trivial tasks is tedious. I think the only thing I encounter from time to time that requires a smartphone is paying for parking. Everything else I do from a desktop, or don't do at all (doom-scrolling etc.) I wish society would resist the smartphonification of everything for no reason. A lot of it is marketing- and surveillance-driven. | |
| ▲ | dheera 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > you're stuck on Android 17, which is centuries of work ahead of literally anything else in the open source community Honestly if this happens, look to China to maintain Android going forward and add new parallel implementations of Android 18+. Right now almost all of China runs on various forks of AOSP; every phone manufacturer in China has their own AOSP fork (Xiaomi: MIUI/HyperOS, Huawei, HarmonyOS, TCL: TCLUI, etc.). Apps in China are distributed both as .apk files as well as through a bunch of different domestic app stores. They are compatible with all of these Android forks. These apps are also designed to be compatible with Google Android for Chinese folks overseas. TBH China is much, much closer to "decentralized" development of Android than the Google-centric US ecosystem. Granted most of those AOSP forks in China also often have spyware of sorts, but at least there are multiple active forks and a healthy app ecosystem working on all the forks. | |
| ▲ | ed_blackburn 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Imagine if Boot2Gecko / FirefoxOS had someone kept going, I wonder if I'd have evolved sufficiently enough to be commercially viable? |
|
|
| ▲ | Tharre 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. Not sustainable as opposed to what, exactly? Developing and maintaining a completely different mobile operating system? Focusing on truly open platforms sound nice in theory, but completely falls apart the moment you consider what people want to do with their phones compared to the developing resources available. > Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it That's just wrong, there are other forks that still support MV2 extensions right now, and at least brave has no plans of shutting down MV2 extensions even after Google removes MV2 from upstream completely. It will certainly add maintance effort on brave's side, but they already patch a million other things that upstream doesn't support. |
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | (Reposting my comment from below) Brave said they'll try to maintain temporarily limited MV2 support for only 4 specific extensions, but recommend Brave Shields as the go-to adblocker for the future. Google is about to remove most of the MV2 code from the codebase, which will explode the complexity soon. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ | | |
| ▲ | Tharre 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | The word "temporarily" isn't mentioned anywhere on that page, and that's already a very different claim to "Brave is about to shut down MV2". And the MV2 support is not specific to those 4 extensions, the hosting on Brave's servers is (though for other extensions not that much changes with MV3 anyway). | | |
| ▲ | goldenarm 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | MV2 is behind a flag for now, but it is about to be removed from the Chrome codebase entirely. Which is why Brave recommends using Brave Shields as the long-term solution, which does not depend on it. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Taek 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Developing and maintaining a completely different mobile operating system? The cost of writing code has fallen 100x in the past 3 years, and will likely fall 100x further. So actually, yes, thanks to AI it probably actually is reasonable to launch a fully new stack from scratch. | | |
| ▲ | integralid 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | >The cost of writing code has fallen 100x in the past 3 years Maybe, but the cost of actually shipping a product has fallen by maybe 10%. I don't see dozens of production ready mainstream OSes and web browsers popping up because LLM can dump tens of lines of code per second. | | |
| ▲ | Taek 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | As a startup founder shipping product, I strongly disagree with that. Give it 12 months, you will see dozens of from-scratch large scale software projects shipping. New web browsers, new operating systems, new gaming engines, new productivity software, we are at the threshold of having an abundance of software that was previously only available from large corporations. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | mmooss 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Not sustainable as opposed to what, exactly? Developing and maintaining a completely different mobile operating system? Focusing on truly open platforms sound nice in theory, but completely falls apart the moment you consider what people want to do with their phones compared to the developing resources available. Multiple open source desktop/laptop operating systems are maintained. |
|
|
