4 ms·

The "true independent mobile OS" so "private and secure" that even basic things like the calendar and the lock screen are proprietary and closed source. This b

The "true independent mobile OS" so "private and secure" that even basic things like the calendar and the lock screen are proprietary and closed source. This brings no advantages over AOSP. And in before people pull the argument of Google Apps, Android is perfectably usable without any of the Google proprietary software.

rihegher 9y ago
Yes sadly it never became open source. I guess for those like me using it, it's time to move to fairphone with Android
kirillkh 9y ago
It's true: "The base layer source code is usually proprietary, and thus is generally not available for public access". https://sailfishos.org/wiki/SailfishOS_Source https://sailfishos.org/wiki/SailfishOS_Source
squarefoot 9y ago
"Android is perfectably usable without any of the Google proprietary software." In a virtual machine maybe, surely not on any phone where most device drivers are closed blobs. H4x0r5 may hide backdoors into compromised play store apps, but governments do it in device drivers, with 100% success rate because a closed source device driver is something 100% of the user base has installed, keeps running 24/7 at maximum privileges and has 0 chances to audit or examine. Today closed device drivers, binary blobs etc. are places to look for malware; until a device is completely open it cannot call itself safe or secure.
- pedroaraujo 9y ago
  The binary blobs are not part of Android at all. And Sailfish OS doesn't solve the problem of binary blobs as well.
  - squarefoot 9y ago
    Closed device drivers aren't part of Android, but are part of any working installation of Android. Name one device which can run Android and can call itself 100% open. Of course Sailfish doesn't solve that problem, neither does Linux, BSD or whatever. I wasn't making a pissing contest between operating system (which is likely what trigger happy downvoters got) but simply stating a sad fact: closed device drivers are the best place to put spyware on and get 100% success, period. They can't be audited, they can't be uninstalled, they always run and they have maximum privileges. If I'm wrong (and trust me, I hope so) I want facts proving it.
hd4 9y ago
Yes the AOSP apps are usable, but the way Google has withdrawn development of them so that the proprietary versions available on the Play Store have progressed far ahead of them was not really in line with the whole Android-being-open-source mentality. And yes they are entitled to keep whatever they like proprietary, as long as they stop trying to pretend they are interested in promoting an open source mobile OS, out side of the AOSP internals. If I'm wrong and they have contributed significantly to the AOSP apps then I take that back.
- pedroaraujo 9y ago
  It's true that the AOSP version of the email app, for example, hasn't been in actual development. But as long as you can replace it with a good solution, like K9-Mail, does it really matter?
  - ocdtrekkie 9y ago
    K-9 Mail has gone years without significant updates. Last I checked it doesn't work on newer Exchange servers and requires you enable "less secure login" to work with Gmail.
    - mi100hael 9y ago
      "Less secure login" is just a scare tactic anyway. You're still using a device-specific, highly-random password that's being sent over TLS to their servers. It's at least as secure as any other IMAP/SMTP server on the internet.
      - mikelward 9y ago
        But it's not device-specific, which is exactly what makes it less secure. If anybody is able to sniff your password (e.g. due to initially trying to connect without TLS accidentally) or MITM your connection or get privileged access to your device (either locally or remotely), then they get access to your email, even from their machines.

rihegher 9y ago

Yes sadly it never became open source. I guess for those like me using it, it's time to move to fairphone with Android

kirillkh 9y ago

It's true: "The base layer source code is usually proprietary, and thus is generally not available for public access". https://sailfishos.org/wiki/SailfishOS_Source https://sailfishos.org/wiki/SailfishOS_Source

squarefoot 9y ago

"Android is perfectably usable without any of the Google proprietary software." In a virtual machine maybe, surely not on any phone where most device drivers are closed blobs. H4x0r5 may hide backdoors into compromised play store apps, but governments do it in device drivers, with 100% success rate because a closed source device driver is something 100% of the user base has installed, keeps running 24/7 at maximum privileges and has 0 chances to audit or examine. Today closed device drivers, binary blobs etc. are places to look for malware; until a device is completely open it cannot call itself safe or secure.

pedroaraujo 9y ago
The binary blobs are not part of Android at all. And Sailfish OS doesn't solve the problem of binary blobs as well.
- squarefoot 9y ago
  Closed device drivers aren't part of Android, but are part of any working installation of Android. Name one device which can run Android and can call itself 100% open. Of course Sailfish doesn't solve that problem, neither does Linux, BSD or whatever. I wasn't making a pissing contest between operating system (which is likely what trigger happy downvoters got) but simply stating a sad fact: closed device drivers are the best place to put spyware on and get 100% success, period. They can't be audited, they can't be uninstalled, they always run and they have maximum privileges. If I'm wrong (and trust me, I hope so) I want facts proving it.

hd4 9y ago

Yes the AOSP apps are usable, but the way Google has withdrawn development of them so that the proprietary versions available on the Play Store have progressed far ahead of them was not really in line with the whole Android-being-open-source mentality. And yes they are entitled to keep whatever they like proprietary, as long as they stop trying to pretend they are interested in promoting an open source mobile OS, out side of the AOSP internals. If I'm wrong and they have contributed significantly to the AOSP apps then I take that back.

pedroaraujo 9y ago
It's true that the AOSP version of the email app, for example, hasn't been in actual development. But as long as you can replace it with a good solution, like K9-Mail, does it really matter?
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  K-9 Mail has gone years without significant updates. Last I checked it doesn't work on newer Exchange servers and requires you enable "less secure login" to work with Gmail.
  - mi100hael 9y ago
    "Less secure login" is just a scare tactic anyway. You're still using a device-specific, highly-random password that's being sent over TLS to their servers. It's at least as secure as any other IMAP/SMTP server on the internet.
    - mikelward 9y ago
      But it's not device-specific, which is exactly what makes it less secure. If anybody is able to sniff your password (e.g. due to initially trying to connect without TLS accidentally) or MITM your connection or get privileged access to your device (either locally or remotely), then they get access to your email, even from their machines.