[HN Gopher] Changes to Android Open Source Project
___________________________________________________________________
Changes to Android Open Source Project
Author : TechTechTech
Score : 280 points
Date : 2026-01-07 09:35 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (source.android.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (source.android.com)
| TechTechTech wrote:
| Android source code will be released twice per year instead of
| every quarter.
| idle_zealot wrote:
| At this rate, given a few more years Google will announce that
| they're moving to a "once a century" release model for AOSP.
| LoganDark wrote:
| They'll decrease the frequency by a year every year so they
| never actually release it again
| cyberax wrote:
| Would it be so bad? The recent Androids have been going
| downhill. E.g. the mandatory edge-to-edge nonsense.
| mixermachine wrote:
| Got to say, I like the current Android versions. In the
| early days I flashed my Motorola Defy every second month
| with some cool new ROM. Always rooted and Xposed, always
| enabling something new.
|
| Now I run a S23 Ultra and after two years it still does
| everything I need. OneUI 8.0 and Android 16. For work
| (app de) I also have a Pixel 7a, always with the newest
| Android Beta. Also works well.
|
| Even the entry level phones work OK to pretty good now.
| My Samsung A16 5G (also for work) functions surprisingly
| well for 150EUR.
| drnick1 wrote:
| > Now I run a S23 Ultra and after two years it still does
| everything I need.
|
| Maybe, but it is fully under Google and Samsung's
| control, and is choke full of spyware. You couldn't pay
| me to use a stock (Googled) Android phone for this reason
| alone.
| LoganDark wrote:
| Back when I used Android phones, tweaking was pretty
| important to me too. I still remember when I installed
| CyanogenMod on a Motorola XT1565, those were the days...
| Eventually, LineageOS, and then some new phones happened,
| not all of which were rootable, though I eventually ended
| up with a OnePlus 7 Pro which was pretty tweakable and
| even opened the possibility of bootloader re-locking,
| until a TWRP bug wiped my device and I pretty much
| stopped tweaking. Was never quite able to get EdXposed
| working right again...
| MarsIronPI wrote:
| How well is rooting supported on these newer Android
| versions/devices? If I install LineageOS on my device,
| for example, I can be reasonably sure that Magisk will
| work fine. But how well does it work on a stock, locked-
| down ROM?
| Groxx wrote:
| Great. So now nobody gets bugfixes until after the main vendors
| get priority access to it. _for six months_.
|
| There's no way this isn't intentional hostility towards forks.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| The writing was on the wall the day they shipped Doze with
| GPS as an OS feature.
|
| All those years back I started calling it, since I built
| software for (long-lived) HMI devices that ran on Android
| kotaKat wrote:
| We were doomed when they stopped shipping a dialer or SMS
| app in AOSP.
|
| "Phone by Google" is disgusting.
| lossyalgo wrote:
| And then Signal removed SMS support so we're stuck with
| Gogole's crap.
| Zak wrote:
| There are several SMS clients on F-Droid.
| Groxx wrote:
| Yea, SMS and phone apps are quite numerous. I don't think
| it's a problem, the subsystems all the apps use is open
| enough and not hard to build against.
|
| Except for RCS, that's completely locked down and is
| pretty solidly becoming literally just Google. Fuck RCS.
| okanat wrote:
| Not just Google is the problem, the entire industry is
| the problem. Almost all of the cell-based standards are
| locked away and purely depend on the operators, major
| infrastructure companies like Motorola, Ericsson and
| Huawei and modem implementors like Qualcomm, Apple or
| Broadcom.
|
| Implementing them independently is extremely difficult
| and even if you manage to do it you cannot have them
| commercially available due to radio regulation and
| patents. Even academic research can only be done with
| collaboration of those huge companies.
|
| It is impossible to make a phone that is LTE capable
| completely independently (or even without nation state
| support). You cannot implement VoLTE or RCS without
| support from the carriers. They all have their own
| proprietary protocol on top of the standards.
|
| Google has basically infinite money and their own patents
| and industry relationships and government support so they
| can figure out RCS. An indie company, even with
| infinitely motivated engineers and good funding do not
| have any of it.
| cyberax wrote:
| The security fixes will be published normally.
| Groxx wrote:
| Security fixes are hardly the only software problems
| Android has.
| anal_reactor wrote:
| You guys are getting bugfixes?
| written-beyond wrote:
| Ofc to the root kit installed by "them", better battery
| life and WiFi stability.
|
| /s
| goku12 wrote:
| > There's no way this isn't intentional hostility towards
| forks.
|
| Of course it is. But it isn't new. This was declared in March
| last year. We discussed it a lot here. It's only now that
| it's going into effect.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| This is them trying to strangle Graphene and LineageOs. We
| desperately need an ecosystem where manufacturers are legally
| compelled to publish the source code for their drivers and
| similar so as to make it easier for alternative Oses to exist.
|
| Android will soon become fully closed source. The writing is on
| the wall.
| yaro330 wrote:
| No, neither of them register as a blip on the usage stats and
| both have, and will continue having, priority access through
| OEM partnerships.
| aesh2Xa1 wrote:
| The founder of GrapheneOS commented on this a few days ago
| here on HN, and basically said it doesn't impact GrapheneOS.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46550366
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| The drivers are legally required to be, well not published,
| but the source sent to anyone who asks.
| TingPing wrote:
| Plenty of drivers are proprietary. There are many ways of
| doing so, like much of it can exist in userspace, or in
| firmware, or using a shim in the kernel.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| Just because it's legally required doesn't mean everyone
| obeys the law I agree.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| So here's what I don't get. What's the point of this? Like, what
| is the downside to Google releasing the source to a version as
| they ship it?
| jsusjjdjejej wrote:
| I think eventually we will get to ... Ah this is too hard to
| open source at all... Come at us with GPL requests..
| justinclift wrote:
| Aren't they legally obligated to release the source code of
| whatever _GPL_ software they ship? ie the version shipped that
| is
| SXX wrote:
| This is why most of Android outside of linux kernel is not
| GPL.
| resonious wrote:
| By GPL, they're only obligated to release an offer that
| allows costumers to request the source code. They can still
| keep the source "closed" by default.
| globular-toast wrote:
| No they have to actually fulfill that request too. Once
| someone has the source they are then free to distribute it.
| growse wrote:
| I don't remember if this is in the original text, but is
| there a time constraints on distributing the source on
| request?
|
| If a user asks for the source, and the distributor says
| "sure" and then delivers it 12 months later, have they
| violated the license?
