4 ms·

The difference is one is planned. Google promotes dependency on their services. There are alternatives to gapps. There are also alternatives to paved roads. The

by 0xedd 3y ago

The difference is one is planned. Google promotes dependency on their services. There are alternatives to gapps. There are also alternatives to paved roads. The problem is they add more hoops to jump through. They care about the 99 percentile. Those won't keep chasing said hoops. While large orgs help maintain relevant FOSS, to them, AOSP is left to rot. In our case, several k employees, we have teams dedicated to relevant FOSS tools. My wife, at a startup, have 20% paid worktime a week to contribute to whatever they want. Your analogy, at face value, makes sense. Adding a few more lenses to the analysis weakens it severely.

palata 3y ago
> There are alternatives to gapps. There are also alternatives to paved roads. The problem is they add more hoops to jump through. Because going for a mobile linux distro does not involve jumping through hoops? > While large orgs help maintain relevant FOSS, to them, AOSP is left to rot. Not sure what you mean by that. AOSP is still maintained, and there are quite a few de-Googled ROMs (LineageOS, GrapheneOS, /e/OS, CalyxOS, ...) that are really becoming very good.
- jraph 3y ago
  > Because going for a mobile linux distro does not involve jumping through hoops? Parent said "add more hoops to jump through". We are speaking about the direction and intents. Google makes it harder and harder to avoid the Google ecosystem. Mobile Linux does not add hoops to jump through. The intent is making things easier as time passes. Of course today all this is still experimental and of course you need to jump through many hoops. > Not sure what you mean by that. AOSP is still maintained Yes, the base system is still maintained, but the concern is that Google increasingly adds features into proprietary gapps instead of AOSP proper. And the post we are discussing is exactly a sign of this tendency.
  - palata 3y ago
    > Parent said "add more hoops to jump through". But parent was talking about a comparison with running a Linux mobile distro on a PinePhone. Using PostmarketOS or similar (and don't get me wrong, I find PostmarketOS very cool) is still orders of magnitudes harder than using a custom ROM like /e/OS or CalyxOS. And those custom ROMs are improving fast, too. > Mobile Linux does not add hoops to jump through. The intent is making things easier as time passes. Same for custom Android ROMs. Except that they are already much more usable than Mobile Linux. > Yes, the base system is still maintained, but the concern is that Google increasingly adds features into proprietary gapps instead of AOSP proper. Google's strategy and lock-in with the Play Services is nothing close to a surprise. But again, I think dropping support for those two (basic, let's be honest) apps is really not a problem. Actually a bigger problem, to me, is app developers who rely on the Play Services because it's easier for them, and because they don't care about custom ROMs. And of course Google pushes for that, but in the end, app developers can pretty easily do their part to not make life more difficult for custom ROMs.
    - jraph 3y ago
      > But parent was talking about a comparison with running a Linux mobile distro on a PinePhone But the comparison works. No mobile linux distro adds hoops to jump through. Of course (Almost?) nobody thinks that mobile linux is as convenient / usable as Android right know. For many of us it's about developing an ecosystem that's truly open source / that does not rely on Google. > But again, I think dropping support for those two (basic, let's be honest) apps is really not a problem. No, indeed. The custom rom will survive. There seems to be correct alternative apps, and someone might even put the effort in maintaining the AOSP ones. It's just a symptom / a clue of the broader issue.
      - palata 3y ago
        > But the comparison works. No mobile linux distro adds hoops to jump through. Right. Sounds a bit pedantic to me, but okay :). I guess my point is that AOSP is open source, and in a much better shape for mobile than Mobile Linux. It is great to see work going on with Mobile Linux, and I find projects like PostmarketOS really cool. I just don't like how (some) Mobile Linux fans apparently seem to jump on every opportunity to say that Android is doomed and Mobile Linux is the only way.
surajrmal 3y ago
A few questions: 1. Given the existence of FOSS alternatives, is it important that these apps live as part of AOSP? It seems to me that this is an improvement as a bad default is worse than no default. 2. Given the apps were not maintained by Google, did anyone else volunteer to maintain them? Has anyone tried to upstream an alternative app to AOSP which will be maintained?

by 0xedd 3y ago

palata 3y ago

> There are alternatives to gapps. There are also alternatives to paved roads. The problem is they add more hoops to jump through. Because going for a mobile linux distro does not involve jumping through hoops? > While large orgs help maintain relevant FOSS, to them, AOSP is left to rot. Not sure what you mean by that. AOSP is still maintained, and there are quite a few de-Googled ROMs (LineageOS, GrapheneOS, /e/OS, CalyxOS, ...) that are really becoming very good.

jraph 3y ago
> Because going for a mobile linux distro does not involve jumping through hoops? Parent said "add more hoops to jump through". We are speaking about the direction and intents. Google makes it harder and harder to avoid the Google ecosystem. Mobile Linux does not add hoops to jump through. The intent is making things easier as time passes. Of course today all this is still experimental and of course you need to jump through many hoops. > Not sure what you mean by that. AOSP is still maintained Yes, the base system is still maintained, but the concern is that Google increasingly adds features into proprietary gapps instead of AOSP proper. And the post we are discussing is exactly a sign of this tendency.
- palata 3y ago
  > Parent said "add more hoops to jump through". But parent was talking about a comparison with running a Linux mobile distro on a PinePhone. Using PostmarketOS or similar (and don't get me wrong, I find PostmarketOS very cool) is still orders of magnitudes harder than using a custom ROM like /e/OS or CalyxOS. And those custom ROMs are improving fast, too. > Mobile Linux does not add hoops to jump through. The intent is making things easier as time passes. Same for custom Android ROMs. Except that they are already much more usable than Mobile Linux. > Yes, the base system is still maintained, but the concern is that Google increasingly adds features into proprietary gapps instead of AOSP proper. Google's strategy and lock-in with the Play Services is nothing close to a surprise. But again, I think dropping support for those two (basic, let's be honest) apps is really not a problem. Actually a bigger problem, to me, is app developers who rely on the Play Services because it's easier for them, and because they don't care about custom ROMs. And of course Google pushes for that, but in the end, app developers can pretty easily do their part to not make life more difficult for custom ROMs.
  - jraph 3y ago
    > But parent was talking about a comparison with running a Linux mobile distro on a PinePhone But the comparison works. No mobile linux distro adds hoops to jump through. Of course (Almost?) nobody thinks that mobile linux is as convenient / usable as Android right know. For many of us it's about developing an ecosystem that's truly open source / that does not rely on Google. > But again, I think dropping support for those two (basic, let's be honest) apps is really not a problem. No, indeed. The custom rom will survive. There seems to be correct alternative apps, and someone might even put the effort in maintaining the AOSP ones. It's just a symptom / a clue of the broader issue.
    - palata 3y ago
      > But the comparison works. No mobile linux distro adds hoops to jump through. Right. Sounds a bit pedantic to me, but okay :). I guess my point is that AOSP is open source, and in a much better shape for mobile than Mobile Linux. It is great to see work going on with Mobile Linux, and I find projects like PostmarketOS really cool. I just don't like how (some) Mobile Linux fans apparently seem to jump on every opportunity to say that Android is doomed and Mobile Linux is the only way.

surajrmal 3y ago

A few questions: 1. Given the existence of FOSS alternatives, is it important that these apps live as part of AOSP? It seems to me that this is an improvement as a bad default is worse than no default. 2. Given the apps were not maintained by Google, did anyone else volunteer to maintain them? Has anyone tried to upstream an alternative app to AOSP which will be maintained?