9 ms·

Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. Look at th

Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. Look at the AdBlocker crackdown of Google Chrome. Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it, because it is impossible to maintain features that complex on a browser that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Same story for /e/ and GrapheneOS, the day Google pulls the plug on source code releases, god knows how long they will last. We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms.

amelius 8mo ago
You don't have to use Chrome or Chromium.
- goldenarm 8mo ago
  Yes fortunately we have browser alternatives. But on mobile, my bank and my government force me to use the Android/iOS duopoly.
  - jonathanstrange 8mo ago
    How do they do that? I'm not doubting that, it's an honest question. I understand how this works on Apple phones but I don't understand why an identity or attestation service cannot be replaced by another one by the alternative operating system when the hardware is not controlled by Google. Does Google have keys in tamper-proof chips? How else would those banks determine their apps are on the right phone? Or do those apps use Google authentication directly over the Internet, using hard-coded Google public keys?
    - well_ackshually 8mo ago
      Depending on the level of security you ask for Play Integrity, it can be: * is this device rooted, is it an unsigned build ? * Device is signed, but is it part of the blessed signing keys ? is play services untampered with ? * Additional checks over the lifetime of the device. You could fully trust the results of Play Integrity on device, but you can also send the returned token to your server, and your server then contacts play integrity to validate that token. So unless you know how to spoof those encrypted tokens, you won't go very far. https://developer.android.com/google/play/integrity/overview https://developer.android.com/google/play/integrity/overview
      - jonathanstrange 8mo ago
        So basically an alternative OS can offer a service like Play Integrity and the only problem is that those banks hard-code a dependence on Google's Play Integrity and Google has a monopoly for that service? This is something that could be addressed at least in the EU by mandating banks to allow alternative services or not use this service at all.
        well_ackshually 8mo ago
        Yep. You can even run your own play integrity-like backend. >This is something that could be addressed at least in the EU by mandating banks to allow alternative services or not use this service at all. The EU mandates banks to be interoperable, and to guarantee the security of users. You can solve that issue by going through an alternative app that doesn't use play integrity and is PSD2 compliant so other banks let you call their APIs. It usually requires you to be a bank, and as a bank, you're really risk averse. So you use play integrity.
- wiseowise 8mo ago
  Chrome is just an example. Google stopped pretending Android is a general purpose OS and started cracking down on what is possible without Google’s approval. See developer verification, everything within Google services, etc.
- fransje26 8mo ago
  The irony of this is that when using Firefox to browse to /e/OS url to check for compatible devices: https://e.foundation/installer/ https://e.foundation/installer/ I get a pop-up telling me that my browser is not compatible, and I should use Edge, Opera or Chrome. See [1] [1] https://imgur.com/a/al1Q9DM https://imgur.com/a/al1Q9DM
  - OJFord 8mo ago
    That's a bizarre one. 'You need Chrome' is bad enough, which even the bloody NHS are guilty of, but I always assume that's 'just' an assumption that not Chrome means IE or something, and they haven't woken up even to the proliferation of mobile Safari users.
    - detaro 8mo ago
      How is it "bizarre" when it even tells you why it needs a Chromium-based browser?
      - OJFord 8mo ago
        I didn't know it did, the commenter didn't mention it, and Imgur gave me an overloaded error message. (When it doesn't do that, it usually tells me it's not available in my region or that the image has been deleted anyway.) Anyway, assuming it's for WebUSB flashing, I agree with other commenters it should just explain that's not available and still give the instructions - bonus points for hiding the unusable WebUSB option.
  - fmo1973 8mo ago
    I think it's due to the lack of WebUSB API support in Firefox, it is needed for the web installer, both for eOS and GrapheneOS
    - fransje26 8mo ago
      As I explained elsewhere in this post, I got to this installer page by clicking on "Check device compatibility" on the https://e.foundation/e-os/ https://e.foundation/e-os/ page. So I was actually expecting a device listing page, not a WebUSB program.
preisschild 8mo ago
> We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. But currently AOSP is very much open. That's also what the GrapheneOS devs say and why they want to continue using Android. Until it becomes clear that they will completely stop releasing the source code under a free software license i dont see why one should not use Android.
- goldenarm 8mo ago
  AOSP dev went private, and Google is slower and slower at releasing the source, now twice a year. Worse, many stock apps like the Dialer and Gallery went closed-source years ago. But the source isn't the point, it's the governance. Just like Chrome, having the source is not enough to guarantee an open platform. Sure you can disable telemetry flags. But you cannot afford to maintain an important feature Google wants to remove, like MV2. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/google-makes-android-development-private-will-continue-open-source-releases/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/google-makes-android... https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-qpr1-source-code-delay-3596650/ https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-qpr1-source-code...
  - auggierose 8mo ago
    The problem is, if you cannot afford to maintain it, how could you afford to both build AND maintain your own version of it?
    - goldenarm 8mo ago
      Building and maintainance cost are not linear, especially when you inherit legacy code. The AOSP codebase isn't great, is 4x bigger than the Linux Kernel, and full of "Ship now, patch later" mess. But I agree that it is a significant endeavor. But the OSS community succeeded in similar projects before, and the current state of the Linux desktop makes me hopeful.
