8 ms·

Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS. I only have Linux PCs (laptops) and servers, 100% of my work and personal stuff is done there (though for work I

Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS. I only have Linux PCs (laptops) and servers, 100% of my work and personal stuff is done there (though for work I do need to hop into MS365, Google Workspace, Zoom, etc, hooray for browsers, my final firewall between me and the walled gardens, though we can have a whole discussion on that). For mobile, we have PostmarketOS, Phosh, Ubuntu Touch. I really must try living in them, is it on me? IDK, our government even has an identity app for iOS and Android. I should not be using it, I should stick to web. But its so much more convenient. I'm just weak, aren't I? Maybe I should go for Ubuntu touch, with an iPad on the side or something. At least my most personal device is something I control then. Or just keep my Linux laptop handy (or make a cyberdeck!). But I want a computing platform that does not require carrying a bag. It's kinda sad. Even GrapheneOS (one of the most personal and secure mobile computing experiences out there)'s future is in the hands of its greatest adversary, the one that does not want you to have a personal computing experience.

superkuh 1y ago
Because it's actually your telco's phone. They're the one that has the license to run the baseband computer and RF transceiver. The 'pad' computer device is sort of yours. But there's no legal way to have ownership of a cell phone unless you yourself bid for and get the RF spectrum and set up your network in a way that accomplishes the FCC coverage and timing requirements. Then run your own telco for your phone. Basically, impossible. Smart phones try to limit and firewall the interface between the two but tight integration is required for energy efficiency. So a smart phone, or a cell phone, can never be yours. They aren't good choices for doing computing and this legal reality is becoming more and more obvious with time.
1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago
"Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS." What does "foss mobile OS" mean (a) installed on a portable form factor, (b) integrates with a cellular modem. or (c) all of the above For discussion purposes, assume "portable" means pocket-sized and battery-powered When the RPi first came out I remember a blog where someone had rigged up a makeshift battery making RPi portable. At the time, HN commenters seemed impressed. Today, I connect a "phone" to an RPi running NetBSD^1 and use the phone as a battery 1. Linux provides wider assortment of drivers NB. I'm not using NetBSD to make phone calls Today there are non-portable VoIP phones with PoE, and portable cellular modems running OpenWRT Tomorrow, who knows Convenience and control are mutually exclusive; this seems unlikely to change. Choosing the later over the former is personal preference. Every user is different Trying to control a "phone" might be a waste of time, an exercise in futility, especially when it is running a corporate OS. Whereas controlling a gateway running an OS of the user's choice might prove to be relatively easy. Phones provide convenience, not control
pabs3 1y ago
The hardware and boot process for every phone is different, and some vendors block users from installing other OSes. Then most mobile apps are proprietary, and some of the apps only allow you to run them on official Google builds of Android, via attestation. https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide#apps-banning-grapheneos https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
charcircuit 1y ago
Do not forget Android is also a FOSS mobile OS.
- teekert 1y ago
  That "F" (as in freedom) is certainly eroding. Perhaps not by its source availability directly (although without any drivers, what is the use?), but very much by a company trying to lock you out of all the goodies that once came with it.
  - preisschild 1y ago
    Even if Google would stop open sourcing AOSP, I think it would be much easier to fork AOSP than to start a new Linux-based FOSS mobile operating system from scratch Obviously even maintaining AOSP yourself requires a huge effort and a lot of people would need to donate development time/money.
- dns_snek 1y ago
  Android is not FOSS in any sense of the word and doesn't produce any user benefits that FOSS is meant to produce.
  - charcircuit 1y ago
    Most of AOSP is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license and GPLv2 for the Linux kernel. These are FOSS licenses recognized by the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2
    - microtonal 1y ago
      I think that they are pointing at that using Android in daily life in a meaningful way requires installing Google Play Services because many apps require it.
Almondsetat 1y ago
Linux is 30 years old, and still it has a laughable percentage of desktop usage. Plus, the only reason it's even usable is because of the relentless work by thankless developers for reverse engineering device drivers. On smartphones this is orders of magnitude more difficult. How do you properly profile and debug a random modem in a phone? What about the cameras? So, how can anyone expect FOSS mobile OSs to ever exist unless forced by law by the US or something?
- teekert 1y ago
  Because of hardware standardization Linux has become a pre-competitive layer, a commodity we have decided not to compete on. And it turns out that such a commodity by definition is private, because we don't want any one party to reap all the benefits of a commodity project (we'd rip it out before using it anyway), in the same sense that we don't want want 1 company sitting on all our water consumption data for example. So, how do we get to a commodity layer for Mobile devices? It looked like it was going to be Linux (Android), and that was Google's intention. But now they are just using their significant resources to corrupt that original idea, using their trojan horse called "play services". The public at large only cares about convenience, not about privacy. Why don't we? How much enshitification is enough to draw that line in the sand?
  - ajb 1y ago
    The Android stack, right back to the pre-aquisition "Danger" stack, ripped out everything GPL'd above the kernel, and Google has been investing in their "fuschia" project to make a non-GPL'dv kernel as well. Gradually making more and more of it proprietary was the plan. Google is a big company and there may have been some factions pushing to make android an open ecosystem, but I don't see that that was ever the companies intent overall.
    - teekert 1y ago
      So the real question is: Why are people so social and pleasant, and why are companies so egoistic (and I mean egoistic in the cancer/parasitic/enshitifying way, not in the Ayn-Rand/social/We-are-all-equal way). Is it the lack of deep, DNA encoded morality? What are we going to do about this? What is the DNA of an organization anyway? How, as a society can we take away these stimuli that make it so natural to consume individual freedoms when we grow our tribe-size? Maybe we need more freedom, more freedom to say: "F-this I'm out of here, I just like the set of rule of this other society better." Maybe we are still too constrained. By our ways of generating income, by our countries, continents and ultimately our planet. We have 1 lifetime, we have to make do with what we find.
mac-mc 1y ago
It's pretty obvious, it's costly to make one that is up to the level of quality of commercial ones. It's not a mistake that the 2 mobile oses are owned and created by some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world.