| globular-toast wrote:
| It has to be the source of the distribution the user
| currently has a copy of. So they can't just say "sure"
| and then wait until the next public release. I'm not sure
| about timeliness, though.
| pabs3 wrote:
| From other discussions, it sounds like they are shipping the
| copyleft source on time, only the permissive/pushover
| licensed stuff gets delayed source releases.
| pjmlp wrote:
| The only thing left as GPL is the Linux kernel.
|
| And since Project Treble you wouldn't even get the drivers,
| because Android Linux is a pseudo-microkernel now, where
| drivers run in userspace and talk via Android IPC (Binder) with
| the kernel, enforced since Android 8.
| IshKebab wrote:
| This is driven by the EU forcing them to allow alternative
| payment methods in the Play Store.
|
| They are trying to avoid it, but I doubt the EU will let this
| stand:
|
| https://www.developer-tech.com/news/google-alters-play-store...
|
| Android is open source partly because they can fund it from
| Play Store profits. Google is thinking that their Play Store
| profits are going to be cut, and they want to make the profit
| up elsewhere - and importantly, maintain control of the
| platform. This is their method.
|
| They've already used this playbook in the past with Google Play
| Services, and even before that when they abandoned all the
| built-in open source apps (Email, Calendar, etc.).
| charcircuit wrote:
| >ensure platform stability for the ecosystem
|
| Aka "We will do less releases because certain OEMs don't want to
| be seen as outdated as they don't want to spend the resources to
| rebase even 4 times per year."
| fluidcruft wrote:
| Well it does prevent them from shipping things prematurely. I
| guess.
| charcircuit wrote:
| They can still ship play services and their own apps at a
| faster cadence.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| I meant OEMs rushing the gun on new features that aren't
| fully baked. That probably does add support burden. (I
| don't know if it happens anymore but it used to be a
| problem on the OEM forks)
| Groxx wrote:
| They push half-baked stuff all the time anyway, I don't
| think this meaningfully affects that frequency.
| gitttnwmrlg wrote:
| Well, now they can only ship half baked stuff twice a
| year.
| charcircuit wrote:
| They should at least be shipping monthly updates with the
| months security updates. Well some months have not had
| any since Google is now trying to batch them to be
| quarterly because OEMs couldn't keep up with monthly
| security fixes.
| dvdkon wrote:
| That's not clear to me: Will they do fewer releases, or will
| they have the same quarterly release cadence as now, just with
| only every second release open source?
| charcircuit wrote:
| I would assume the Q1 and Q3 quarterly releases are going
| away altogether.
| ASinclair wrote:
| They are not.
| rtpg wrote:
| Is there any good faith read of this that people can lend
| credence to? The one I could maybe come up with (with their
| mention of stability) is "we want OSes derived from AOSP to be
| stable, instead of following main too closely". They mention
| third party devs working off of stable too... so maybe they're
| like "instead of dealing with outside contributors messing around
| with our 'wip' stuff, we'll sign up for integration work".
| nine_k wrote:
| So the source code will be released in a kind of FreeBSD
| releases? These pieces work together, base things off them,
| don't mess with (or even see) any WIP stuff.
|
| In other words, the result is still open, but the development
| process is not.
| bsimpson wrote:
| I don't work on Android, but I suspect it's a whole lot less
| work for both confidentiality and maintenance to not have to
| worry about daily/weekly OSS releases. That's probably worth
| more to the decisionmakers than the value of random
| contributions from people who aren't already inside the
| partner tent.
|
| [edit] based on the other comments, I surmise that public
| pushes were already infrequent.
| shevy-java wrote:
| > the result is still open, but the development process is
| not.
|
| Is the source code available at all times? This is a genuine
| question, I don't know right now.
| cyberax wrote:
| Android's foundation has been mostly stable for years now, with
| fairly minor changes between releases. So I guess they just
| don't want to deal with too many versions to document and
| support, given that device vendors are generally awful.
| tonfa wrote:
| Also for a long time they were doing yearly (or longer)
| release, afaiu it's only the past two years that they
| switched to quarterly (with the QPR release).
| luca020400 wrote:
| Almost all device run on the initial android release (QPR0),
| and never shipped any of quarterly updates. Even less so using
| _main_ as a baseline so that point is moot.
|
| With android 16 introducing "mid releases" (QPR2), they expect
| OEMs to start shipping those as well, QCOM already has a QPR2
| BSP release, and Samsung is expected to release QPR2 based
| builds soon.
|
| As far as contributions go, google usually wanted patches to
| apply to main, I don't think that ever changed. And even there
| now that AOSP development is fully closed, it's even easier as
| partners will likely just upload patches against internal main
| instead. Less integration work there as well.
|
| There really isn't a good explanation as to why they want to do
| move code drop cadence, other than they can and want to avoid
| wasting time releasing QPR1/3 that no OEM ever shipped (expect
| Pixels that is)
| nostrademons wrote:
| Sure. Development at Google is glacially slow because nobody
| does any work, and so they're only publishing releases bi-
| annually because there aren't enough substantive changes to
| make quarterly releases seem important. This will also allow
| the teams to move to biannual OKRs instead of quarterly, which
| lets ICs and line managers do half as much work while giving
| executives justification for why they need twice as much
| headcount.
|
| When it comes to large bureaucracies, always assume laziness
| over malice or strategic competence.
| myHNAccount123 wrote:
| Maybe less fragmentation?
| exabrial wrote:
| We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your device.
| No root access, remote control by apple and google, all wrong.
| ofrzeta wrote:
| There are some, right? I think I lost track a bit, but one is
| Sailfish OS. I guess it is super hard for alternative
| devices/OSs to enter the market.
| tazjin wrote:
| You can sell the phones alright, and they might even work,
| but the fact is that participation in society - especially if
| you live in a city - will be much harder without Android/iOS.
|
| Note, not _impossible_ : You can always carry cash to avoid
| phone-based bank payments (which would be needed at e.g. my
| local farmer's market, where nobody has a card payment
| terminal), some taxi services (Yandex Go for example) provide
| a web view with some of the features, you can open map
| services in the browser ...
|
| But for the browser-based cases the experience will be _even
| worse_ than the standard app experience, and friction is
| overall much higher.
|
| As a result, only a very small fraction of nerds are
| committed enough to buy and use these devices. You then have
| a chicken&egg problem about getting a third option to work.
|
| The only way this has been done semi-successfully in recent
| years is Huawei's HarmonyOS - and they did it by way of a)
| already being an absolutely massive phone company, and b)
| keeping around an expensive Android-compatibility core for
| many years.
