| ▲ | Aachen 5 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
That's one of its primary arguments: besides the hardening against exploits, they're considered such a safe OS because you cannot access your data either and give the wrong app root access. Everything lives in a sandbox. Whether not being able to grant full access to e.g. adb shell, Termux, or Restic is what you want is a personal choice, but it adds a layer of security against any malware that tries to get you to grant them root access This is also the argument they use to try to convince app vendors to add their keys to the allowlist, because the app makers can trust that their DRM will be active (if Netflix sets a "no screen recording" flag, you the user cannot circumvent it by e.g. reading /dev/fb0). It should have broader compatibility than other FOSS Android builds (when running the officially signed version of course, you can't compile it yourself and expect such apps to run there) | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | kuschku 5 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
So it doesn't actually do anything to give control of the device back to the user? One of the core tenets of truly free software is that I as user must be able to run, access, edit, and view everything. | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||