- shermantanktop 1y ago
  It’s costly, but those two companies also operate in a hierarchical manner (like the military or a feudal kingdom) which makes decision-making and accountability much easier. The FOSS world has been rife with petty agree-or-fork squabbles, often over relatively abstract philosophical concerns about license language.
  - wolvesechoes 1y ago
    > The FOSS world has been rife with petty agree-or-fork squabbles, often over relatively abstract philosophical concerns about license language. You cannot say that. This means we have thousand half-baked projects to choose from, and choice is good. At least this is what I was told.
  - PeterStuer 1y ago
    Look inside the kitchen of Microsoft or Google. It is comparable to all the FOSS world petty squables and pfiefdom wars. You can even see this into the abominal products they release, rife with frankesteinian cobbled together bits and pieces from different 'orgs' trying to grab a piece of the (tr)action and the wild inconsistencies in the UX.
positron26 1y ago
Mobile OSs are very consumer focused. I have criticized the FSF for, in there lengthily argued ways, abandoning the consumer. You have to commercialize openness if you want the muscle of the consumer to be able to produce it. Short presentation of the basic concept: https://youtu.be/SO46oEdlkY8 https://youtu.be/SO46oEdlkY8 Some things with massive value in excess of the cost of production cannot be pursued by capital nor bought by the individual. Your choices are government, non-profit, or something in between all three. PrizeForge aims to be between all three and to completely change how we do consumer open source, incidentally bringing billions of dollars into making it.
- vczf 1y ago
  That's a very clear vision on how to solve this kind of funding/cooperation problem outside of government and mission-focused nonprofits. And incidentally would be an existential threat to surveillance capitalism should it reach critical mass. BTW your password-based signup flow isn't working (on iOS Safari at least).
  - positron26 1y ago
    :-) Yeah. Only SSO was working because while email would double my users, I was doing an experiment and looking for at least some signs of life. Doubling nothing would be useless. Turns out, some new enrollments topped up their accounts and dropped off before the final step that makes it show up on the home page, so now I know it's something, and something is worth doubling. > existential threat to surveillance capitalism Should I buy a gun? I'm an American.
    - vczf 1y ago
      > Should I buy a gun? I'm an American. No, that's unnecessary. Nobody will be taking you that seriously. > some new enrollments topped up their accounts and dropped off before the final step that makes it show up on the home page Did they actually put money in?
      - 1y ago
csomar 1y ago
Mostly because the "web" was sabotaged. I use archlinux and my only GUI application is a web browser. On mobile, I need an email app, maps app, food delivery app and a communication app. Even whatsapp doesn't work on the web (on purpose). If the web was enabled, app stores wouldn't be possible and you could run anything without an installation. But somewhere along the line both Google and Apple realized that this isn't really to their benefit and "walled ecosystems" are an advantage.
- kelnos 1y ago
  > I use archlinux and my only GUI application is a web browser. Debian here, and... yup. It's so weird to realize this. I have lots of browser windows open with lots and lots and lots of tabs open, but the only other app I have open is a Matrix client (which honestly is not that great; Element's web version has more features and better polish), and a terminal. If you can call a terminal a GUI app. Sure, I do use native apps sometimes. A calculator app, GnuCash, VLC, some others. But they're not open all the time; they're infrequent-use apps. And a lot of my VLC use has been replaced by streaming on the web. It's incredibly sad.
  - bigstrat2003 1y ago
    I mean, that's a choice. Most of my activity is still native apps, because I hate web apps and avoid them like the plague. I don't doubt you could do the same, but you have chosen to use web based options - which, to be clear, is totally fine! But it's not the way it has to be.
rattyJ2 1y ago
I could be one of the people running an ungoogled phone, but my bank refuses to have an app that runs on an ungoogled OS for "security"
- preisschild 1y ago
  Write them. My bank's app had safetynet, but they disabled it and now it is usable over GrapheneOS. Unfortunately no NFC Payments though, since they are only available for Google Wallet (which uses safetynet)
  - aspenmayer 1y ago
    > Unfortunately no NFC Payments though, since they are only available for Google Wallet (which uses safetynet) A workaround for NFC payments I've heard about for folks running OSes on their Androids that don't support that feature is a smartwatch with NFC.
    - subscribed 1y ago
      Precisely. Google pixel, Garmin watches, even Samsung watches. Or using a bank that supports NFC payments (not using Google Wallet). GrapheneOS Foundation raised this practice with European Commission because it unfairly penalises secure and safe competition giving instead a lie to the developers and banks that ancient, unsafe, vulnerable platforms are more secure.
      - notpushkin 1y ago
        Fidesmo Pay is another option, though the bank support is limited: https://fidesmo.com/consumer/fidesmo-pay/ https://fidesmo.com/consumer/fidesmo-pay/ Basically it’s a passive variant of smartwatch payments: you can pay with a ring, or bracelet, or a mechanical watch. The cheapest option is this plastic thingy (currently out of stock): https://eu.k-pay.com/product/mavericks https://eu.k-pay.com/product/mavericks I’m thinking about implanting one into my hand :^)
kelnos 1y ago
> Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS. In a way it's not. As you mention, we have several of them. But they won't have mass-market appeal until they can run the same sorts of apps that Android and iOS can run. And no, "just use the mobile website" is not an answer. How do I deposit a check with my bank on my phone without the app? I can't; the mobile website doesn't have that functionality. How do I send someone money via Zelle without the app? I can't; the mobile website doesn't have that functionality. How do I use contactless payments? I can't; the ability to build an app like Google Wallet or Apple Pay requires deep pockets and trusted payments industry connections that open source mobile OS developers will likely never have. How do I use Google's productivity suite? I can't; the mobile websites aren't functional enough. How do I use Microsoft's? Ditto. How do I use the remote-lock functionality of my car? I can't; that's only available through the Android and iOS apps. I could go on, and on, and on, but I think you see the point. Many people who advocate for these alternative OSes don't get it. "Do you really need that functionality?", they ask. "Why can't you just do that stuff in a web browser on your laptop instead of on your phone?", they ask. "Just use a physical credit card like I do!" And then they wonder why their alternative mobile OS will never go mainstream. People actually really care about those features and capabilities. It doesn't matter if the people who build these alternative mobile OSes don't care, or think they're stupid, or unsafe, or bad for privacy, or whatever. If you don't build what people want, they won't use your stuff. Emulating Android sufficiently well enough to run Android apps is a decent start, but so many apps rely on Play Services and Play Integrity that it's a losing battle, or at best a cat-and-mouse game to keep things working. On top of that, mobile chipset BSPs require financial commitments and being a Real Company. Most open source outfits can't cross that bar, and the likes of Qualcomm will be wary dealing with an organization that wants to do open source.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > But they won't have mass-market appeal until they can run the same sorts of apps that Android and iOS can run Waydroid allows me to run Android apps on my Librem 5. > How do I deposit a check with my bank on my phone without the app? I can't; the mobile website doesn't have that functionality So switch the bank to one not forcing you into the duopoly?