| ▲ | safety1st 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I appreciate that there are people out there working on stuff like /e/OS, but the number one question I have when I learn about a mobile OS that isn't iOS or "Googled" Android is: will the banking and payment apps I need to operate in the modern world run on this OS? A lot of people don't think this way because they haven't had any problems. But then one day it happens to you and you realize, ok, this is the one thing that matters - you're in a cashless store and the only way you can pay for your meal is to use Approved Apple or Approved Google operating systems. Where I live, the app my electricity utility provides for viewing and paying my account DISABLES ITSELF FOREVER if you so much as enable USB debugging on your phone (even after you've disabled it again). To their credit Graphene maintains a global database of which of these apps work and don't. They're the only ones I know of so a thousand upvotes to Graphene OS. But for my banks, the records in that database are grim. They won't run on Graphene, and they don't respond to reports about it. One of my banks just discontinued its web UI because "people don't use it anymore, they use the app only." This is how they're going to get us, folks. This is how we're going to lose it all. Writing code alone will not solve this. It will require some kind of collective action to defend our liberties. Some parts of the world are already lost. So this situation will likely come to a jurisdiction near you eventually: to make a transaction you will need permission from Google, Apple, Visa, Mastercard, or it won't happen. Then that four company list will start to shrink. |
| |
| ▲ | enriquto 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > the app my electricity utility provides for viewing and paying my account DISABLES ITSELF FOREVER if you so much as enable USB debugging on your phone (even after you've disabled it again). These are self-inflicted problems by these apps. Nothing to do with the OS. These apps simply don't work. Complain to the companies that push these broken apps to you. Would you buy a microwave oven that kills itself if you play the wrong kind of music in your kitchen? | | |
| ▲ | abustamam 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The problems may be inflicted by these apps but the reality is that in many cases you're stuck with them. Electric company freezes your account if you enable USB debugging? Well, you can't choose a new electric company. We can complain to these vendors all we want but they just ignore us. So these problems become problems of the OS, not because the OS has a problem, but because it affects the reality of using the OS. | | |
| ▲ | abighamb 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is it such a burden to write them a letter stating, "Because you have decided to disable my electronic access, I am notifying you that I withdraw my consent to e-delivery. Please provide me statements and directions to mail you a check for payment." Maybe spend 20-30 min to find the specific laws that give you the right to do that and remind them of their timelines to comply. Send a letter like that certified. It gets attention, and the time to write and mail a check really isn't, if you batch your bills, more than using an app. We do have ways to push their inconvenience back on them. | | |
| ▲ | safety1st 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It is great that you have the right in your jurisdiction to do that. Where I am, they just shut off your power if you don't pay. It's a big and hairy world out there. Having lived on three continents and traveled to some pretty wild places, I always get a kick out of seeing which rights people have and assume that the rest of the world also has. | |
| ▲ | abustamam 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This only works if the company cares though. | | |
| ▲ | abighamb 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | This a pretty general recipe to make a company care. A Professional letter letting them know that you know your rights, and that they know your rights (Them getting your letter is your proof of that) is what the beginning of someone losing his bonus for a compliance incident looks like. Companies don't care about you, or even shareholders, they care about the incentives of leadership. |
| |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not everyone has the time and resources to battle their utilities and bank(s). I know it’s important and sustained effort is necessary even if it’s hard, but we are talking about massive populations here and most people simply can’t or won’t fight that battle on their own. Organizing a large pushback is also a huge effort. And at the end of the day, there is an easy solution for folks: buy a “proper” smart phone that “just works” because it solves the problem now. We’ve gotten to the point where unfortunately it is a luxury to fight for your privacy and consumer rights. | | |
| ▲ | bornfreddy 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Fighting for your rights is usually not the easy path, yes. It's been like that since forever. | | |
| ▲ | abustamam 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Well, we gotta choose our battles, right? It's easy to get collective support for visible oppression and fascism. Everyone sees it on the news. It's hard to get support for "lemme use a smartphone that isn't apple or android." the average person doesn't care. Not saying that we should just give up. But as the above poster said, it's a luxury that takes a lot of time and resources. | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes that is correct. So what do you suggest people do? What is a realistic way to move the needle? Because I can tell you now that (as I detailed in another comment) asking someone to change their banks, utilities, etc. to accommodate their smartphone choice is not a serious suggestion, nor is asking everyone to wage war with all the services they engage with. They’re simply not going to do it no matter how many passionate speeches or flippant comments you throw out there. They’re going to buy the thing that solves the immediate problem of not having access to critical services in their lives. If their amazing open source phone can’t pay their bills, it’s going in the bin. To be clear I want the same thing you do. But just going “do it it’s important” is not going to make it happen. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | seanhunter 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | It obviously depends on where you live. In my country you certainly con choose a new electric company. I mention that because we really should use consumer choice to overcome these types of problems where we can. Ie if you can switch to a bank/electricity provider/whatever that has a less terrible app it’s really good to do so. | | |