| 3abiton wrote:
| Yes, the chicken and the egg problem. But here is the
| thing, the more adopters there are the more likely to get
| support. Not to mention the userbase will be mainly in the
| EU.
| tazjin wrote:
| The EU is entirely dependent on US services, which don't
| much care about a fringe phone OS some fraction of people
| in the EU use. It's like adding duck/egg, crow/egg and
| other similar problems into the dependency web, too.
| alexgieg wrote:
| The European Commission, as well as many individual
| countries, are starting to see that as a problem in need
| of urgent solving, as they've realized it's strategic
| suicide for a country to be dependent on the goodwill of
| the (potentially, now turned likely, and going for almost
| declared) enemy.
| MarsIronPI wrote:
| Sailfish OS isn't fully FOSS. I believe the UI is still
| proprietary.
| dainiusse wrote:
| It is Linux, isn't it. Jolla phone, etc...
| hommelix wrote:
| > We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your
| device. No root access, remote control by apple and google, all
| wrong.
|
| There is https://postmarketos.org/
|
| Maybe 2026 will be the year of Linux on mobile phone.
| krautsauer wrote:
| The list of devices in the highest support category hints at
| how likely this is.
| https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Devices
|
| And yeah, you can even buy phones with a non-android linux
| pre-installed, e.g. from pine64. But they come with all kinds
| of "for early adopters" warning labels. Deservedly so, in my
| opinion.
| ptman wrote:
| https://commerce.jolla.com/products/jolla-phone-preorder
| rubin55 wrote:
| Oh thanks for that link, I didn't know about it, pre-
| ordered!
| ezst wrote:
| Hope there's a timeline in which banking and corporate
| apps can run/be enrolled on that. If the current
| geopolitical mess from the USA isn't a good-enough reason
| to make it happen, I don't know what is.
| goku12 wrote:
| > Maybe 2026 will be the year of Linux on mobile phone.
|
| Considering the ongoing DRAM and SSD crunch, I won't hold my
| breath.
| opan wrote:
| This could actually be a reason to work on better
| supporting older "Android" phones in postmarketOS, to keep
| the hardware people already have working.
| fsflover wrote:
| Why are all commenters on HN ignoring the only smartphone
| running an FSF-endorsed [0] operating system, Librem 5, and
| only list everything else? I just can't get it.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641
| charcircuit wrote:
| Because it was a kickstarter that was run like a scam, was
| years late to deliver the first device, the hardware was
| already not good at the start due picking an automotive
| SOC, the form factor was bulky, and the software was really
| buggy.
|
| GrapheneOS is a much more practical open source OS to use
| Linux on a phone.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| GrapheneOS is not solving the actual interesting problem
| (running on an entirely mainline kernel, just like on
| x86). It's effectively a hardened variety of
| LineageOS/AOSP, hence entirely reliant on device-specific
| downstream kernels/BSPs that will never see a feature
| update.
|
| BTW, hardware support on postmarketOS "community" class
| devices has seen some nice improvements as of late. Once
| these improvements meaningfully stabilize (avoiding the
| risk of regression/breakage; there's been some of that
| even in the recent testing for the 2025-12 stable
| release) it's quite possible that some "community"
| devices might finally reach "main" class, marking them as
| OK for daily-driver use. Something to watch for as we
| approach 2026-06.
| fsflover wrote:
| I don't care about the problems they had many years ago.
| Sent from my daily driver Librem 5.
| MarsIronPI wrote:
| Because it's prohibitively expensive for something that
| isn't guaranteed to be a usable daily-driver for most
| people. Also IIRC the hardware isn't quite worth the price
| tag in-and-of-itself.
| JCattheATM wrote:
| Partly because most people don't really care if something
| is FSF endorsed or not. Partly because it's far from a
| great user experience.
| rock_artist wrote:
| It's a circle that needs to be broken. It has multiple parties
| even without device manufacturers.
|
| Users - there is a broad scope of users. For sustainable eco-
| system you need also user interest and support of such.
|
| Developers - that sounds funny. I know. But you need enough
| leverage to get apps or services to be open.
|
| Companies/Software - a modern mobile device takes place in
| almost any interaction. Commuting, payment, banking, grocery
| shopping, social messaging, doom scrolling.
|
| Biggest hope for the future is ensuring PWA becomes
| standardized enough. That way the OS lock-in could be reduced.
| goku12 wrote:
| > It's a circle that needs to be broken. It has multiple
| parties even without device manufacturers.
|
| Well, you're right, however badly I don't want to admit it.
| Google broke that cycle once with Android. I'm sure that
| Apple would have too, even if they were not the first mover.
| And there's no question that their wealth and influence had a
| massive role in it - something an open platform cannot match
| realistically.
|
| But the current situation is simply untenable anymore. I want
| out, no matter how many others don't care for it. The open
| platform has to be just functional enough (including app
| support, even as PWAs), for us to break free from this
| duopoly. Just like how Linux and BSDs are on desktops. I'm
| able to do everything on it from work to netbanking. I would
| hate it really badly if I was forced to use Windows or MacOS
| these days.
| baq wrote:
| We need a hardware attestation vendor who isn't also selling
| ads on the same device. Something like, I dunno, an identity
| module which you could maybe insert into the phone?
| edg5000 wrote:
| > We need a hardware attestation vendor
|
| We never had one on desktop; no real issues. Hardware
| attestation is primarily in the interest of the vendor, not
| the user. The user relies on chains of trust. This is how the
| world works.
| faust201 wrote:
| This is because of legacy. And even now lots of people
| assemble and build PC.
|
| My worry is one fine day Microsoft, Samsung Apple, and
| Google (rest of SV Media companies like Netflix etc) will
| join hands in bringing security and force a ChromeOS or
| macOS type totally- we decide everything for you.
| baq wrote:
| But that's exactly why I advocate that the hardware
| attestation module be separate from the computing device -
| so I can be in control of what and when I attest, not the
| vendor.
| edg5000 wrote:
| Can you elaborate. Say I buy parts myself and install a
| fully FOSS OS on my machine. Let's say I want to access
| my bank, and they demand attestation. You propose I'd buy
| an off-the-shelf, universal attestation module of my
| chosing (free market). But how would that work from an
| implementation standpoint? How would the module help put
| e.g. my bank at ease?