    - dminik 8mo ago
      I don't think it's true, but ... "Google built Android to be impossible to maintain without them." Could be a very genuine answer to that question. Do you really need all of Android? What if you can build a very similar thing at a fraction of the size.
charcircuit 8mo ago
Chrome did not crack down on adblockers in Chrome. In fact the chromium team worked together with adblockers on mv3. >it is impossible to maintain features that complex on a browser While Chromium is complex, it is modularized which does make it possible for teams to maintain features.
r-w 8mo ago
> Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it Source?
- goldenarm 8mo ago
  Brave said they'll try to maintain limited support for MV2 for only 4 specific extensions, but recommend Brave Shields as the go-to adblocker for the future. Google is about to remove most of the MV2 code from the codebase, which will explode the complexity soon. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
  - wolvoleo 8mo ago
    Brave has perverse incentives to discontinue it because of their BAT crypto business model that rewards looking at ads. Unfortunately even the fully open source Firefox isn't immune to the pressure from the advertising industry, with all their Google funding and their purchase of anonym.
    - 0-_-0 8mo ago
      You have no idea how BAT ads work in brave, do you?
      - wolvoleo 8mo ago
        I do, but even though they're not in the webpage itself and are as such not affected by the adblocker, brave still has an interest in the advertising industry. Many if not most of their advertising clients would use regular internet ads as well.
        j16sdiz 8mo ago
        have you consider the possibility that... it is just too much work to merge/port the code when upstream is actively breaking them?
    - 8mo ago
Vinnl 8mo ago
> Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. I appreciate the vibes where this is coming from, but does it really? I think that assumes that everyone that works on this would work on a true open source OS otherwise, and that if they did, that would result in us breaking free from Android where we otherwise wouldn't. I'm not confident about either of those assumptions. Meanwhile I'll keep complaining to orgs that don't allow me to work through their website, and tell them that their app won't work on my phone.
- goldenarm 8mo ago
  There are more OSS devs active on Android ROMs than OSS devs working on independent mobile OSes. We are running out of time, and we are misallocating ressources. It's like bailing out water from the Titanic. We should prepare the lifeboats instead.
  - trelliumD 8mo ago
    True, SailfishOS :-)
  - fsflover 8mo ago
    (GNU/)Linux on mobile is the true sustanable, independent OS. It relies on the existing, strong Linux development, natively runs existing Linux apps and guarantees you lifetime updates. What else do you need? Sent from my Librem 5.
    - RGamma 8mo ago
      How well do communication apps work on it (Whatsapp, Signal, Discord)? Backups? Media (not as important)? Increasingly thinking of relegating my iPhone to 2FA and maybe banking only.
      - fsflover 8mo ago
        > Backups? Everything that works on desktop GNU/Linux should work on the phone, too. I use Pika Backup app. > communication AFAIK none of the apps you listed officially support Linux ARM, so you have to go through some configuration unfortunately. I do not use any of them, I use Matrix. > Signal https://forums.puri.sm/t/signal-app-now-usable-in-portrait-mode-on-l5/21278 https://forums.puri.sm/t/signal-app-now-usable-in-portrait-m... https://framapiaf.org/@lolgzs/113010288224110061 https://framapiaf.org/@lolgzs/113010288224110061 > Whatsapp ... Discord https://forums.puri.sm/t/how-to-install-whatsapp-and-discord-on-librem-5/28433 https://forums.puri.sm/t/how-to-install-whatsapp-and-discord... https://forums.puri.sm/t/librem-5-web-whatsapp-com-not-working-in-gnome-web-epiphany/20520/6 https://forums.puri.sm/t/librem-5-web-whatsapp-com-not-worki... https://source.puri.sm/libremos/tasking/-/issues/1 https://source.puri.sm/libremos/tasking/-/issues/1 > Media Are you talking about watching videos and listening to music? It works fine.
well_ackshually 8mo ago
>Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. There are zero OSes that are 1/ open source 2/ appropriate for phones 3/ with good hardware support. There's absolutely nothing. Running Ubuntu Touch isn't a viable option. Neither is postmarket, librem, tizen, they're all terrible. Security wise, for something as critically important in our lives as a smartphone, I am also not trusting any new pet project that won't be stable for 10 years. Sure, you might be a poweruser that doesn't care about your phone burning its battery in your pocket after 1 hour because you know how to SSH on it from your watch and put it in sleep, but that's not a viable option. Leaving Android is suicide. A large part of its critical underpinnings are already into the kernel anyways, just disabled. (although a distro running binder could be a fun project). APIs are reverse engineerable generally speaking, except for the server part of play services. But then, if your issue is "my bank won't let me access their app without play services attesting me", I have great news, you won't even have an app for it on your new OS anyways, so it will not work by default. There's already not enough people working on GrapheneOS _or_ on mainstream linux OSes, what makes you think the sitation won't be ten times worse for your custom made mobile OS ? >We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. Android is one, and that can never be taken away. Google pulls the plug ? cool, you're stuck on Android 17, which is centuries of work ahead of literally anything else in the open source community. Hell, for all the shit that Google is doing, they're still constrained by having to work with other vendors: the system privileged notification receiver is swappable at build time, the recent app signing/verification system also is, because Samsung wouldn't let them control it all.
- goldenarm 8mo ago
  I do agree, mobile OSS OSes are rough. My point is that we should help them instead of helping Google's toxic relationship. It happened with Chrome/Blink, and everyone already forgot that lesson. About hard-forking Android, no one was brave enough (pun intended) to do that for Chrome, considering the insane complexity and engineering costs (>$1B/y). (Only Apple was able to affort it with Webkit/Safari, but they are in the ad business too.)