| ▲ | abustamam 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | I agree on principle. I'm not sure if everywhere in the US is like this, but everywhere I've lived in California basically had a monopolistic electric and gas provider. For things where we do have a choice, yes I agree. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | Forgeties79 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You’re implying we have more choice than we do and asking “the average joe” to change banks to accommodate their smartphone is not a serious suggestion. My utility company, for instance, literally won’t let you navigate their site with a VPN running. These kinds of practices are commonplace and becoming standard. |
| |
| ▲ | idiotsecant 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I promise your electric company accepts payments outside of an app on your phone. I further promise that other banks are available that don't have terrible apps. These problems are way more surmountable than you're painting them here. | | |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Plus, you can still do electronic banking and payments. Use your computer, it's a much better experience anyways | | |
| ▲ | vinceguidry 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | Until they start locking that behind shitty proprietary "security" solutions too. |
| |
| ▲ | safety1st 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The alternative they accept is traveling down to their office and handing them cash, no joke. Phone app or cash. No website, never has been one. No snail mail because they "modernized" and discontinued it some time ago. But I'm OK because one of my banking apps has some method of reading my contract number from the disabled electricity company app, and telling me how much I should pay and then it fires off a payment to them. Even though I can no longer use the electricity app directly because I enabled USB debugging once, the banking app is somehow still able to pick up this info from it. Of course, said banking app refuses to run on Graphene or any of these other Google Play-less OSes, and the bank doesn't respond to inquiries about that issue, multiple people have tried. The other bank I use does respond, and says they'll never run on "alternative OSes" because "alternative OSes are too insecure." They don't respond to followups. I'm just saying man. A lot of people think this stuff is trivially solved because there is an option available to them in their home country. You don't know how big and nuts this world of 8 billion people and 200 countries is. This stuff varies beyond imagination, sometimes for the much worse. |
| |
| ▲ | lostmsu 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can't you pay with a card? |
|
|
| ▲ | jraph 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. I would say we need both a sustainable free mobile OS in the long term, and a "less worse Android" today in the meantime. Initiatives like FairPhone paying someone to upstream device support in the mainline kernel / postmarketOS are interesting for both approaches at the same time (but extra effort would be needed, the FairPhone 5 almost working under postmarketOS [1] is kinda irritating, I hope it reaches full support before Lineage OS stops being updated for this device). Ignoring hardware support, Linux mobile OSes are quite usable now. Hardware support is the next step, and only then we can imagine the proprietary apps we are forced to use to work there (though Waydroid provides some answer to this as well). Another way of helping the cause would be, I suppose, lobbying for laws that forbid the dependency on an stock Google or Apple mobile OS. Or, maybe we can dream a bit, mandatory open source releases for those apps and standard APIs. [1] https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp... |
|
| ▲ | poulpy123 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not sustainable but it is better than the alternative. For the moment there is no alternative for a phone os that will start from zero |
| |
| ▲ | TingPing 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | There are multiple Linux shells that work on mobile today… They could become usable with some investment. The main issue is Android apps that require certified devices, which would also be a problem for truly stripped down Android. |
|
|
| ▲ | O1111OOO 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Let's see... https://www.techpolicy.press/the-true-cost-of-browser-innova... * Most of the personnel involved in developing web technologies are engineers, but they also include product managers, sales, marketing, legal, customer support, and other functions. * Given the complexity of Chrome and web technologies, the engineering teams skew towards higher levels of seniority. Assume that Staff Software Engineer is the most common engineering level represented across the web technologies teams, which is towards the more senior end of Google’s software engineering job ladder. * The average base salary for Google employees working on web technologies is $240k and the average annual take-home pay is $500k, including salary, bonuses, and stock payments. These estimates are close to the current average base salary and take-home pay for Google Staff Software Engineers listed on industry salary data sites. * Google has approximately 2000 staff working on web technologies. Using the above assumptions, the estimated personnel cost for web technologies is 2000 * $596k = $1.2B. Of course there are additional costs associated with these businesses. Based on this sketch, it seems fair to assume that Google spends at least $1-2B annually on Chrome, Chromium, and the evolution of the web platform. |