- 1y ago
preisschild 1y ago
> For mobile, we have PostmarketOS, Phosh, Ubuntu Touch. I really must try living in them, is it on me? IDK, our government even has an identity app for iOS and Android. I should not be using it, I should stick to web. But its so much more convenient. I'm just weak, aren't I? Don't forget GrapheneOS, LineageOS and other de-googled FOSS Android Versions
- fsflover 1y ago
  These aren't GNU/Linux, they have to follow Google's development strategy. It's like fighting with Chrome by using Chromium.
  - preisschild 1y ago
    Nobody was talking about GNU. Most don't care if the userspace utilties are gnu coreutils/libc or musl/busybox for example. AOSP is free and open source software.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      You can't run AOSP on any existing hardware. Except maybe Pinephone and Libem 5, and only in theory. Also, you should read all the good arguments on HN why you shouldn't use Chromium even though it's technically FLOSS.
      - preisschild 1y ago
        > You can't run AOSP on any existing hardware. Except maybe Pinephone and Libem 5, and only in theory. What do you mean? I can run AOSP on Google Pixel devices for example.
        fsflover 1y ago
        It's not AOSP, it contains a lot of proprietary blobs.
RicoElectrico 1y ago
Foss people are on the spectrum and so never understand the common man. Simple as that I guess.
- teekert 1y ago
  Well the nice thing about the spectrum is that we are all on it and that we draw imaginary lines ourselves. All wisdom aside... I think you're right. I takes a certain grit to start to appreciate the ultimate effect of software freedom culture and licensing. Never mind the the whole philosophy. It's like explaining CRISPR (yeah I'm a biologist) to a normie... Ok, so lets start with what DNA is... proceeds to guide someone through a lifetime in the molecular biology field....
  - wolvesechoes 1y ago
    This is irremovable tension - FOSS in its ideals is democratic, yet it can never succeed in democratization. This is why I think preaching freedom and agency is a bad strategy for the FOSS, even if its members believe them.
cyanydeez 1y ago
Money
potamic 1y ago
It's the ecosystem. Without an ecosystem there will be less adoption and consequently less investment in the OS. Where I stay, so many services offered exclusively through Android/iOS apps with no alternative. Even government services are slowly excluding the web and becoming app only. There is an implicit expectation from everyone that one will have either an Android/iOS device and this only becomes stronger with time. I don't know how many people realize but what can result from this can be very dystopian and is scary. But the best possible outcome from this I hope is that some day a wise government realizes how much of daily life is dependent on two corporations and passes regulations to standardize app runtimes. You should be able to publish applications that can run on any OS. Only then we'll see competition in the OS market.
- benrutter 1y ago
  Interestingly, we are, and have been, at a point were you can publish applications that run on any OS for a while, with PWAs. There are very few software examples, that couldn't be distributed as PWAs, including secure things like banking, etc. With WASM in the mix as well, theoretically the sky should be the limit. Even more interestingly it hasn't happened - mainly because Apple and Google haven't got behind PWAs for obvious reasons, so the app ecosystem just doesn't exist. It's hard to see how this will changes, when mobile operating systems are dominated by two players, with very obvious incentives to make things worse for consumers but better for themselves, by grabbing as much control of the apps on their system as possible.
  - NoGravitas 1y ago
    If banks were to offer PWAs, they would probably demand something like Google's Web Environment Integrity proposal - or would be convinced by Google that they need it.
    - 0x000xca0xfe 1y ago
      Online banking in the browser is hardly a new invention. It works fine, today. The only noticeable difference between most apps and websites nowadays is offline capability and deeper system integration. Native apps have been dumbed down so hard there is barely anything left not taken care of by browsers.
fsflover 1y ago
> For mobile, we have PostmarketOS, Phosh, Ubuntu Touch. Why are you only listing DEs and not operating systems? (You also missed SXMo and more.) There are many more operating systems [0] and two working GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone. Why people are ignoring them on HN? [0] https://pine64.org/documentation/PinePhone/Software/ https://pine64.org/documentation/PinePhone/Software/
- dvdkon 1y ago
  PostmarketOS is, as the name implies, an OS. And I don't think OP was trying to make an exhaustive list. The point is, there's plenty of "competing" options, but hardly anyone uses them.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    The parent started their message with "Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS", which is not wrong but pretty misleading, as there are many existing mobile OSes that work quite well.
- Xss3 1y ago
  Yep. My thoughts exactly. Seems like everyone here is forgetting about those two.
nine_k 1y ago
> Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS. This is not too hard. What is hard is to trust it enough. A FOSS OS, by definition, allows to install whatever software, and allows for modification of itself. It is built to overcome limitations, not impose them. In this regard, it's a perfect tool for a criminal who wants to circumvent security measures, because these are limitations. It's the same problem as with cheaters in online games, only with more than games on stake. Banks and payment systems want guarantees of integrity and protection, including protection from user's actions. A FOSS OS also assumes that the user values the freedom, and is competent in its technical aspects. This is emphatically not true about many users. They choose iOS because it's locked down and thus they cannot inadvertently do something they don't understand, and can't be bothered to learn. More importantly, their grandmother cannot do something she doesn't understand but scammers persuade her to do. It's a bit like driving on public roads. If you want to drive yourself, you have to reveal your identity and obtain a license. If you want the hassle, take a bus, but buses only go along their routes. Letting unlicensed people drive cars where they see fit was found unacceptably dangerous for everyone eround. Maybe mainstream mobile software development will follow this model, too :(