| okanat wrote:
| Those actually exist. Yubikeys, Nitrokeys (complete FOSS
| FW) or bank-approved code generators (For Germany these
| exist: https://www.reiner-sct.com/tan-generatoren/) are
| basically that. They provide independent assessment. So
| regardless of the OS or the browser both parties can make
| secure transactions.
| pjmlp wrote:
| Every attempt since OpenMoko proves the market doesn't care.
|
| And in what concerns the mainstream desktop/laptop market,
| macOS Linux VMs, WSL, ChromeOS, versus GNU/Linux OEM devices,
| proves most people doesn't care either what they can get at
| regular computer stores, otherwise GNU/Linux configurations
| would not be online only at very specific shops.
| crote wrote:
| Mobile is a _massive_ chicken-and-egg problem. The main
| purpose of a smartphone these days is to run apps. Nobody is
| going to buy a smartphone which can 't run the apps they need
| in their day-to-day life. On the other hand, no company is
| going to write apps for a platform with basically zero users.
|
| OpenMoko & friends are selling devices which basically only
| run Firefox, and _sometimes_ make calls as well. The only
| people interested in that are diehard FLOSS enthusiasts,
| which means they have to use ancient hardware because new
| stuff doesn 't have open drivers, which means that even if
| you ignore the app ecosystem they compare incredibly poorly
| to mainstream smartphones. No wonder they keep failing.
|
| Interestingly, the desktop/laptop market is heading the other
| way. The move to cloud SaaS products means a decent number of
| people now only need a browser. What's keeping a lot of
| people on Windows is often _literally_ one or two
| applications. Valve 's push for Proton is the perfect example
| of this: the Steam Deck is providing a huge incentive to fix
| those last few bugs keeping a game from running on Linux, and
| with the way Microsoft is screwing up W11 it is now
| ironically the _gamers_ who are moving to Linux.
|
| What you are seeing in "regular computer stores" is mostly
| irrelevant. That market is basically dead. Corporate gets its
| machines directly from Dell/HP/Lenovo, PC enthusiasts mostly
| get custom builds, and casual people stick with smartphones
| and tablets. In-store PC sales is now reduced to a university
| student's Google Docs machine - and Microsoft is doing a
| _pretty good job_ bribing the manufacturers to push Windows
| there.
| pjmlp wrote:
| What I see is regular people buy their computers at Media
| Market, Cool Blue, Saturn, Fnac, Public, Dixon, you name
| it.
|
| Most of them have no clue that something like System 76 or
| Tuxedo exists in first place.
|
| Likewise on corporate world, I have long moved into
| Windows/macOS as official desktops for the last decade,
| GNU/Linux is only available on VM or servers, and usually
| it is the cloud provider's own distro.
|
| Those customers where IT allowed the use of GNU/Linux
| desktops, it was with zero support from them, it was up to
| us to deal ourselves with any issues preventing our work,
| and to deal with upper management, in case it impacts
| delivery.
|
| Until SteamDeck gets rid of its dependency on Windows as
| source, it is pretty much irrelevant. Games developers will
| keep using their Windows workstations, while a community
| smaller than Switch, will get those games thanks to Proton.
|
| And it remains to be seen for how long Microsoft will
| tolerate Steam, or use their weight as OS vendor, and one
| of the biggest publishers.
| MarsIronPI wrote:
| > Games developers will keep using their Windows
| workstations, while a community smaller than Switch, will
| get those games thanks to Proton.
|
| Mobile GNU/Linux might end up in a similar situation if
| projects like Waydroid[0] can be well-integrated into the
| system, or if the mobile hardware becomes powerful enough
| to run it well.
|
| [0]: https://waydro.id
| pabs3 wrote:
| OpenMoko phones were too underpowered to run Firefox, but
| they could run a ton of other apps. I was running non-AI
| automated human language translation on the thing.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| Aren't people using fewer apps than ever?
|
| At least for mean almost everything has moved into the
| browser except, Whatsapp, maps, and music
| leke wrote:
| You know, I could do without the telephone and SMS features
| nowadays. I just need a data SIM. Then the device just
| needs to run a Linux distro with a mobile UI.
|
| I'm pretty sure my Linux desktop version of Signal runs
| great on small screens.
| fsflover wrote:
| > Every attempt since OpenMoko proves the market doesn't
| care.
|
| It's because people like you are constantly repeating this
| mantra of security nihilism [0], instead of spreading the
| word about true alternatives existing today, Librem 5 and
| Pinephone.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27897975
| pjmlp wrote:
| Which aren't that great user experience for normal users
| anyway, with the apps and games everyone else on their
| friends circle is using, or needed for work.
|
| Security not only matters, we are still far away from the
| same liability as in other industries.
|
| GNU/Linux also had as baseline what other UNIXes were
| capable of, and even that had to grew for ACLs, NSA's
| LinuxSE, and containers.
| okanat wrote:
| How much does Librem 5 cost? Are they able to deliver
| reasonably up-to-date set of features that general
| population care? Can you still buy them? Will they deliver
| in a reasonable amount of time? Will they be able to stay
| afloat? Can they make enough money to invest in features?
| Can they support an ecosystem that not only support FOSS
| but proprietary software too? Can they make contracts with
| operators to have earlier access to newer tech? Does the
| cost reflect the value that the customer gets out of them?
|
| The answer for most of those questions is no for both
| Librem and Pinephone. You cannot even buy Pinephones
| anymore. This is not nihilism.
| fsflover wrote:
| > Are they able to deliver reasonably up-to-date set of
| features that general population care?
|
| It doesn't matter. We are not on a mainstream website,
| we're on HN. You and me _can_ use it as a daily driver (I
| do). Nothing becomes mainstream and usable by public at
| the launch (except things advertised by the big tech of
| course).
|
| > This is not nihilism.
|
| Did you read the linked article? It's not about getting
| to 100% security/freedom without any effort. This is
| about giving up, as you did.
|
| > How much does Librem 5 cost?
|
| Yes, it's expensive. If you can't buy it, you can help in
| many other ways, e.g., by spreading the word or
| contributing to the free software.
|
| > Can you still buy them?
|
| Yes: https://shop.puri.sm/shop/librem-5/
|
| > Are they able to deliver reasonably up-to-date set of
| features that general population care?
|
| It doesn't matter. It can provide you with the main
| features you may need and add something you can't get
| anywhere else,
| https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/docs/community-
| wiki/-/wikis/F....
|
| Further development can deliver most required features to
| the public, too, https://puri.sm/posts/closing-the-app-
| gap-momentum-and-time/.
|
| > Will they deliver in a reasonable amount of time?