  - samrus 8mo ago
realusername 8mo ago
The day AOSP sources aren't relased, Google will just lose control over Android and it will be managed by a Chinese consortium instead. 8 of the 10 top smartphone manufacturers are Chinese, there's no going back from that.
coldtea 8mo ago
>Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. To what?
b3orn 8mo ago
I wouldn't call Android user hostile. What makes most Android phones user hostile is Google Play Services.
- goldenarm 8mo ago
  I can call Android user hostile. Most Banks and gov apps require play services nowadays, and Google is about to ban app installation outside of their store. Cherry on top, the play store is mostly adware junk. My parents phones are full of adware, bloatware, notification spam, it's almost worse than windows 11.
  - Mordisquitos 8mo ago
    In your earlier comment you said that deGoogled Android alternatives are what's "slowing us down from leaving Android entirely", but that is not consistent with saying that most banks and government apps require play services. If these apps cannot run on deGoogled Android, then deGoogled Android cannot be slowing us down from leaving Android because using deGoogled alternatives is as inconvenient for banking and government services as using a non-Android alternative would be.
    - goldenarm 8mo ago
      There are tweaks to enable banking apps on deGoogled Android, but it's an exhausting cat and mouse game. Most of my friends gave up after years of fighting, and now they are back on Google Android because there is no alternative.
    - WorldMaker 8mo ago
      It's not entirely a contradiction. De-Googled Android alternatives can give a perception of choice and also a perception to Banks that they support "everyone" at the same time. "We have both flavors, Vanilla (iOS) and Chocolate [Android]; you claim to want Chocolate (Android), what more do you want?" Absolutely the current duopoly market is going to make any third-party alternative harder, but de-Googled Android seems to be a worst case because "Why not just install Google Play Services?" remains too valid a question and has too many confusing answers for both non-technical users and the business people at application providers (banks and whatnot). They will continue to have a hard time trying to figure out why you keep asking for a harder work effort for Chocolate Fudge when they already have Chocolate and why isn't that good enough. It's easier to fix that confusion by asking for an entirely new brand/flavor, such as Strawberry, than continuing this increasingly hard war between Google's Chocolate and "free" (as in speech, but certainly not free of confusion) Chocolate Fudge.
RandyOrion 8mo ago
> Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions Ungoogled chromium still supports MV2, and uBlock origin extension works fine.
- goldenarm 8mo ago
  Yes it's behind a flag, but the removal of MV2 from multiple parts of the codebase is imminent.
  - RandyOrion 8mo ago
    Google's stance on MV2 and MV3 is definitely affecting every chromium-based projects. > but the removal of MV2 from multiple parts of the codebase is imminent. Is there any evidence showing that ungoogled chromium project is considering that?
safety1st 8mo ago
I appreciate that there are people out there working on stuff like /e/OS, but the number one question I have when I learn about a mobile OS that isn't iOS or "Googled" Android is: will the banking and payment apps I need to operate in the modern world run on this OS? A lot of people don't think this way because they haven't had any problems. But then one day it happens to you and you realize, ok, this is the one thing that matters - you're in a cashless store and the only way you can pay for your meal is to use Approved Apple or Approved Google operating systems. Where I live, the app my electricity utility provides for viewing and paying my account DISABLES ITSELF FOREVER if you so much as enable USB debugging on your phone (even after you've disabled it again). To their credit Graphene maintains a global database of which of these apps work and don't. They're the only ones I know of so a thousand upvotes to Graphene OS. But for my banks, the records in that database are grim. They won't run on Graphene, and they don't respond to reports about it. One of my banks just discontinued its web UI because "people don't use it anymore, they use the app only." This is how they're going to get us, folks. This is how we're going to lose it all. Writing code alone will not solve this. It will require some kind of collective action to defend our liberties. Some parts of the world are already lost. So this situation will likely come to a jurisdiction near you eventually: to make a transaction you will need permission from Google, Apple, Visa, Mastercard, or it won't happen. Then that four company list will start to shrink.
- enriquto 8mo ago
  > the app my electricity utility provides for viewing and paying my account DISABLES ITSELF FOREVER if you so much as enable USB debugging on your phone (even after you've disabled it again). These are self-inflicted problems by these apps. Nothing to do with the OS. These apps simply don't work. Complain to the companies that push these broken apps to you. Would you buy a microwave oven that kills itself if you play the wrong kind of music in your kitchen?
  - abustamam 8mo ago
    The problems may be inflicted by these apps but the reality is that in many cases you're stuck with them. Electric company freezes your account if you enable USB debugging? Well, you can't choose a new electric company. We can complain to these vendors all we want but they just ignore us. So these problems become problems of the OS, not because the OS has a problem, but because it affects the reality of using the OS.
Tharre 8mo ago
> Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. Not sustainable as opposed to what, exactly? Developing and maintaining a completely different mobile operating system? Focusing on truly open platforms sound nice in theory, but completely falls apart the moment you consider what people want to do with their phones compared to the developing resources available. > Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it That's just wrong, there are other forks that still support MV2 extensions right now, and at least brave has no plans of shutting down MV2 extensions even after Google removes MV2 from upstream completely. It will certainly add maintance effort on brave's side, but they already patch a million other things that upstream doesn't support.