- _Algernon_ 1y ago
  All this is true about Linux on desktop, though my bank still allows me to log in to online banking. At least for now. I'm not aware of any major issues this has caused. The trust isn't the issue. Google and Apple has made DRM easy for these companies to integrate, and therefore they do it. There isn't more to it than that.
  - integralid 1y ago
    >I'm not aware of any major issues this has caused Decades of desktop malware used to drain bank accounts are not a major issue?
    - _Algernon_ 1y ago
      You'd need to make a case that proprietary OSes such as Windows or MacOS lessen the issue compared to FOSS OSes such as Linux. I doubt it considering that Windows is / was known to be the worst offender here. In any case my bank has not banned the use of Linux to do homebanking. Why? Because there isn't a easy to plug-and-play API to do DRM and remove consumer rights. This is largely for historic reasons, but there is no reason a FOSS mobile OS couldn't work.
Perz1val 1y ago
As Microsoft how is it so difficult to have a mobile os
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Microsoft has the problem that nobody likes them or trusts them, which makes it hard to get people to use their platform in a context where they're not the default.
  - kube-system 1y ago
    Windows Mobile was great and people loved it at the time. Most people I knew in 2007/2008 were laughing at how the iPhone was an expensive toy phone because you couldn't even install apps or use MS Exchange. Of course, the problem for MS was that Apple (and Google) quickly closed those gaps, and they just simply had better overall products.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > Windows Mobile was great and people loved it at the time. But that wasn't the problem. The iPhone and Android became popular because they were, respectively, good and "good enough" but free, and both Apple and Google had a good reputation at the time. Users were willing to buy those phones and developers were willing to make apps for them because they didn't expect those companies to screw them. The screwing only happened after they were no longer the underdogs and the network effect was already established. Microsoft doesn't cast as an underdog and everybody expects them to screw you as soon as they get the chance, so not enough people were willing to give them the chance. They could have overcome that to their own benefit if they would have bound their future selves from enshittifying the platform. Don't make "Windows Phone" under a proprietary license, make an actually open source Android fork which is an open platform like Windows instead of a closed one like iOS, but provide seamless integrations with the Microsoft cloud services instead of the Google ones. Write code that makes it work as well with Windows PCs as iPhones do with macOS. Make two phones yourself: a $999 Surface Phone with iPhone-quality hardware and a $199 one with basic hardware but nevertheless 12 years of security updates to get the low end of the market, provide something for kids/students and make it cheap for developers on the fence to get a device with your platform and make apps that integrate with your cloud services. You're not trying to sell an operating system, you're trying to take Apple's margins on the high end hardware and Google's cloud services revenue from the mass market. But that's not what they did, and getting people to trust them with a closed platform wasn't in the cards.
raffael_de 1y ago
As far as I am concerned a Raspberry Pi 4G/5G/LTE-edition would be 50% of getting there.
numpad0 1y ago
Because PC is an American thing but phones are not. Obsession for standardization, modularity, and cross-compatibility are rather unique American cultural traits that aren't nearly as strongly manifesting elsewhere. "Fits right in" is quintessentially American thing. The entire unitized jet engines on Boeing aircraft drops right off and swaps right into another host, sometimes even to different types of aircraft. PCI soundcards come off a i386 PC and go straight into PPC Macs. AR15 pressure bearing parts don't merely interchange between examples from different time and place but its grip and stock mounting patterns are becoming a industry standard of its own. Early Tesla battery packs come apart into bunch of 18650s and could reassemble into new packs(though it's a big no-no due to RUD risks). Meanwhile, Prius power units or front seats are for Prius only; it won't go into dozen different Toyota models, at least without substantial parts changes, modifications, and reconfiguration. Bugatti Veyron uses its own custom tires that aren't even forward or backward compatible with their own successor. Same for phones: .apk runs everywhere, Linux do not, cameras don't interchange, internal connectors don't fit together, LCDs specific to anything are default unobtainium. microSD cards works on everything, but the moment you look away, Huawei invents a new incompatible format for absolutely no reason. Apple "reinvents everything" every time but internal organizations of components are stable at macroscopic levels for few generations unlike most other manufacturers. It's openness of PC that is unique and precious, not closed nature of everything else being odd and inconvenient.
- okasaki 1y ago
  Nothing says "obsession with standardization" like being one of only three countries on Earth that can't figure out that water freezes at 0 and boils at 100.
- jemmyw 1y ago
  > Because PC is an American thing but phones are not. I don't really understand what you're talking about here. Android and iOS are American companies. American culture is John Deere locking down their equipment. Anti-consumer laws, pushing IP laws onto the rest of the world by treaty, being overly litigious, these are all American culture. I think the culture you're thinking of is nearly dead in a shell of corporatism. The PC was a pretty unique event due to a confluence of historical factors that all came together in a certain way. It wasn't the way of things before, and it's been slowly moving away from how it was, and it's not really got anything to do with being American or not.
PeterStuer 1y ago
Because the baseband chipset protocols and drivers are extremely patent encumbered. Any FOSS project will have to rely on on proprietary blobs for this part, and licensing deals from the existing patent holders, Quallcom. Nokia, Ericsson etc. . You can see this is sort of adverserial to the FOSS way of doing things.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > You can see this is sort of adverserial to the FOSS way of doing things. Example of the real-word problems with creating a FLOSS phone: https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/ https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/
- autoexec 1y ago
  The licensing should (in theory) have FRAND terms and so might not be impossible. Couldn't someone just create their own chips? In the worst case, could someone be able to come up with a new protocol and start a new network (assuming they had the money?)
  - kube-system 1y ago
    You can create your own chips but you will have issues obtaining a license to use spectrum in some countries. Often, licenses for spectrum where the device is licensed instead of the end user, require the device itself to comply with spectrum use requirements....since the user isn't licensed.
jasonfrost 1y ago
On the cyberdeck note, I think the dawn of mobile computing is superseding smart phones and I rather move to flip phone + mobile Linux and keep them distinctly separated