|
| Yes, 10 working days, according to their website,
| https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
|
| > Will they be able to stay afloat?
|
| It doesn't matter: The phone runs the mainline kernel and
| not locked down, it will be able to receive all updates
| even without Purism. You can install any other OS, too.
|
| > Can they make enough money to invest in features?
|
| Seems like no, because virtually nobody knows about them,
| even on HN. And, again, it doesn't really matter.
|
| > Can they support an ecosystem that not only support
| FOSS but proprietary software too?
|
| Why?
|
| > Can they make contracts with operators to have earlier
| access to newer tech?
|
| This is pure nihilism. Only Apple and Google can do that,
| so we're all doomed, right? However Purism have been
| trying, not without some progress,
| https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/
|
| > Does the cost reflect the value that the customer gets
| out of them?
|
| Probably yes,
| https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/docs/community-
| wiki/-/wikis/F...
|
| _Typed and submitted entirely on my Librem 5._
| rav3ndust wrote:
| > You cannot even buy Pinephones anymore
|
| Sure you can. The Pinephone Pro is discontinued, sadly,
| but regular Pinephones are able to be purchased, I just
| double checked the PINE64 store:
|
| https://pine64.com/product/pinephone-beta-edition-with-
| conve...
| JCattheATM wrote:
| > Are they able to deliver reasonably up-to-date set of
| features that general population care?
|
| No, they are very much an experiment at the moment.
|
| > Does the cost reflect the value that the customer gets
| out of them?
|
| Also no, for what they are they are vastly overprices. It
| makes much more sense to buy an old device that an run
| Lineage or PMOS.
| cookiengineer wrote:
| Check out Hackberry Pi devices. Then check out how far Plasma
| Mobile got, it made insane progress over the last years.
|
| I'm currently working on an OS image for the Hackberry devices,
| maybe it'll get some traction. [1]
|
| [1] https://github.com/rogueberry
|
| [2] https://github.com/ZitaoTech/HackberryPiCM5
| Zigurd wrote:
| Open Harmony? I can't find what I would call authoritative
| information on how open it is. There's some hedging language
| about modules being closed source. But it's unclear if that
| refers to commercial versions of Harmony OS or Open Harmony, or
| if Open Harmony is open but somehow crippled.
| saagarjha wrote:
| Ok, so at this point we're getting iOS kernel source releases
| more often than AOSP drops? Maybe they should rename to i Open
| Source at this point because they seem to be doing a better job
| than Google at this now.
| tonfa wrote:
| Isn't the kernel tree for AOSP open (so can see changes
| continuously)?
| izacus wrote:
| The development isn't done in the public tree (anymore), you
| essentially get a git push every 6 months in public.
| tonfa wrote:
| For the android parts or for the kernel. I was asking
| specifically about the kernel.
|
| (My impression was based on lwn discussions about that
| change)
|
| Edit: https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/common/ has a
| lot of recent changes
| izacus wrote:
| Ah, the situation there is a bit more complicated, sorry
| :)
| journal wrote:
| redirect your efforts into other areas. I'd love a simpler device
| like https://www.waveshare.com/esp32-p4-wifi6-touch-
| lcd-7-8-10.1.... to be well supported with a lightweight friendly
| OS. This is about as root as you can get for those who want root
| access. You'll have to put in an effort yourselves or you'll
| forever be using slop devices and software.
| xg15 wrote:
| This sounds like defeat - essentially retreating into niches
| that only a handful of enthusiasts will be using, while leaving
| the mainstream to Google etc.
| journal wrote:
| why is everyone so negative about anything alternative. it
| won't succeed and all. how do you know? maybe it's not
| defeat. maybe you'd be better off without any devices.
| Elfener wrote:
| I like the android way of security, where "rooting" your device
| to install updates is insecure, but using a horrifyingly out-of-
| date android (because your manufacturer, the only one who can
| update your device, didn't bother) is secure.
| zx8080 wrote:
| It's because "security" is not a user one, but a security of
| Google Play Services.
|
| As rooting may tamper the google's telemetry (can we already
| call it "spying" please).
| 3abiton wrote:
| Not to mention, play integrity is being used a some sort of
| "anti cheats" by bank apps and other essential services. Even
| some government apps in the EU, essentially forcing you to be
| spied on by google.
|
| The worse part is that, you can do all of those functionality
| with a browser on linux (or Android), yet to use them as
| Android apps on a device without gapps (even if jt's not
| rooted and with locked bootloader) is not allowed. Make this
| make sense.
| goku12 wrote:
| > Even some government apps in the EU, essentially forcing
| you to be spied on by google.
|
| The same in India. I can't use even the government weather
| app and the disaster alerts app without signing in to
| google play.
|
| Seeing that this malpractice (of forcing the users into
| Google's surveillance net) is widespread among seemingly
| unrelated agencies like banks and government agencies of
| several nations, I would really like to know who is
| peddling this draconian scheme among them.
|
| I want to send some angry rants to the app
| owners/developers and ask for those malicious peddlers to
| be permanently banned from further interference in cyber
| security matters of these institutions.
| 3abiton wrote:
| I would not be surprised if Google is sponsoring a lot of
| this efffort targeting young devs, and "teaching about
| security". They basically positioning their services as
| "authenticators" of truth, despite it 100% being cat and
| mouse game still.
| _heimdall wrote:
| That really makes sense though if you think about it.
| When a company has an annual revenue that would put them
| around the 43rd largest country by GDP, they could very
| well begin acting more like a state. States spy and
| states claim to be the arbiters of truth.
| metalman wrote:
| moto g15 in hand, deguggled as much as possible right out
| of the box, no guggle accounts or big tech apps, bank
| through a browser, but there is defintly a lot of
| outright fraud as to bieng able to turn off google apps,
| it is an arcane procedure to turn off notifications,
| insisting that nothing will work without "play store"
| installed, though it is clear that going to a linux phone
| will become the only way to avoid adversurvielance
| security and tracking from taking over my device
| completly. keep in mind that our techno facist elite did
| provide the "intel" that led to ICE bieng sent to a
| particular area code in minaipolis, where they executed a
| mild mannered chearfull poet, who's last words, somehow
| knowing, were, "i dont hate you". "tech" is central to
| whatever comes next
|
| https://calebhearth.com/dont-get-distracted
| microtonal wrote:
| Get a phone that runs GrapheneOS (second-hand Pixel 7 or
| 8 will do fine). Run apps that do not require it without
| Google Play Services and run apps that do require Google
| Play Services with the sandboxed Google Play Services.