| |
| ▲ | floxy an hour ago | parent [-] | | >> that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Isn't this downright crazy when you think about it? Seems like we need to start from scratch. Create a minimal bytecode (like webasm or whatever) that writes to a virtual frame-buffer of sorts, and has keyboard/mouse inputs. Then content is distributed as compiled byte-code apps. All the fancy stuff you want in your app has to be provided by the app creator, and not essentially using the browser as a library. |
|
|
| ▲ | pkphilip 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| At this point it is very difficult to develop truly open OSs for mobiles because so much of the hardware depends on undocumented binary blobs. As I see it, the only options is to go for a drastically simpler design of the hardware - which means, we have to tone down our expectations especially when it comes to things like gaming performance, camera performance etc. Over time even these things can be improved but it is going to take a few years. In the meantime, I am not sure many people are willing to make those compromises to have a truly open hardware and OS though. |
|
| ▲ | Vinnl 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. I appreciate the vibes where this is coming from, but does it really? I think that assumes that everyone that works on this would work on a true open source OS otherwise, and that if they did, that would result in us breaking free from Android where we otherwise wouldn't. I'm not confident about either of those assumptions. Meanwhile I'll keep complaining to orgs that don't allow me to work through their website, and tell them that their app won't work on my phone. |
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | There are more OSS devs active on Android ROMs than OSS devs working on independent mobile OSes. We are running out of time, and we are misallocating ressources. It's like bailing out water from the Titanic. We should prepare the lifeboats instead. | | |
| ▲ | Vinnl 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And there are even more devs working on Windows. It's like we're actively drilling a hole into the Titanic. The thing is that those people aren't "resources" that you can just "reallocate". And even if they were, two extra buckets weren't going to save the Titanic. | | |
| ▲ | goldenarm 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | Most engineers agree that Windows 11 is a Titanic situation. And yes, people reallocate all the time, it's called a cultural shift, and it's healthy discussion to have. |
| |
| ▲ | fsflover 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | (GNU/)Linux on mobile is the true sustanable, independent OS. It relies on the existing, strong Linux development, natively runs existing Linux apps and guarantees you lifetime updates. What else do you need? Sent from my Librem 5. | | |
| ▲ | mft_ 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | According to the website[0] I’d need 20+ hrs idle time, video recording, Bluetooth, and GPS. I’m being gently snarky, of course, but the goal shouldn’t be an MVP that nerds who are deeply into privacy or FOSS or hate Google can tolerate - it should be something that disinterested normies could seamlessly and happily use. [0] https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ | | |
| ▲ | seba_dos1 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | Well, it idles for about 22 hours, can record videos, does multi-constellation GNSS and both classic and LE Bluetooth. The way to make disinterested normies able to use it is to have lots of nerds capable of fixing various papercuts themselves switch already and contribute rather than complain. | | |
| ▲ | abustamam 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Thanks for sharing! I hadn't heard of this before. IMO any competition in this space is good competition. But the reality is that it's not quite that straightforward. Linux desktop is a perfect example of that. We have tons of nerds working on the Linux ecosystem. Many on distros meant to ease transition from Mac/Windows to Linux (like Pop OS). But if I were to tell my mom to install Pop OS, she would look at me like I'm crazy. In some ways, Linux has become "cool" — Steam Machine and Steam Deck run Linux, and they're popular. Unfortunately, they're popular within a niche, and even then, they're popular for only a slice of digital life. People don't do work on a Steam Deck and I can't imagine many doing work on a Steam Machine. Mobile phones are completely different though because most people have one phone. And that phone needs to do everything they need it to do. It needs to run the apps they need. It needs to play the games they want. It needs to integrate into everything. And it also needs to look trendy, because smartphones have become a bit of a status symbol of sorts. So, while I agree that us nerds must become part of the solution than the problem, it's not enough. We need buy-in from major service providers. We need marketing. That's all stuff that the typical nerd can't/won't do. | | |
| ▲ | fsflover 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | > But if I were to tell my mom to install Pop OS, she would look at me like I'm crazy. What would she say if you asked her to install Windows? It doesn't matter. Normal people should either buy preinstalled or ask technical people for help. Using GNU/Linux desktop is as simple as Windows. It will be the same with phones one day, if we push it. | | |