superkuh 1y ago

Because it's actually your telco's phone. They're the one that has the license to run the baseband computer and RF transceiver. The 'pad' computer device is sort of yours. But there's no legal way to have ownership of a cell phone unless you yourself bid for and get the RF spectrum and set up your network in a way that accomplishes the FCC coverage and timing requirements. Then run your own telco for your phone. Basically, impossible. Smart phones try to limit and firewall the interface between the two but tight integration is required for energy efficiency. So a smart phone, or a cell phone, can never be yours. They aren't good choices for doing computing and this legal reality is becoming more and more obvious with time.

1vuio0pswjnm7 1y ago

"Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS." What does "foss mobile OS" mean (a) installed on a portable form factor, (b) integrates with a cellular modem. or (c) all of the above For discussion purposes, assume "portable" means pocket-sized and battery-powered When the RPi first came out I remember a blog where someone had rigged up a makeshift battery making RPi portable. At the time, HN commenters seemed impressed. Today, I connect a "phone" to an RPi running NetBSD^1 and use the phone as a battery 1. Linux provides wider assortment of drivers NB. I'm not using NetBSD to make phone calls Today there are non-portable VoIP phones with PoE, and portable cellular modems running OpenWRT Tomorrow, who knows Convenience and control are mutually exclusive; this seems unlikely to change. Choosing the later over the former is personal preference. Every user is different Trying to control a "phone" might be a waste of time, an exercise in futility, especially when it is running a corporate OS. Whereas controlling a gateway running an OS of the user's choice might prove to be relatively easy. Phones provide convenience, not control

pabs3 1y ago

The hardware and boot process for every phone is different, and some vendors block users from installing other OSes. Then most mobile apps are proprietary, and some of the apps only allow you to run them on official Google builds of Android, via attestation. https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-guide#apps-banning-grapheneos https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...

charcircuit 1y ago

Do not forget Android is also a FOSS mobile OS.

teekert 1y ago
That "F" (as in freedom) is certainly eroding. Perhaps not by its source availability directly (although without any drivers, what is the use?), but very much by a company trying to lock you out of all the goodies that once came with it.
- preisschild 1y ago
  Even if Google would stop open sourcing AOSP, I think it would be much easier to fork AOSP than to start a new Linux-based FOSS mobile operating system from scratch Obviously even maintaining AOSP yourself requires a huge effort and a lot of people would need to donate development time/money.
dns_snek 1y ago
Android is not FOSS in any sense of the word and doesn't produce any user benefits that FOSS is meant to produce.
- charcircuit 1y ago
  Most of AOSP is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license and GPLv2 for the Linux kernel. These are FOSS licenses recognized by the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2
  - microtonal 1y ago
    I think that they are pointing at that using Android in daily life in a meaningful way requires installing Google Play Services because many apps require it.

Almondsetat 1y ago

Linux is 30 years old, and still it has a laughable percentage of desktop usage. Plus, the only reason it's even usable is because of the relentless work by thankless developers for reverse engineering device drivers. On smartphones this is orders of magnitude more difficult. How do you properly profile and debug a random modem in a phone? What about the cameras? So, how can anyone expect FOSS mobile OSs to ever exist unless forced by law by the US or something?

teekert 1y ago
Because of hardware standardization Linux has become a pre-competitive layer, a commodity we have decided not to compete on. And it turns out that such a commodity by definition is private, because we don't want any one party to reap all the benefits of a commodity project (we'd rip it out before using it anyway), in the same sense that we don't want want 1 company sitting on all our water consumption data for example. So, how do we get to a commodity layer for Mobile devices? It looked like it was going to be Linux (Android), and that was Google's intention. But now they are just using their significant resources to corrupt that original idea, using their trojan horse called "play services". The public at large only cares about convenience, not about privacy. Why don't we? How much enshitification is enough to draw that line in the sand?
- ajb 1y ago
  The Android stack, right back to the pre-aquisition "Danger" stack, ripped out everything GPL'd above the kernel, and Google has been investing in their "fuschia" project to make a non-GPL'dv kernel as well. Gradually making more and more of it proprietary was the plan. Google is a big company and there may have been some factions pushing to make android an open ecosystem, but I don't see that that was ever the companies intent overall.
  - teekert 1y ago
    So the real question is: Why are people so social and pleasant, and why are companies so egoistic (and I mean egoistic in the cancer/parasitic/enshitifying way, not in the Ayn-Rand/social/We-are-all-equal way). Is it the lack of deep, DNA encoded morality? What are we going to do about this? What is the DNA of an organization anyway? How, as a society can we take away these stimuli that make it so natural to consume individual freedoms when we grow our tribe-size? Maybe we need more freedom, more freedom to say: "F-this I'm out of here, I just like the set of rule of this other society better." Maybe we are still too constrained. By our ways of generating income, by our countries, continents and ultimately our planet. We have 1 lifetime, we have to make do with what we find.

mac-mc 1y ago

It's pretty obvious, it's costly to make one that is up to the level of quality of commercial ones. It's not a mistake that the 2 mobile oses are owned and created by some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world.

shermantanktop 1y ago
It’s costly, but those two companies also operate in a hierarchical manner (like the military or a feudal kingdom) which makes decision-making and accountability much easier. The FOSS world has been rife with petty agree-or-fork squabbles, often over relatively abstract philosophical concerns about license language.
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  > The FOSS world has been rife with petty agree-or-fork squabbles, often over relatively abstract philosophical concerns about license language. You cannot say that. This means we have thousand half-baked projects to choose from, and choice is good. At least this is what I was told.
- PeterStuer 1y ago
  Look inside the kitchen of Microsoft or Google. It is comparable to all the FOSS world petty squables and pfiefdom wars. You can even see this into the abominal products they release, rife with frankesteinian cobbled together bits and pieces from different 'orgs' trying to grab a piece of the (tr)action and the wild inconsistencies in the UX.