| That will constrain the data that can be collected a lot.
|
| (Yes, there will still be issues if you use apps that
| require Google's remote attestation, but at least in
| Europe, many banks etc. do not require it.)
| throwaway140820 wrote:
| Yeah India, because a lot of people are having their
| lives ruined by scammers everyday. Get off your fucking
| high horse, it literally protects users. Before you start
| judging, do a simple search. It's not one off cases.
| alexgieg wrote:
| The scamming problem is a fault of the government. It's
| trivial for a national government to make rules forcing
| banks to become able to reverse wrongful transactions.
| That'd stop scammers cold. If your government doesn't do
| this, and instead transfers the responsibility to the
| client, it's because the government doesn't care for the
| people.
| goku12 wrote:
| Oh Please! Can't protect the users without forcing them
| to log on to Google and subject themselves to
| surveillance? That too even for the weather and the
| emergency alerts? Give me a break! And stop ruining the
| discussion with your misguided condescension and
| nationalist rhetoric.
| Zak wrote:
| Play Integrity and Play Services are two different
| things.
|
| Play Integrity is a remote attestation scheme by which
| apps can ask the OS to prove to a remote server that it
| is unmodified. It allows apps to refuse to run on devices
| with root or third-party ROMs.
|
| Play Services is a set of libraries and APIs for things
| like network-based location, push notifications, and
| advertising. Nearly all Android phones include it, and
| users of third-party ROMs can add it at install time (but
| not later) with packages like MindTheGapps. There's an
| open source substitute called MicroG that allows most
| apps to run without it.
| goku12 wrote:
| > Play Integrity and Play Services are two different
| things.
|
| You're right in your elaboration, but I didn't mention
| which one it is. My primary concern is that it forces me
| to log in to my play services account, which I haven't
| agreed to so far.
|
| > There's an open source substitute called MicroG that
| allows most apps to run without it.
|
| It's not for the lack of trying and I probably wouldn't
| even be complaining if it had worked. Phones are getting
| harder to root these days, much less install a custom
| ROM. Everyday feels like the ecosystem is tightening
| around us.
| cromka wrote:
| > The worse part is that, you can do all of those
| functionality with a browser on linux
|
| This isn't true, actually. Banks and gov entities use those
| mobile apps as authenticators. They do have a distinct
| purpose.
| lrvick wrote:
| I do not have a smartphone and have had no problem being
| a customer of multiple top banks. They strongly
| _encourage_ you to use apps, but if smartphones are
| against your unspecified religion, alternative paths
| always appear.
| cromka wrote:
| In EU? For internet banking you need a mobile phone or a
| dedicated hardware token (thing you own), as part of the
| Strong Customer Authentication (SCA) requirement under
| the PSD2 regulation:
| https://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/fisma/items/658958
|
| I know in some countries (UK, Germany, Switzerland,
| Austria) they're used to hardware tokens already since
| they were in use long before PSD2. But I seriously,
| seriously doubt banks in e.g. Poland specifically
| implement support for hardware tokens issued to very few
| annoying customers who refuse to use an app but otherwise
| want internet banking.
| bluebarbet wrote:
| Between what the law says and what actually happens
| there's sometimes a gap.
|
| I'm in the EU and currently I do online banking with 3
| banks without using any app, i.e. thru a laptop browser.
| The 1st literally lets me stay logged in with a simple
| cookie, with an SMS 2FA requirement every 90 days. The
| 2nd additionally asks for a PIN to be entered at each
| session. The 3rd is a neobank and is tougher, requiring a
| TOTP (which I generate on the same machine, needless to
| say).
|
| A 4th _does_ require an app, and in fact can hardly even
| be used with a desktop OS. That bank is Revolut and I
| therefore don 't use it and I recommend others avoid it
| too.
| brnt wrote:
| > Even some government apps in the EU
|
| The Dutch ID app got rid of all trackers and such
| requirements last year, but they didn't go the full length
| and made an F-droid repo (or a government store or sth).
|
| Google actively guiding developers to APIs like the Play
| Integrity API (which requires not only you register the
| phone with Google on a Google account, but also an
| untampered device, outdated or not.
|
| I don't even root my devices, just using something like
| Lineage already gets you the basic-integrity Max. Not
| enough for many banking apps.
| interpol_p wrote:
| The reason this happens is because big companies get their
| software pen tested. Part of the pen test report will
| include something like "accessible from jailbroken
| devices."
|
| The pen test results get put into the ticket system as
| immovable entries. Engineers will question them, only to be
| shot down by the cyber security department who organized
| the pen test. The engineers will eventually accept that
| they cannot convince cyber to drop the issue, and implement
| the jail break detection.
|
| Why does cyber mandate it? Because no one in a large
| company wants to accept the risk, even imaginary risk. They
| want to be able to say, when security is breached, "we did
| our due diligence. Look at the report, we implemented
| everything in it"
|
| Why do firms offering penetration testing keep putting junk
| like this into their reports? Because their automated tools
| list them out and they're getting paid to find issues. The
| more the better.
|
| It's insane and entirely about passing off risk.
| Sophira wrote:
| There was a time when we _did_ call it spying. Programs that
| had what we would now call telemetry used to be called
| spyware.
|
| The term has fallen by the wayside and hardly ever gets used
| nowadays.
| cromka wrote:
| That's a very good observation
| sebtron wrote:
| We just call it "apps" now.
| goodpoint wrote:
| It's about keeping google's device secure *from* the user.
| atanasi wrote:
| It's the security of the ecosystem, where the interests of
| app vendors are fundamental: content distributors can count
| on enforcing DRM, and banks are relying on the camera used
| for KYC actually being a camera and not a virtual device.
| youhatetheleft wrote:
| Just accept being spied on, it's not as if there are
| genocidal billionaires out there.
| plagiarist wrote:
| Android devices are enraging. ARM in general, why is there
| never a boot loader?
|
| I have a little Android handheld game device that will allow me
| to dual boot a Linux from SD quite easily... but why can't I
| overwrite the existing install? I thought Android was more open
| and hackable than that.
| opan wrote:
| I've got an Anbernic RG353M, came with a dual boot as you've
| described. I completely wiped it and only have ROCKNIX on
| there, a minimal distro based on LibreELEC, I believe. I
| actually maintained an Android + ROCKNIX dualboot at first,
| but it breaks the sleep function for some reason, and the
| ROCKNIX docs for this device say to remove Android, so
| eventually I did. I didn't actually use the Android side but
| had kept it around just in case before.