- goldenarm 8mo ago
  (Reposting my comment from below) Brave said they'll try to maintain temporarily limited MV2 support for only 4 specific extensions, but recommend Brave Shields as the go-to adblocker for the future. Google is about to remove most of the MV2 code from the codebase, which will explode the complexity soon. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
  - Tharre 8mo ago
    The word "temporarily" isn't mentioned anywhere on that page, and that's already a very different claim to "Brave is about to shut down MV2". And the MV2 support is not specific to those 4 extensions, the hosting on Brave's servers is (though for other extensions not that much changes with MV3 anyway).
    - goldenarm 8mo ago
      MV2 is behind a flag for now, but it is about to be removed from the Chrome codebase entirely. Which is why Brave recommends using Brave Shields as the long-term solution, which does not depend on it.
- 8mo ago
dangus 8mo ago
I think this is a false dichotomy. Basically what you’re implying is that all the people working on Android derivatives like Lineage, Graphene, and /e/ coming together and working instead on a fully open source OS like a Linux mobile distribution would result in better outcomes and actually get us closer to a daily driveable open source environment phone operating system. That’s analogous to saying that an automotive tuning shop that puts turbochargers and body kits on Toyota Corollas shouldn’t waste their time, and they should instead design and mass produce their own sports car. The level of effort difference between AOSP derivatives and a fully open source OS is massive.
kgwxd 8mo ago
> even Brave is about to do it Why anyone ever gave that browser a second of trust is beyond be. The damn thing was built on hijacking ad revenue into some imaginary IOU crypto thing, and built by a creep.
vovavili 8mo ago
Extensions prior to MV3 were notoriously insecure and granted extension developers a very wide attack surface. Assuming that Google only has a sinister reason to switch to a better standard in an ecosystem riddled with ill-intentioned actors is a bit too cynical.
- OsrsNeedsf2P 8mo ago
  Google will only ever push major updates that are neutral or beneficial to their ad revenue. I do not believe they killed MV3 due to ad blockers, but it's the type of proposal that can survive at Google.
- bornfreddy 8mo ago
  No, it's not. They could easily have solved the problems without introducing changes to cripple ad blockers, but they decided their investors need some more cash. Actions speak.
- wavemode 8mo ago
  > very wide attack surface. Do you have details of specific realistic attacks that were possible under MV2 and now impossible under MV3?
  - vovavili 8mo ago
    A very quick Google search could have done the trick for you - https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/improve-security https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...
    - wavemode 8mo ago
      That page contains a list of things you aren't allowed to do in MV3 anymore. There's no explanation of attacks being prevented. In what specific ways are you safer when installing a malicious MV3 extension compared to installing a malicious MV2 extension?
trimethylpurine 8mo ago
>We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. De-Googled Android was/is a truly open platform. Same result. You're pointing out maintenance issues. How many developers do we have to maintain this or any other platform without pay? That problem applies to a de-Googled fork of Android, or a complete bottom up build of a new platform. The benefit of using an Android fork is the labor savings on what's already built. Maintenance is not going away just because we build a new OS.
jraph 8mo ago
> Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. I would say we need both a sustainable free mobile OS in the long term, and a "less worse Android" today in the meantime. Initiatives like FairPhone paying someone to upstream device support in the mainline kernel / postmarketOS are interesting for both approaches at the same time (but extra effort would be needed, the FairPhone 5 almost working under postmarketOS [1] is kinda irritating, I hope it reaches full support before Lineage OS stops being updated for this device). Ignoring hardware support, Linux mobile OSes are quite usable now. Hardware support is the next step, and only then we can imagine the proprietary apps we are forced to use to work there (though Waydroid provides some answer to this as well). Another way of helping the cause would be, I suppose, lobbying for laws that forbid the dependency on an stock Google or Apple mobile OS. Or, maybe we can dream a bit, mandatory open source releases for those apps and standard APIs. [1] https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp5) https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp...
O1111OOO 8mo ago
> that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Let's see... https://www.techpolicy.press/the-true-cost-of-browser-innovation-why-chromes-divestiture-wouldnt-end-the-open-web/ https://www.techpolicy.press/the-true-cost-of-browser-innova... * Most of the personnel involved in developing web technologies are engineers, but they also include product managers, sales, marketing, legal, customer support, and other functions. * Given the complexity of Chrome and web technologies, the engineering teams skew towards higher levels of seniority. Assume that Staff Software Engineer is the most common engineering level represented across the web technologies teams, which is towards the more senior end of Google’s software engineering job ladder. * The average base salary for Google employees working on web technologies is $240k and the average annual take-home pay is $500k, including salary, bonuses, and stock payments. These estimates are close to the current average base salary and take-home pay for Google Staff Software Engineers listed on industry salary data sites. * Google has approximately 2000 staff working on web technologies. Using the above assumptions, the estimated personnel cost for web technologies is 2000 * $596k = $1.2B. Of course there are additional costs associated with these businesses. Based on this sketch, it seems fair to assume that Google spends at least $1-2B annually on Chrome, Chromium, and the evolution of the web platform.
- floxy 8mo ago