| ▲ | abustamam 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | If I told her to install Windows, she'd at least know what to tell the technician in the event that I'm not around. If I install Pop OS on her computer she will just tell the technician she has a laptop because she doesn't know the difference. I would hope that the technician does know the difference, and moreover, knows how to use it (which I assume someone calling themselves a technician would know how to troubleshoot basic stuff on a foreign operating system, but I've been wrong on lighter assumptions) |
|
| |
| ▲ | mft_ 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Maybe I should file an issue to update the website then ;) |
|
| |
| ▲ | mghackerlady 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >fsflover Username checks out (I kid, I'm also a fan of their work). Also, if you're using PureOS, what's that like? Have they updated to a debian 13 base yet? Pretty much the only thing stopping me from at least trying it out is the super old version of GNOME | | | |
| ▲ | goldenarm 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'm considering to switch to your device and start contributing to gnome mobile soon! I'm interested in your experience, what do you like and dislike the most on it? | | | |
| ▲ | RGamma 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How well do communication apps work on it (Whatsapp, Signal, Discord)? Backups? Media (not as important)? Increasingly thinking of relegating my iPhone to 2FA and maybe banking only. | | | |
| ▲ | codethief 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > What else do you need? A proper app sandboxing and permissions system? | | |
| ▲ | yjftsjthsd-h 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Then use flatpak | |
| ▲ | fsflover 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The parent wasn't speaking of a perfectly secure OS but about "preparing the lifeboats". Also, GNU/Linux somehow sufficiently secure on desktop, especially if you rely on the apps from the FLOSS repos. |
| |
| ▲ | malka1986 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I need my bank app to run on it. | | |
| ▲ | fsflover 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47216763 | | |
| ▲ | malka1986 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | I have exactly 0 choice of banks app that would run on a mobile OS that is neither android or google. At the end of the day, I need a bank account, and access to it, would it only be for buying food, or paying my mortgage. | | |
| ▲ | fsflover 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you're in Europe, I saw quite a few comments here saying that banks not requiring the duopoly do exist. Otherwise, a dedicated banking phone might be the way. | | |
| ▲ | bornfreddy 6 hours ago | parent [-] | | Actually, a dedicated banking phone is a good idea for security reasons too. No sure how many people are willing to carry around 2 phones though. Too bad dual boot is not an option, or VMs. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | jaggs 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If mobile Linux runs through the same kind of tortuous adoption and rejection cycle that desktop Linux is still doing, then it's a non starter before it begins. | | |
| ▲ | seba_dos1 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've been happily using it on several phones since 2008 (and writing this on one of them right now), only two years shorter than on my desktops/laptops. "Non-starter" is in the eye of the beholder. | |
| ▲ | fsflover 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > that desktop Linux is still doing What are you even talking about? My non-technical relatives have been using Debian for many years already. | | |
| ▲ | jaggs 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | :) Regrettably, that's not the mass adoption we were all hoping for. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | trelliumD 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | True, SailfishOS :-) |
|
|
|
| ▲ | r-w 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it Source? |
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Brave said they'll try to maintain limited support for MV2 for only 4 specific extensions, but recommend Brave Shields as the go-to adblocker for the future. Google is about to remove most of the MV2 code from the codebase, which will explode the complexity soon. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ | | |
| ▲ | wolvoleo 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | Brave has perverse incentives to discontinue it because of their BAT crypto business model that rewards looking at ads. Unfortunately even the fully open source Firefox isn't immune to the pressure from the advertising industry, with all their Google funding and their purchase of anonym. | | |
| ▲ | 0-_-0 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | You have no idea how BAT ads work in brave, do you? | | |
| ▲ | wolvoleo 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I do, but even though they're not in the webpage itself and are as such not affected by the adblocker, brave still has an interest in the advertising industry. Many if not most of their advertising clients would use regular internet ads as well. | | |
| ▲ | j16sdiz 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | have you consider the possibility that... it is just too much work to merge/port the code when upstream is actively breaking them? |
|
| |
| ▲ | jollyllama 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | What's the big deal? Brave's native adblocker works pretty well. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | b3orn 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I wouldn't call Android user hostile. What makes most Android phones user hostile is Google Play Services. |