|
| Not all these devices have the same level of support, so do
| your research on your model before trying to overwrite the
| install.
| plagiarist wrote:
| I went with a Retroid after seeing articles about people
| booting ROCKNIX on it. And one can, from SD. But I did not
| do enough research to see there was no documentation on
| writing Linux to the internal storage.
|
| I'm so tired of doing research. I'd just like it to be a
| functioning BIOS. I at least learned my lesson and have
| stayed clear of other Android devices.
| bpye wrote:
| Well there is a bootloader - on Qualcomm its even UEFI, but
| you don't have access to it.
|
| https://worthdoingbadly.com/qcomxbl/
| plagiarist wrote:
| That's somehow worse. Good for them that they made it
| convenient to launch their software on the device I paid
| for.
| bfrog wrote:
| I think you had the wrong idea on security here, the security
| is for the device manufacturers benefit to obsolete the
| hardware and force you to buy a new one not for your benefit.
| All the data is already being shipped off to where the hell
| ever for building models of you for advertising and more.
| digiown wrote:
| Android does have a meaningfully improved security over typical
| Linux desktop: the segmentation of data between apps. Imagine
| what would happen if people run all the proprietary crap they
| do on a typical Linux box. That's multiple spyware apps with
| full filesystem access.
|
| Unfortunately, Google also uses it to abuse the user by also
| segmenting the user's access as well, "protecting" apps from
| the user, which is an abomination.
| zozbot234 wrote:
| We have Flatpak/bubblewrap that can accomplish the same
| sandboxing on the Linux desktop, with no need for clumsy
| hacks like app-specific user ID's.
| realusername wrote:
| And yet, I keep all my important stuff on my Linux laptop and
| not on my phone. There's maybe a lesson here that security is
| also about trust.
| digiown wrote:
| Me too. But you have to be a lot more careful about not
| running proprietary crap on the desktop, which is easier to
| do than on phone. Ever been forced to install some crap for
| some event/business/etc?
| realusername wrote:
| I have the somewhat controversial opinion that most
| Android apps are pretty much useless as native and they
| would be okay as a webapp if it would be more seamless.
|
| Exceptions would maybe be games.
| mrweasel wrote:
| The whole security of both Android and iOS is a joke at this
| point. We know now that plenty of apps/games have proxy
| services built in, allowing the publisher to monetize their
| users, by selling proxy services to AI companies. If that can
| happen, with all the "security" those platforms and store
| supposedly offer, then I fail to see the point.
|
| We're being prevented from installing and updating software on
| the devices we own, but Google and Apple will happily approve
| and sign malware in their stores?
| kube-system wrote:
| They're one in the same. You can't exploit privilege escalation
| vulnerabilities unless you are vulnerable to them!
| MORPHOICES wrote:
| AOSP has felt different lately, what's going on? Not much. ~
|
| More like a change of tone.
|
| Quarterly releases given more emphasis. More precise stability
| language. Rather than feeling like an afterthought, feature flags
| are now receiving first-class treatment.
|
| My view.
|
| The isolation of platform work is earlier.
|
| Landing flags are occurring more frequently than ever.
|
| By "Stable," it appears the Intuit team is suggesting "boring"
| which is deliberate.
|
| I have been using a simple lens.
|
| The surface of the platform is slow and predictable.
|
| A gated and reversible design.
|
| The OEM risk will be pushed later.
|
| I wonder how other people see it.
|
| Is Android giving off more conservative vibes?
|
| Are flags cutting down on breakage, or just relocating it?
|
| Has your testing strategy changed if you've shipped against AOSP?
|
| In a practitioner's take, not in a press narrative.
| a2128 wrote:
| Every time Android gets worse and less open, especially with
| recent ID verification for APK installs, I think Canonical's 2013
| comment on closing Bug #1 ages even more like milk:
| https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1 Bug:
| Microsoft has a majority market share Almost always,
| a majority of PCs for sale have Microsoft Windows pre-installed.
| In the rare cases that they come with a GNU/Linux operating
| system or no operating system at all, the drivers and BIOS may be
| proprietary. [...] A majority of the PCs for sale should include
| only free software.
|
| Closing comment: Android may not be my or your
| first choice of Linux, but it is without doubt an open source
| platform that offers both practical and economic benefits to
| users and industry. So we have both competition, and good
| representation for open source, in personal computing.
| Even though we have only played a small part in that shift, I
| think it's important for us to recognize that the shift has taken
| place. So from Ubuntu's perspective, this bug is now closed.
| brettermeier wrote:
| Those AI translations are really bad these days... In german it
| says in the subline "Verwenden Sie das Android-Betriebssystem, um
| Ihr Gerat mit Strom zu versorgen.", that means: Use Android to
| power your device with electricity.
|
| Please don't show me your crappy translations any more.
| 1f60c wrote:
| I checked and it's indeed the translation Google Translate
| gives for "Use the Android operating system to power your
| device."
|
| Gemini 3 Pro offers "Nutzen Sie die Power von Android fur Ihr
| Gerat." as a modern, tech-savvy alternative, as well as more
| literal translations that correctly recognize the idiom.
| j7c6 wrote:
| Yeah, I, too, was confused by this translation at first
| glance... That reminded me of when I had to install M$ Office
| for work. The download button read "Buro herunterladen" (Buro
| is the exact german translation of Office)
| sylware wrote:
| android is plagged with planned obsolescence. Don't know if
| that's going to help.
| shevy-java wrote:
| We simply can not trust Google. It kind of became the Microsoft
| of the 1990s now.
| justarandomname wrote:
| Insert: "You were supposed to defeat the Sith, not join them!"
| meme here...