  >> that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Isn't this downright crazy when you think about it? Seems like we need to start from scratch. Create a minimal bytecode (like webasm or whatever) that writes to a virtual frame-buffer of sorts, and has keyboard/mouse inputs. Then content is distributed as compiled byte-code apps. All the fancy stuff you want in your app has to be provided by the app creator, and not essentially using the browser as a library.
pigpag 8mo ago
[dead]
leke 8mo ago
Oh, is this the deal with GrapheneOS too? Damn, I was excited about the Moto GrapheneOS collaboration.
- preisschild 8mo ago
  So far its working pretty great. Very happy with GrapheneOS. And currently Android AOSP source code is still regularly released. If that changes it becomes a problem then.
pkphilip 8mo ago
At this point it is very difficult to develop truly open OSs for mobiles because so much of the hardware depends on undocumented binary blobs. As I see it, the only options is to go for a drastically simpler design of the hardware - which means, we have to tone down our expectations especially when it comes to things like gaming performance, camera performance etc. Over time even these things can be improved but it is going to take a few years. In the meantime, I am not sure many people are willing to make those compromises to have a truly open hardware and OS though.
1vuio0pswjnm7 8mo ago
"Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable." Not sure about the first claim but the second is obvious. Yet peculiarly ignored The OS literally comes from Google. As such, the term "de-Googled" is quite strange. Another recent HN front page item about the other project mentioned recently used the phrase "break free from Google" and currently only runs on Google hardware AFAICT, the most significant issue with Android is "phoning home". Unwanted data transfer to third party. This is embedded in the OS. Google is the third party. Google operates as if it should be trusted as if it was a first party (why) IMO, a user-friendly (cf. user-hostile) mobile OS would be one that does not phone home. But at times it seems like these projects are OK with the idea of phoning home to third party, as long as it isn't Google Users will never have a mobile OS that does everything Android does, with the same polish, that isn't attached to a trillion dollar corporation. That "goal" results in projects where the majority of the Google-sourced code is unchanged instead of user-controlled source code It isn't _that_ difficult to stop Android, i.e., system, pre-installed and user-installed "apps", from successfully phoning home (cf. trying to phone home) over WiFi. For example, this can be done by changing gateway and DNS settings. If the user installs an app that can forward ports nd use the the built-in VPN support, successfully phoning home over cellular data can be stopped, too But a corporate-sourced OS like Android can change at any time for any reason. It changes often. Users have no control I see some HN comments are starting to acknowledge the idea that control can be more important than performance. IMO, it can also be more important than "features" Only if a user can embrace this idea can he begin to truly "break free" from the trillion dollar surveillance advertising company. Otherwise, sacrificing control for "performance", "features", etc., will always leave the user tethered to the company With the corportate-sourced OS users have no control over performance, features, etc. anyway. The corporation controls them Until there is a user-controlled, open source mobile OS like other form factors (HN commenters often claim this is not going to happen for good reasons), then, IMHO, "mobile" sucks Generally, we all have to use mobile, as least for some purposes, e.g., it's replaced residential landlines, paper maps, and so on. But none of this means it is a good choice for for so-called "general purpose computing". It's not a computer the user can control
cupcake-unicorn 8mo ago
Helium still allows MV2
uoaei 8mo ago
The day Google pulls the plug on source code releases is the day the open source community forks the last release... Not sure what this fatalism is about but it's a hysterical take.
- akimbostrawman 8mo ago
  Yes and that seems not very realistic considering they would need to replace the Linux kernel because of the GPLv2 license not allowing that. It would be a giant undertaking akin to rebuilding the whole OS from scratch considering they have build thousands of hard and software dependencies over two decades. Reminds me of "just rebuild windows" lol
poulpy123 8mo ago
It's not sustainable but it is better than the alternative. For the moment there is no alternative for a phone os that will start from zero
- TingPing 8mo ago
  There are multiple Linux shells that work on mobile today… They could become usable with some investment. The main issue is Android apps that require certified devices, which would also be a problem for truly stripped down Android.
jasonvorhe 8mo ago
I don't get what's so user-hostile about Android. Everything negative about the ecosystem is mostly Google Play and the legacy of every OEM forking Android for the better part of a decade. Sure, file pickers are inconsistent, filesystem is chaotic but it's performing quite well on most hardware, runs on phones, TVs, laptops, tablets and mini PCs and AOSP doesn't contain any hooks for Google to siphon off data. GrapheneOS isn't so much undoing evil Google stuff but extending upon their work and improving memory protection and adds security features that can be easily toggled based on assumed threat models of the user. Google's ownership of Android is definitely headed towards user hostility though, I'm not arguing against that. But just the source that GrapheneOS is based off of doesn't contain too much stuff that shouldn't be there, to my knowledge.
- ta8903 8mo ago
  >I don't get what's so user-hostile about Android. How about the fact that you can't install applications without having a google account. Right from the get go, it isn't a serious OS.
  - aembleton 8mo ago
    That's strange, I don't need one to install from FDroid or GitHub Store or Firefox. You need one for Play Store but you don't have to use that.
  - jasonvorhe 8mo ago
    I don't have a Google account. No idea what you're on about, tbh.
    - ta8903 8mo ago
      I used to not use one either, and used Aurora Store for certain apps. But at some point, my bank's app stopped working if I installed it from Aurora Store, and would only work from the play store. Since then I've seen a lot more apps that work this way.
      - 8mo ago