positron26 1y ago

Mobile OSs are very consumer focused. I have criticized the FSF for, in there lengthily argued ways, abandoning the consumer. You have to commercialize openness if you want the muscle of the consumer to be able to produce it. Short presentation of the basic concept: https://youtu.be/SO46oEdlkY8 https://youtu.be/SO46oEdlkY8 Some things with massive value in excess of the cost of production cannot be pursued by capital nor bought by the individual. Your choices are government, non-profit, or something in between all three. PrizeForge aims to be between all three and to completely change how we do consumer open source, incidentally bringing billions of dollars into making it.

vczf 1y ago
That's a very clear vision on how to solve this kind of funding/cooperation problem outside of government and mission-focused nonprofits. And incidentally would be an existential threat to surveillance capitalism should it reach critical mass. BTW your password-based signup flow isn't working (on iOS Safari at least).
- positron26 1y ago
  :-) Yeah. Only SSO was working because while email would double my users, I was doing an experiment and looking for at least some signs of life. Doubling nothing would be useless. Turns out, some new enrollments topped up their accounts and dropped off before the final step that makes it show up on the home page, so now I know it's something, and something is worth doubling. > existential threat to surveillance capitalism Should I buy a gun? I'm an American.
  - vczf 1y ago
    > Should I buy a gun? I'm an American. No, that's unnecessary. Nobody will be taking you that seriously. > some new enrollments topped up their accounts and dropped off before the final step that makes it show up on the home page Did they actually put money in?
    - 1y ago

csomar 1y ago

Mostly because the "web" was sabotaged. I use archlinux and my only GUI application is a web browser. On mobile, I need an email app, maps app, food delivery app and a communication app. Even whatsapp doesn't work on the web (on purpose). If the web was enabled, app stores wouldn't be possible and you could run anything without an installation. But somewhere along the line both Google and Apple realized that this isn't really to their benefit and "walled ecosystems" are an advantage.

kelnos 1y ago
> I use archlinux and my only GUI application is a web browser. Debian here, and... yup. It's so weird to realize this. I have lots of browser windows open with lots and lots and lots of tabs open, but the only other app I have open is a Matrix client (which honestly is not that great; Element's web version has more features and better polish), and a terminal. If you can call a terminal a GUI app. Sure, I do use native apps sometimes. A calculator app, GnuCash, VLC, some others. But they're not open all the time; they're infrequent-use apps. And a lot of my VLC use has been replaced by streaming on the web. It's incredibly sad.
- bigstrat2003 1y ago
  I mean, that's a choice. Most of my activity is still native apps, because I hate web apps and avoid them like the plague. I don't doubt you could do the same, but you have chosen to use web based options - which, to be clear, is totally fine! But it's not the way it has to be.

rattyJ2 1y ago

I could be one of the people running an ungoogled phone, but my bank refuses to have an app that runs on an ungoogled OS for "security"

preisschild 1y ago
Write them. My bank's app had safetynet, but they disabled it and now it is usable over GrapheneOS. Unfortunately no NFC Payments though, since they are only available for Google Wallet (which uses safetynet)
- aspenmayer 1y ago
  > Unfortunately no NFC Payments though, since they are only available for Google Wallet (which uses safetynet) A workaround for NFC payments I've heard about for folks running OSes on their Androids that don't support that feature is a smartwatch with NFC.
  - subscribed 1y ago
    Precisely. Google pixel, Garmin watches, even Samsung watches. Or using a bank that supports NFC payments (not using Google Wallet). GrapheneOS Foundation raised this practice with European Commission because it unfairly penalises secure and safe competition giving instead a lie to the developers and banks that ancient, unsafe, vulnerable platforms are more secure.
    - notpushkin 1y ago
      Fidesmo Pay is another option, though the bank support is limited: https://fidesmo.com/consumer/fidesmo-pay/ https://fidesmo.com/consumer/fidesmo-pay/ Basically it’s a passive variant of smartwatch payments: you can pay with a ring, or bracelet, or a mechanical watch. The cheapest option is this plastic thingy (currently out of stock): https://eu.k-pay.com/product/mavericks https://eu.k-pay.com/product/mavericks I’m thinking about implanting one into my hand :^)

kelnos 1y ago

> Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS. In a way it's not. As you mention, we have several of them. But they won't have mass-market appeal until they can run the same sorts of apps that Android and iOS can run. And no, "just use the mobile website" is not an answer. How do I deposit a check with my bank on my phone without the app? I can't; the mobile website doesn't have that functionality. How do I send someone money via Zelle without the app? I can't; the mobile website doesn't have that functionality. How do I use contactless payments? I can't; the ability to build an app like Google Wallet or Apple Pay requires deep pockets and trusted payments industry connections that open source mobile OS developers will likely never have. How do I use Google's productivity suite? I can't; the mobile websites aren't functional enough. How do I use Microsoft's? Ditto. How do I use the remote-lock functionality of my car? I can't; that's only available through the Android and iOS apps. I could go on, and on, and on, but I think you see the point. Many people who advocate for these alternative OSes don't get it. "Do you really need that functionality?", they ask. "Why can't you just do that stuff in a web browser on your laptop instead of on your phone?", they ask. "Just use a physical credit card like I do!" And then they wonder why their alternative mobile OS will never go mainstream. People actually really care about those features and capabilities. It doesn't matter if the people who build these alternative mobile OSes don't care, or think they're stupid, or unsafe, or bad for privacy, or whatever. If you don't build what people want, they won't use your stuff. Emulating Android sufficiently well enough to run Android apps is a decent start, but so many apps rely on Play Services and Play Integrity that it's a losing battle, or at best a cat-and-mouse game to keep things working. On top of that, mobile chipset BSPs require financial commitments and being a Real Company. Most open source outfits can't cross that bar, and the likes of Qualcomm will be wary dealing with an organization that wants to do open source.

