(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 4 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.

	▲	goldenarm 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		My point was about hard forks, which GrapheneOS is not.

▲

setopt 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Should not the Netscape -> Mozilla example be a good inspiration in that regard?