amelius 8mo ago

You don't have to use Chrome or Chromium.

goldenarm 8mo ago
Yes fortunately we have browser alternatives. But on mobile, my bank and my government force me to use the Android/iOS duopoly.
- jonathanstrange 8mo ago
  How do they do that? I'm not doubting that, it's an honest question. I understand how this works on Apple phones but I don't understand why an identity or attestation service cannot be replaced by another one by the alternative operating system when the hardware is not controlled by Google. Does Google have keys in tamper-proof chips? How else would those banks determine their apps are on the right phone? Or do those apps use Google authentication directly over the Internet, using hard-coded Google public keys?
  - well_ackshually 8mo ago
    Depending on the level of security you ask for Play Integrity, it can be: * is this device rooted, is it an unsigned build ? * Device is signed, but is it part of the blessed signing keys ? is play services untampered with ? * Additional checks over the lifetime of the device. You could fully trust the results of Play Integrity on device, but you can also send the returned token to your server, and your server then contacts play integrity to validate that token. So unless you know how to spoof those encrypted tokens, you won't go very far. https://developer.android.com/google/play/integrity/overview https://developer.android.com/google/play/integrity/overview
    - jonathanstrange 8mo ago
      So basically an alternative OS can offer a service like Play Integrity and the only problem is that those banks hard-code a dependence on Google's Play Integrity and Google has a monopoly for that service? This is something that could be addressed at least in the EU by mandating banks to allow alternative services or not use this service at all.
      - well_ackshually 8mo ago
        Yep. You can even run your own play integrity-like backend. >This is something that could be addressed at least in the EU by mandating banks to allow alternative services or not use this service at all. The EU mandates banks to be interoperable, and to guarantee the security of users. You can solve that issue by going through an alternative app that doesn't use play integrity and is PSD2 compliant so other banks let you call their APIs. It usually requires you to be a bank, and as a bank, you're really risk averse. So you use play integrity.
wiseowise 8mo ago
Chrome is just an example. Google stopped pretending Android is a general purpose OS and started cracking down on what is possible without Google’s approval. See developer verification, everything within Google services, etc.
fransje26 8mo ago
The irony of this is that when using Firefox to browse to /e/OS url to check for compatible devices: https://e.foundation/installer/ https://e.foundation/installer/ I get a pop-up telling me that my browser is not compatible, and I should use Edge, Opera or Chrome. See [1] [1] https://imgur.com/a/al1Q9DM https://imgur.com/a/al1Q9DM
- OJFord 8mo ago
  That's a bizarre one. 'You need Chrome' is bad enough, which even the bloody NHS are guilty of, but I always assume that's 'just' an assumption that not Chrome means IE or something, and they haven't woken up even to the proliferation of mobile Safari users.
  - detaro 8mo ago
    How is it "bizarre" when it even tells you why it needs a Chromium-based browser?
    - OJFord 8mo ago
      I didn't know it did, the commenter didn't mention it, and Imgur gave me an overloaded error message. (When it doesn't do that, it usually tells me it's not available in my region or that the image has been deleted anyway.) Anyway, assuming it's for WebUSB flashing, I agree with other commenters it should just explain that's not available and still give the instructions - bonus points for hiding the unusable WebUSB option.
- fmo1973 8mo ago
  I think it's due to the lack of WebUSB API support in Firefox, it is needed for the web installer, both for eOS and GrapheneOS
  - fransje26 8mo ago
    As I explained elsewhere in this post, I got to this installer page by clicking on "Check device compatibility" on the https://e.foundation/e-os/ https://e.foundation/e-os/ page. So I was actually expecting a device listing page, not a WebUSB program.

preisschild 8mo ago

> We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. But currently AOSP is very much open. That's also what the GrapheneOS devs say and why they want to continue using Android. Until it becomes clear that they will completely stop releasing the source code under a free software license i dont see why one should not use Android.