fsflover 1y ago
> But they won't have mass-market appeal until they can run the same sorts of apps that Android and iOS can run Waydroid allows me to run Android apps on my Librem 5. > How do I deposit a check with my bank on my phone without the app? I can't; the mobile website doesn't have that functionality So switch the bank to one not forcing you into the duopoly?
1y ago

preisschild 1y ago

> For mobile, we have PostmarketOS, Phosh, Ubuntu Touch. I really must try living in them, is it on me? IDK, our government even has an identity app for iOS and Android. I should not be using it, I should stick to web. But its so much more convenient. I'm just weak, aren't I? Don't forget GrapheneOS, LineageOS and other de-googled FOSS Android Versions

fsflover 1y ago
These aren't GNU/Linux, they have to follow Google's development strategy. It's like fighting with Chrome by using Chromium.
- preisschild 1y ago
  Nobody was talking about GNU. Most don't care if the userspace utilties are gnu coreutils/libc or musl/busybox for example. AOSP is free and open source software.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    You can't run AOSP on any existing hardware. Except maybe Pinephone and Libem 5, and only in theory. Also, you should read all the good arguments on HN why you shouldn't use Chromium even though it's technically FLOSS.
    - preisschild 1y ago
      > You can't run AOSP on any existing hardware. Except maybe Pinephone and Libem 5, and only in theory. What do you mean? I can run AOSP on Google Pixel devices for example.
      - fsflover 1y ago
        It's not AOSP, it contains a lot of proprietary blobs.

RicoElectrico 1y ago

Foss people are on the spectrum and so never understand the common man. Simple as that I guess.

teekert 1y ago
Well the nice thing about the spectrum is that we are all on it and that we draw imaginary lines ourselves. All wisdom aside... I think you're right. I takes a certain grit to start to appreciate the ultimate effect of software freedom culture and licensing. Never mind the the whole philosophy. It's like explaining CRISPR (yeah I'm a biologist) to a normie... Ok, so lets start with what DNA is... proceeds to guide someone through a lifetime in the molecular biology field....
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  This is irremovable tension - FOSS in its ideals is democratic, yet it can never succeed in democratization. This is why I think preaching freedom and agency is a bad strategy for the FOSS, even if its members believe them.

cyanydeez 1y ago

Money

potamic 1y ago

It's the ecosystem. Without an ecosystem there will be less adoption and consequently less investment in the OS. Where I stay, so many services offered exclusively through Android/iOS apps with no alternative. Even government services are slowly excluding the web and becoming app only. There is an implicit expectation from everyone that one will have either an Android/iOS device and this only becomes stronger with time. I don't know how many people realize but what can result from this can be very dystopian and is scary. But the best possible outcome from this I hope is that some day a wise government realizes how much of daily life is dependent on two corporations and passes regulations to standardize app runtimes. You should be able to publish applications that can run on any OS. Only then we'll see competition in the OS market.

benrutter 1y ago
Interestingly, we are, and have been, at a point were you can publish applications that run on any OS for a while, with PWAs. There are very few software examples, that couldn't be distributed as PWAs, including secure things like banking, etc. With WASM in the mix as well, theoretically the sky should be the limit. Even more interestingly it hasn't happened - mainly because Apple and Google haven't got behind PWAs for obvious reasons, so the app ecosystem just doesn't exist. It's hard to see how this will changes, when mobile operating systems are dominated by two players, with very obvious incentives to make things worse for consumers but better for themselves, by grabbing as much control of the apps on their system as possible.
- NoGravitas 1y ago
  If banks were to offer PWAs, they would probably demand something like Google's Web Environment Integrity proposal - or would be convinced by Google that they need it.
  - 0x000xca0xfe 1y ago
    Online banking in the browser is hardly a new invention. It works fine, today. The only noticeable difference between most apps and websites nowadays is offline capability and deeper system integration. Native apps have been dumbed down so hard there is barely anything left not taken care of by browsers.

fsflover 1y ago

> For mobile, we have PostmarketOS, Phosh, Ubuntu Touch. Why are you only listing DEs and not operating systems? (You also missed SXMo and more.) There are many more operating systems [0] and two working GNU/Linux phones, Librem 5 and Pinephone. Why people are ignoring them on HN? [0] https://pine64.org/documentation/PinePhone/Software/ https://pine64.org/documentation/PinePhone/Software/

dvdkon 1y ago
PostmarketOS is, as the name implies, an OS. And I don't think OP was trying to make an exhaustive list. The point is, there's plenty of "competing" options, but hardly anyone uses them.
- fsflover 1y ago
  The parent started their message with "Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS", which is not wrong but pretty misleading, as there are many existing mobile OSes that work quite well.
Xss3 1y ago
Yep. My thoughts exactly. Seems like everyone here is forgetting about those two.

nine_k 1y ago

> Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS. This is not too hard. What is hard is to trust it enough. A FOSS OS, by definition, allows to install whatever software, and allows for modification of itself. It is built to overcome limitations, not impose them. In this regard, it's a perfect tool for a criminal who wants to circumvent security measures, because these are limitations. It's the same problem as with cheaters in online games, only with more than games on stake. Banks and payment systems want guarantees of integrity and protection, including protection from user's actions. A FOSS OS also assumes that the user values the freedom, and is competent in its technical aspects. This is emphatically not true about many users. They choose iOS because it's locked down and thus they cannot inadvertently do something they don't understand, and can't be bothered to learn. More importantly, their grandmother cannot do something she doesn't understand but scammers persuade her to do. It's a bit like driving on public roads. If you want to drive yourself, you have to reveal your identity and obtain a license. If you want the hassle, take a bus, but buses only go along their routes. Letting unlicensed people drive cars where they see fit was found unacceptably dangerous for everyone eround. Maybe mainstream mobile software development will follow this model, too :(

_Algernon_ 1y ago
All this is true about Linux on desktop, though my bank still allows me to log in to online banking. At least for now. I'm not aware of any major issues this has caused. The trust isn't the issue. Google and Apple has made DRM easy for these companies to integrate, and therefore they do it. There isn't more to it than that.
- integralid 1y ago
  >I'm not aware of any major issues this has caused Decades of desktop malware used to drain bank accounts are not a major issue?
  - _Algernon_ 1y ago
    You'd need to make a case that proprietary OSes such as Windows or MacOS lessen the issue compared to FOSS OSes such as Linux. I doubt it considering that Windows is / was known to be the worst offender here. In any case my bank has not banned the use of Linux to do homebanking. Why? Because there isn't a easy to plug-and-play API to do DRM and remove consumer rights. This is largely for historic reasons, but there is no reason a FOSS mobile OS couldn't work.