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| To be really honest yeah.
|
| Not sure why people downvoted but this is sort of true
|
| Microsoft was absolutely dominating and buying up everything
| (similar to today's tech giants) and they were literally the
| most mega corporation ever
|
| Until they got hit by the monopoly lawsuit. That alone scared
| microsoft so much that it backed off
|
| After the backing off is when Companies like google, heck
| Apple was directly invested to be saved by microsoft just so
| that they dont get threatened by the govt as monopoly and
| amazon.
|
| In a way people mention so why couldn't Microsoft create
| their own engine but its also the fact that blink/chromium is
| based on fork of webkit which itself is a fork of KHTML from
| the kde team but webkit added many features (from what I
| could tell) and is a really complex software in it of itself
|
| This was created by apple and apple as we know it would not
| have been able to exist without Microsoft backing off them
|
| My point here is that in previous times, Microsoft was a
| large curtain blocking any innovation if they wanted but
| after it was feared by even a threat like monopoly, they took
| it very seriously and thus we have the cultural innovation in
| many ways that we have
|
| Now the monopoly question was a genuine question still
| launched by the government.
|
| Today the landscape is different, Google and these large tech
| companies would buy things and the meta strategy has become
| to sell, its a very cynical point of things which really just
| ends up screwing the customers in the end.
|
| The government doesn't care, it might slap some 1% fine and
| there is a quote that if crime's punishment becomes only
| fines, then crime becomes legal and the fines compared to
| company are so small and they got legal structure so high
| that they strech it for as much as possible
|
| Overall, the govt.'s being really lobbied by these tech
| giants and they stiffle tech innovation in the end
|
| In the end all of them are the same, they all kind of want to
| be a microsoft pre monopoly era.
|
| Govt's lack of understanding of the matters around the world
| is the reason why tech feels so intrusive. This has real
| consequences to you and me, now I don't trust the govt will
| be able to improve if its gets lobbied or corrupted and
| that's a seperate matter and might take new laws all around
| the world to prevent such corruption / lobbying but right
| now, the other best thing is to showcase support by being the
| minor fraction of the population who supports/donates to open
| source / msme businesses
| prirun wrote:
| I doubt Microsoft gives a minute's thought to government
| monopoly concerns. One of their "punishments" after the
| monopoly lawsuit was to give schools free copies of
| Microsoft Office products. Teachers and administrators
| adopted them, forcing parents to also buy copies of Office.
| Now practically everyone's documents are locked up in
| Office formats, which Microsoft can change on a whim. Sure,
| there are products to read Office formats with varying
| levels of success, but Microsoft has the control and can
| make everyone jump through hoops whenever they feel like
| it.
| Imustaskforhelp wrote:
| Well yes but I feel like its because the threats of
| monopolization got less and less due to lobbying efforts
| but for the time, there are reports where microsoft was
| scared in the internal emails after what happened.
|
| "Microsoft was more scared of taking over companies that
| were competitors because of this anti trust trial. They
| had to back off a little and this created this tiny
| little gap, this little window from which many flowers
| can bloom. These flowers ended up growing into massive
| trillion dollars competitors (google and apple)"
|
| Per Atrioc
| (https://youtu.be/VS6p5kPeD9I?si=PUT4R5a7Y4kiIvD2&t=692)
| [Title of the video being the Halo scheme is insane
| talking about groq's weird acquisition by nvidia]
|
| I would consider that much of what I wrote in the
| previous comment was I think something I had thought
| about but this particular video definitely helped me and
| you could say did influence me in a way to write the
| comment.
|
| It also mentions how it was provable that Microsoft was
| scared about it. I am not sure about this contradiction
| though but I would consider that it atleast created a gap
| for around 10-18 years from which the tech giants
| emerged.
| okanat wrote:
| I think believing any for-profit business would have any
| morality is the problem. Especially thanks to the post-80s
| business conjuncture upheld by the relatively democratic
| governments. It is all about diminishing responsibilities
| while increasing profits.
| clickety_clack wrote:
| Na, it's the people. Money attracts people who want money.
| It's very hard to argue consistently for quality and ethics
| against these guys without something slipping through, and
| once that happens it's impossible to argue to the business
| that they should forego a revenue source for ethics
| reasons. They only have to be convincing once, good
| engineers have to be convincing every time.
| worik wrote:
| > Money attracts people who want money.
|
| Yes.
|
| I think the future lies in organisation's bound by ties
| other that money
|
| In my home town there is an example: Kai Tahu (https://en
| .wikipedia.org/wiki/Ng%C4%81i_Tahu#Trading_enterpr...)
|
| Family based. Start with $170M in the 1990s and now worth
| billions
|
| The basically aquire and never divest.
| cmxch wrote:
| More like Apple with extra steps and equally less freedom.
| sixothree wrote:
| I feel like that happened when they released chrome.
| Noaidi wrote:
| I can't help to worry, in all seriousness, that these changes
| are aligned somehow to the current administrations more
| authoritarian temperament. Can anyone relieve me of my concerns
| here?
| jokoon wrote:
| I wish I could understand why it is so difficult to build an un-
| googled android image.
|
| One reason, I guess it's not possible because it's a complex OS?
|
| But is the real obstacle being smartphone brands not publishing
| their hardware drivers?
|
| It is so easy to install linux on a PC, yet I don't see the same
| happening for android while it's actually running a linux kernel,
| so it really begs the question.
| H8crilA wrote:
| GrapheneOS does this just fine.
|
| It comes with optional sandboxed Google Play Services and
| Store, meaning that these run just like any other app, with no
| special permissions. You can give them only Network access. The
| Play Store is still the most secure way to download everyday
| apps, so a lot of GrapheneOS users use Google's Play Store with
| a burner account in a separate profile, usually the Owner (the
| main) profile - since you can then disable apps in Owner and
| install them into other profiles. And the sandboxed google
| stuff can be used to run proper Google apps without any
| problem. Even sandboxed Android Auto works.
| bossyTeacher wrote:
| > But is the real obstacle being smartphone brands not
| publishing their hardware drivers? In part, afaik. On one hand,
| you have binary blobs that come from Google and you cannot
| generate yourself. The other part, is that you, as an
| individual, have no relationships with manufacturers so you
| have no access to their drivers.
| yaro330 wrote:
| It's not that difficult, plenty of ROMs exist, and analogues of
| all the apps exist as well.
| drnick1 wrote:
| > I wish I could understand why it is so difficult to build an
| un-googled android image. > It is so easy to install linux on a
| PC, yet I don't see the same happening for android while it's
| actually running a linux kernel, so it really begs the
| question.
|
| It's not particularly difficult -- see Graphene and Lineage.
| The main issue is that there are few phones on which to run
| these custom builds. Ironically, Google Pixels allow to run
| other operating systems than the one they come with (the
| bootloader can be unlocked). Other than the Pixel and a couple
| of Chinese models, you are looking at low-end or ancient
| hardware. You can't just build a phone without OS and install
| Linux/Android like you would on a PC.
| ninjagoo wrote:
| Android started out as an open ecosystem that is slowly being
| closed. How much funding would it take to re-create a credible
| open-source ecosystem for phones?
| acoustics wrote:
| I thought QPR2 and QPR4 were the only releases anyone cared about
| regardless.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-10 23:01 UTC)