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I can call Android user hostile. Most Banks and gov apps require play services nowadays, and Google is about to ban app installation outside of their store. Cherry on top, the play store is mostly adware junk. My parents phones are full of adware, bloatware, notification spam, it's almost worse than windows 11. | | |
| ▲ | Mordisquitos 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | In your earlier comment you said that deGoogled Android alternatives are what's "slowing us down from leaving Android entirely", but that is not consistent with saying that most banks and government apps require play services. If these apps cannot run on deGoogled Android, then deGoogled Android cannot be slowing us down from leaving Android because using deGoogled alternatives is as inconvenient for banking and government services as using a non-Android alternative would be. | | |
| ▲ | WorldMaker 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It's not entirely a contradiction. De-Googled Android alternatives can give a perception of choice and also a perception to Banks that they support "everyone" at the same time. "We have both flavors, Vanilla (iOS) and Chocolate [Android]; you claim to want Chocolate (Android), what more do you want?" Absolutely the current duopoly market is going to make any third-party alternative harder, but de-Googled Android seems to be a worst case because "Why not just install Google Play Services?" remains too valid a question and has too many confusing answers for both non-technical users and the business people at application providers (banks and whatnot). They will continue to have a hard time trying to figure out why you keep asking for a harder work effort for Chocolate Fudge when they already have Chocolate and why isn't that good enough. It's easier to fix that confusion by asking for an entirely new brand/flavor, such as Strawberry, than continuing this increasingly hard war between Google's Chocolate and "free" (as in speech, but certainly not free of confusion) Chocolate Fudge. | |
| ▲ | goldenarm 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | There are tweaks to enable banking apps on deGoogled Android, but it's an exhausting cat and mouse game. Most of my friends gave up after years of fighting, and now they are back on Google Android because there is no alternative. |
| |
| ▲ | preisschild an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But thats not "Androids" fault, but the banking app / google play services. Switching to another mobile linux distro would change nothing. | |
| ▲ | em-bee 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | so it's the play services. /e/OS has none of these problems except for apps that require original play services. so yeah, those don't work. interesting tidbit: my bank offers their app from google and from huawei store. it doesn't work on /e/OS however. (but that might also be a /e/OS bug). this means what we really need is a viable play store alternative. EU regulations could make that happen. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | leke 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Oh, is this the deal with GrapheneOS too? Damn, I was excited about the Moto GrapheneOS collaboration. |
| |
| ▲ | preisschild an hour ago | parent [-] | | So far its working pretty great. Very happy with GrapheneOS. And currently Android AOSP source code is still regularly released. If that changes it becomes a problem then. |
|
|
| ▲ | RandyOrion 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions Ungoogled chromium still supports MV2, and uBlock origin extension works fine. |
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes it's behind a flag, but the removal of MV2 from multiple parts of the codebase is imminent. |
|
|
| ▲ | coldtea 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. To what? |
|
| ▲ | trimethylpurine 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. De-Googled Android was/is a truly open platform. Same result. You're pointing out maintenance issues. How many developers do we have to maintain this or any other platform without pay? That problem applies to a de-Googled fork of Android, or a complete bottom up build of a new platform. The benefit of using an Android fork is the labor savings on what's already built. Maintenance is not going away just because we build a new OS. |
|
| ▲ | cupcake-unicorn 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Helium still allows MV2 |
|
| ▲ | realusername 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The day AOSP sources aren't relased, Google will just lose control over Android and it will be managed by a Chinese consortium instead. 8 of the 10 top smartphone manufacturers are Chinese, there's no going back from that. |
|
| ▲ | uoaei 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The day Google pulls the plug on source code releases is the day the open source community forks the last release... Not sure what this fatalism is about but it's a hysterical take. |
|
| ▲ | kgwxd 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > even Brave is about to do it Why anyone ever gave that browser a second of trust is beyond be. The damn thing was built on hijacking ad revenue into some imaginary IOU crypto thing, and built by a creep. |
|
| ▲ | amelius 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You don't have to use Chrome or Chromium. |
| |
| ▲ | fransje26 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The irony of this is that when using Firefox to browse to /e/OS url to check for compatible devices: https://e.foundation/installer/ I get a pop-up telling me that my browser is not compatible, and I should use Edge, Opera or Chrome. See [1] [1] https://imgur.com/a/al1Q9DM | | |