Perz1val 1y ago

As Microsoft how is it so difficult to have a mobile os

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
Microsoft has the problem that nobody likes them or trusts them, which makes it hard to get people to use their platform in a context where they're not the default.
- kube-system 1y ago
  Windows Mobile was great and people loved it at the time. Most people I knew in 2007/2008 were laughing at how the iPhone was an expensive toy phone because you couldn't even install apps or use MS Exchange. Of course, the problem for MS was that Apple (and Google) quickly closed those gaps, and they just simply had better overall products.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > Windows Mobile was great and people loved it at the time. But that wasn't the problem. The iPhone and Android became popular because they were, respectively, good and "good enough" but free, and both Apple and Google had a good reputation at the time. Users were willing to buy those phones and developers were willing to make apps for them because they didn't expect those companies to screw them. The screwing only happened after they were no longer the underdogs and the network effect was already established. Microsoft doesn't cast as an underdog and everybody expects them to screw you as soon as they get the chance, so not enough people were willing to give them the chance. They could have overcome that to their own benefit if they would have bound their future selves from enshittifying the platform. Don't make "Windows Phone" under a proprietary license, make an actually open source Android fork which is an open platform like Windows instead of a closed one like iOS, but provide seamless integrations with the Microsoft cloud services instead of the Google ones. Write code that makes it work as well with Windows PCs as iPhones do with macOS. Make two phones yourself: a $999 Surface Phone with iPhone-quality hardware and a $199 one with basic hardware but nevertheless 12 years of security updates to get the low end of the market, provide something for kids/students and make it cheap for developers on the fence to get a device with your platform and make apps that integrate with your cloud services. You're not trying to sell an operating system, you're trying to take Apple's margins on the high end hardware and Google's cloud services revenue from the mass market. But that's not what they did, and getting people to trust them with a closed platform wasn't in the cards.

raffael_de 1y ago

As far as I am concerned a Raspberry Pi 4G/5G/LTE-edition would be 50% of getting there.

numpad0 1y ago

Because PC is an American thing but phones are not. Obsession for standardization, modularity, and cross-compatibility are rather unique American cultural traits that aren't nearly as strongly manifesting elsewhere. "Fits right in" is quintessentially American thing. The entire unitized jet engines on Boeing aircraft drops right off and swaps right into another host, sometimes even to different types of aircraft. PCI soundcards come off a i386 PC and go straight into PPC Macs. AR15 pressure bearing parts don't merely interchange between examples from different time and place but its grip and stock mounting patterns are becoming a industry standard of its own. Early Tesla battery packs come apart into bunch of 18650s and could reassemble into new packs(though it's a big no-no due to RUD risks). Meanwhile, Prius power units or front seats are for Prius only; it won't go into dozen different Toyota models, at least without substantial parts changes, modifications, and reconfiguration. Bugatti Veyron uses its own custom tires that aren't even forward or backward compatible with their own successor. Same for phones: .apk runs everywhere, Linux do not, cameras don't interchange, internal connectors don't fit together, LCDs specific to anything are default unobtainium. microSD cards works on everything, but the moment you look away, Huawei invents a new incompatible format for absolutely no reason. Apple "reinvents everything" every time but internal organizations of components are stable at macroscopic levels for few generations unlike most other manufacturers. It's openness of PC that is unique and precious, not closed nature of everything else being odd and inconvenient.

okasaki 1y ago
Nothing says "obsession with standardization" like being one of only three countries on Earth that can't figure out that water freezes at 0 and boils at 100.
jemmyw 1y ago
> Because PC is an American thing but phones are not. I don't really understand what you're talking about here. Android and iOS are American companies. American culture is John Deere locking down their equipment. Anti-consumer laws, pushing IP laws onto the rest of the world by treaty, being overly litigious, these are all American culture. I think the culture you're thinking of is nearly dead in a shell of corporatism. The PC was a pretty unique event due to a confluence of historical factors that all came together in a certain way. It wasn't the way of things before, and it's been slowly moving away from how it was, and it's not really got anything to do with being American or not.

PeterStuer 1y ago

Because the baseband chipset protocols and drivers are extremely patent encumbered. Any FOSS project will have to rely on on proprietary blobs for this part, and licensing deals from the existing patent holders, Quallcom. Nokia, Ericsson etc. . You can see this is sort of adverserial to the FOSS way of doing things.

fsflover 1y ago
> You can see this is sort of adverserial to the FOSS way of doing things. Example of the real-word problems with creating a FLOSS phone: https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/ https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/
autoexec 1y ago
The licensing should (in theory) have FRAND terms and so might not be impossible. Couldn't someone just create their own chips? In the worst case, could someone be able to come up with a new protocol and start a new network (assuming they had the money?)
- kube-system 1y ago
  You can create your own chips but you will have issues obtaining a license to use spectrum in some countries. Often, licenses for spectrum where the device is licensed instead of the end user, require the device itself to comply with spectrum use requirements....since the user isn't licensed.

jasonfrost 1y ago

On the cyberdeck note, I think the dawn of mobile computing is superseding smart phones and I rather move to flip phone + mobile Linux and keep them distinctly separated