goldenarm 8mo ago
AOSP dev went private, and Google is slower and slower at releasing the source, now twice a year. Worse, many stock apps like the Dialer and Gallery went closed-source years ago. But the source isn't the point, it's the governance. Just like Chrome, having the source is not enough to guarantee an open platform. Sure you can disable telemetry flags. But you cannot afford to maintain an important feature Google wants to remove, like MV2. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/google-makes-android-development-private-will-continue-open-source-releases/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/03/google-makes-android... https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-qpr1-source-code-delay-3596650/ https://www.androidauthority.com/android-16-qpr1-source-code...
- auggierose 8mo ago
  The problem is, if you cannot afford to maintain it, how could you afford to both build AND maintain your own version of it?
  - goldenarm 8mo ago
    Building and maintainance cost are not linear, especially when you inherit legacy code. The AOSP codebase isn't great, is 4x bigger than the Linux Kernel, and full of "Ship now, patch later" mess. But I agree that it is a significant endeavor. But the OSS community succeeded in similar projects before, and the current state of the Linux desktop makes me hopeful.
  - dminik 8mo ago
    I don't think it's true, but ... "Google built Android to be impossible to maintain without them." Could be a very genuine answer to that question. Do you really need all of Android? What if you can build a very similar thing at a fraction of the size.

charcircuit 8mo ago

Chrome did not crack down on adblockers in Chrome. In fact the chromium team worked together with adblockers on mv3. >it is impossible to maintain features that complex on a browser While Chromium is complex, it is modularized which does make it possible for teams to maintain features.

r-w 8mo ago

> Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it Source?

goldenarm 8mo ago
Brave said they'll try to maintain limited support for MV2 for only 4 specific extensions, but recommend Brave Shields as the go-to adblocker for the future. Google is about to remove most of the MV2 code from the codebase, which will explode the complexity soon. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
- wolvoleo 8mo ago
  Brave has perverse incentives to discontinue it because of their BAT crypto business model that rewards looking at ads. Unfortunately even the fully open source Firefox isn't immune to the pressure from the advertising industry, with all their Google funding and their purchase of anonym.
  - 0-_-0 8mo ago
    You have no idea how BAT ads work in brave, do you?
    - wolvoleo 8mo ago
      I do, but even though they're not in the webpage itself and are as such not affected by the adblocker, brave still has an interest in the advertising industry. Many if not most of their advertising clients would use regular internet ads as well.
      - j16sdiz 8mo ago
        have you consider the possibility that... it is just too much work to merge/port the code when upstream is actively breaking them?
  - 8mo ago

Vinnl 8mo ago

> Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. I appreciate the vibes where this is coming from, but does it really? I think that assumes that everyone that works on this would work on a true open source OS otherwise, and that if they did, that would result in us breaking free from Android where we otherwise wouldn't. I'm not confident about either of those assumptions. Meanwhile I'll keep complaining to orgs that don't allow me to work through their website, and tell them that their app won't work on my phone.

goldenarm 8mo ago
There are more OSS devs active on Android ROMs than OSS devs working on independent mobile OSes. We are running out of time, and we are misallocating ressources. It's like bailing out water from the Titanic. We should prepare the lifeboats instead.
- trelliumD 8mo ago
  True, SailfishOS :-)
- fsflover 8mo ago
  (GNU/)Linux on mobile is the true sustanable, independent OS. It relies on the existing, strong Linux development, natively runs existing Linux apps and guarantees you lifetime updates. What else do you need? Sent from my Librem 5.
  - RGamma 8mo ago
    How well do communication apps work on it (Whatsapp, Signal, Discord)? Backups? Media (not as important)? Increasingly thinking of relegating my iPhone to 2FA and maybe banking only.
    - fsflover 8mo ago
      > Backups? Everything that works on desktop GNU/Linux should work on the phone, too. I use Pika Backup app. > communication AFAIK none of the apps you listed officially support Linux ARM, so you have to go through some configuration unfortunately. I do not use any of them, I use Matrix. > Signal https://forums.puri.sm/t/signal-app-now-usable-in-portrait-mode-on-l5/21278 https://forums.puri.sm/t/signal-app-now-usable-in-portrait-m... https://framapiaf.org/@lolgzs/113010288224110061 https://framapiaf.org/@lolgzs/113010288224110061 > Whatsapp ... Discord https://forums.puri.sm/t/how-to-install-whatsapp-and-discord-on-librem-5/28433 https://forums.puri.sm/t/how-to-install-whatsapp-and-discord... https://forums.puri.sm/t/librem-5-web-whatsapp-com-not-working-in-gnome-web-epiphany/20520/6 https://forums.puri.sm/t/librem-5-web-whatsapp-com-not-worki... https://source.puri.sm/libremos/tasking/-/issues/1 https://source.puri.sm/libremos/tasking/-/issues/1 > Media Are you talking about watching videos and listening to music? It works fine.