| ▲ | jamesnorden 10 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | When I clicked "Browse supported devices" it took me to https://doc.e.foundation/devices | |
| ▲ | fmo1973 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think it's due to the lack of WebUSB API support in Firefox, it is needed for the web installer, both for eOS and GrapheneOS | | |
| ▲ | fransje26 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | As I explained elsewhere in this post, I got to this installer page by clicking on "Check device compatibility" on the https://e.foundation/e-os/ page. So I was actually expecting a device listing page, not a WebUSB program. |
| |
| ▲ | OJFord 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's a bizarre one. 'You need Chrome' is bad enough, which even the bloody NHS are guilty of, but I always assume that's 'just' an assumption that not Chrome means IE or something, and they haven't woken up even to the proliferation of mobile Safari users. | | |
| ▲ | detaro 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | How is it "bizarre" when it even tells you why it needs a Chromium-based browser? | | |
| ▲ | OJFord 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | I didn't know it did, the commenter didn't mention it, and Imgur gave me an overloaded error message. (When it doesn't do that, it usually tells me it's not available in my region or that the image has been deleted anyway.) Anyway, assuming it's for WebUSB flashing, I agree with other commenters it should just explain that's not available and still give the instructions - bonus points for hiding the unusable WebUSB option. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Yes fortunately we have browser alternatives. But on mobile, my bank and my government force me to use the Android/iOS duopoly. | | |
| ▲ | jonathanstrange 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | How do they do that? I'm not doubting that, it's an honest question. I understand how this works on Apple phones but I don't understand why an identity or attestation service cannot be replaced by another one by the alternative operating system when the hardware is not controlled by Google. Does Google have keys in tamper-proof chips? How else would those banks determine their apps are on the right phone? Or do those apps use Google authentication directly over the Internet, using hard-coded Google public keys? | | |
| ▲ | well_ackshually 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | Depending on the level of security you ask for Play Integrity, it can be: * is this device rooted, is it an unsigned build ? * Device is signed, but is it part of the blessed signing keys ? is play services untampered with ? * Additional checks over the lifetime of the device. You could fully trust the results of Play Integrity on device, but you can also send the returned token to your server, and your server then contacts play integrity to validate that token. So unless you know how to spoof those encrypted tokens, you won't go very far. https://developer.android.com/google/play/integrity/overview | | |
| ▲ | jonathanstrange 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | So basically an alternative OS can offer a service like Play Integrity and the only problem is that those banks hard-code a dependence on Google's Play Integrity and Google has a monopoly for that service? This is something that could be addressed at least in the EU by mandating banks to allow alternative services or not use this service at all. | | |
| ▲ | well_ackshually 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yep. You can even run your own play integrity-like backend. >This is something that could be addressed at least in the EU by mandating banks to allow alternative services or not use this service at all. The EU mandates banks to be interoperable, and to guarantee the security of users. You can solve that issue by going through an alternative app that doesn't use play integrity and is PSD2 compliant so other banks let you call their APIs. It usually requires you to be a bank, and as a bank, you're really risk averse. So you use play integrity. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wiseowise 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Chrome is just an example. Google stopped pretending Android is a general purpose OS and started cracking down on what is possible without Google’s approval. See developer verification, everything within Google services, etc. |
|
|
| ▲ | dangus 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think this is a false dichotomy. Basically what you’re implying is that all the people working on Android derivatives like Lineage, Graphene, and /e/ coming together and working instead on a fully open source OS like a Linux mobile distribution would result in better outcomes and actually get us closer to a daily driveable open source environment phone operating system. That’s analogous to saying that an automotive tuning shop that puts turbochargers and body kits on Toyota Corollas shouldn’t waste their time, and they should instead design and mass produce their own sports car. The level of effort difference between AOSP derivatives and a fully open source OS is massive. |
|
| ▲ | 1vuio0pswjnm7 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable." Not sure about the first claim but the second is obvious. Yet peculiarly ignored The OS literally comes from Google. As such, the term "de-Googled" is quite strange. Another recent HN front page item about the other project mentioned recently used the phrase "break free from Google" and currently only runs on Google hardware AFAICT, the most significant issue with Android is "phoning home". Unwanted data transfer to third party. This is embedded in the OS. Google is the third party. Google operates as if it should be trusted as if it was a first party (why) IMO, a user-friendly (cf. user-hostile) mobile OS would be one that does not phone home. But at times it seems like these projects are OK with the idea of phoning home to third party, as long as it isn't Google Users will never have a mobile OS that does everything Android does, with the same polish, that isn't attached to a trillion dollar corporation. That "goal" results in projects where the majority of the Google-sourced code is unchanged instead of user-controlled source code It isn't _that_ difficult to stop Android, i.e., system, pre-installed and user-installed "apps", from successfully phoning home (cf. trying to phone home) over WiFi. For example, this can be done by changing gateway and DNS settings. If the user installs an app that can forward ports nd use the the built-in VPN support, successfully phoning home over cellular data can be stopped, too But a corporate-sourced OS like Android can change at any time for any reason. It changes often. Users have no control I see some HN comments are starting to acknowledge the idea that control can be more important than performance. IMO, it can also be more important than "features" Only if a user can embrace this idea can he begin to truly "break free" from the trillion dollar surveillance advertising company. Otherwise, sacrificing control for "performance", "features", etc., will always leave the user tethered to the company With the corportate-sourced OS users have no control over performance, features, etc. anyway. The corporation controls them Until there is a user-controlled, open source mobile OS like other form factors (HN commenters often claim this is not going to happen for good reasons), then, IMHO, "mobile" sucks Generally, we all have to use mobile, as least for some purposes, e.g., it's replaced residential landlines, paper maps, and so on. But none of this means it is a good choice for for so-called "general purpose computing". It's not a computer the user can control |
|
| ▲ | charcircuit 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Chrome did not crack down on adblockers in Chrome. In fact the chromium team worked together with adblockers on mv3. >it is impossible to maintain features that complex on a browser While Chromium is complex, it is modularized which does make it possible for teams to maintain features. |
|
| ▲ | pigpag 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | preisschild 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. But currently AOSP is very much open. That's also what the GrapheneOS devs say and why they want to continue using Android. Until it becomes clear that they will completely stop releasing the source code under a free software license i dont see why one should not use Android. |
| |
| ▲ | goldenarm 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | AOSP dev went private, and Google is slower and slower at releasing the source, now twice a year. Worse, many stock apps like the Dialer and Gallery went closed-source years ago. But the source isn't the point, it's the governance. Just like Chrome, having the source is not enough to guarantee an open platform. Sure you can disable telemetry flags. But you cannot afford to maintain an important feature Google wants to remove, like MV2. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/google-makes-android...
https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-qpr1-source-code... | | |
| ▲ | auggierose 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The problem is, if you cannot afford to maintain it, how could you afford to both build AND maintain your own version of it? | | |
| ▲ | dminik 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think it's true, but ... "Google built Android to be impossible to maintain without them." Could be a very genuine answer to that question. Do you really need all of Android? What if you can build a very similar thing at a fraction of the size. | |
| ▲ | goldenarm 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Building and maintainance cost are not linear, especially when you inherit legacy code. The AOSP codebase isn't great, is 4x bigger than the Linux Kernel, and full of "Ship now, patch later" mess. But I agree that it is a significant endeavor. But the OSS community succeeded in similar projects before, and the current state of the Linux desktop makes me hopeful. |
| |
| ▲ | vanviegen 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > But you cannot afford to maintain an important feature Google wants to remove, like MV2. That depends on who "you" is. Maintaining extensive patch sets is still way cheaper than building and maintaining an entire browser. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | vovavili 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Extensions prior to MV3 were notoriously insecure and granted extension developers a very wide attack surface. Assuming that Google only has a sinister reason to switch to a better standard in an ecosystem riddled with ill-intentioned actors is a bit too cynical. |
| |
| ▲ | wavemode 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > very wide attack surface. Do you have details of specific realistic attacks that were possible under MV2 and now impossible under MV3? | | | |
| ▲ | bornfreddy 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | No, it's not. They could easily have solved the problems without introducing changes to cripple ad blockers, but they decided their investors need some more cash. Actions speak. | |
| ▲ | OsrsNeedsf2P 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Google will only ever push major updates that are neutral or beneficial to their ad revenue. I do not believe they killed MV3 due to ad blockers, but it's the type of proposal that can survive at Google. |
|