well_ackshually 8mo ago

>Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. There are zero OSes that are 1/ open source 2/ appropriate for phones 3/ with good hardware support. There's absolutely nothing. Running Ubuntu Touch isn't a viable option. Neither is postmarket, librem, tizen, they're all terrible. Security wise, for something as critically important in our lives as a smartphone, I am also not trusting any new pet project that won't be stable for 10 years. Sure, you might be a poweruser that doesn't care about your phone burning its battery in your pocket after 1 hour because you know how to SSH on it from your watch and put it in sleep, but that's not a viable option. Leaving Android is suicide. A large part of its critical underpinnings are already into the kernel anyways, just disabled. (although a distro running binder could be a fun project). APIs are reverse engineerable generally speaking, except for the server part of play services. But then, if your issue is "my bank won't let me access their app without play services attesting me", I have great news, you won't even have an app for it on your new OS anyways, so it will not work by default. There's already not enough people working on GrapheneOS _or_ on mainstream linux OSes, what makes you think the sitation won't be ten times worse for your custom made mobile OS ? >We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. Android is one, and that can never be taken away. Google pulls the plug ? cool, you're stuck on Android 17, which is centuries of work ahead of literally anything else in the open source community. Hell, for all the shit that Google is doing, they're still constrained by having to work with other vendors: the system privileged notification receiver is swappable at build time, the recent app signing/verification system also is, because Samsung wouldn't let them control it all.

goldenarm 8mo ago
I do agree, mobile OSS OSes are rough. My point is that we should help them instead of helping Google's toxic relationship. It happened with Chrome/Blink, and everyone already forgot that lesson. About hard-forking Android, no one was brave enough (pun intended) to do that for Chrome, considering the insane complexity and engineering costs (>$1B/y). (Only Apple was able to affort it with Webkit/Safari, but they are in the ad business too.)
- samrus 8mo ago

realusername 8mo ago

The day AOSP sources aren't relased, Google will just lose control over Android and it will be managed by a Chinese consortium instead. 8 of the 10 top smartphone manufacturers are Chinese, there's no going back from that.

coldtea 8mo ago

>Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. To what?

b3orn 8mo ago

I wouldn't call Android user hostile. What makes most Android phones user hostile is Google Play Services.

goldenarm 8mo ago
I can call Android user hostile. Most Banks and gov apps require play services nowadays, and Google is about to ban app installation outside of their store. Cherry on top, the play store is mostly adware junk. My parents phones are full of adware, bloatware, notification spam, it's almost worse than windows 11.
- Mordisquitos 8mo ago
  In your earlier comment you said that deGoogled Android alternatives are what's "slowing us down from leaving Android entirely", but that is not consistent with saying that most banks and government apps require play services. If these apps cannot run on deGoogled Android, then deGoogled Android cannot be slowing us down from leaving Android because using deGoogled alternatives is as inconvenient for banking and government services as using a non-Android alternative would be.
  - goldenarm 8mo ago
    There are tweaks to enable banking apps on deGoogled Android, but it's an exhausting cat and mouse game. Most of my friends gave up after years of fighting, and now they are back on Google Android because there is no alternative.
  - WorldMaker 8mo ago
    It's not entirely a contradiction. De-Googled Android alternatives can give a perception of choice and also a perception to Banks that they support "everyone" at the same time. "We have both flavors, Vanilla (iOS) and Chocolate [Android]; you claim to want Chocolate (Android), what more do you want?" Absolutely the current duopoly market is going to make any third-party alternative harder, but de-Googled Android seems to be a worst case because "Why not just install Google Play Services?" remains too valid a question and has too many confusing answers for both non-technical users and the business people at application providers (banks and whatnot). They will continue to have a hard time trying to figure out why you keep asking for a harder work effort for Chocolate Fudge when they already have Chocolate and why isn't that good enough. It's easier to fix that confusion by asking for an entirely new brand/flavor, such as Strawberry, than continuing this increasingly hard war between Google's Chocolate and "free" (as in speech, but certainly not free of confusion) Chocolate Fudge.

RandyOrion 8mo ago

> Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions Ungoogled chromium still supports MV2, and uBlock origin extension works fine.

goldenarm 8mo ago
Yes it's behind a flag, but the removal of MV2 from multiple parts of the codebase is imminent.
- RandyOrion 8mo ago
  Google's stance on MV2 and MV3 is definitely affecting every chromium-based projects. > but the removal of MV2 from multiple parts of the codebase is imminent. Is there any evidence showing that ungoogled chromium project is considering that?

safety1st 8mo ago

I appreciate that there are people out there working on stuff like /e/OS, but the number one question I have when I learn about a mobile OS that isn't iOS or "Googled" Android is: will the banking and payment apps I need to operate in the modern world run on this OS? A lot of people don't think this way because they haven't had any problems. But then one day it happens to you and you realize, ok, this is the one thing that matters - you're in a cashless store and the only way you can pay for your meal is to use Approved Apple or Approved Google operating systems. Where I live, the app my electricity utility provides for viewing and paying my account DISABLES ITSELF FOREVER if you so much as enable USB debugging on your phone (even after you've disabled it again). To their credit Graphene maintains a global database of which of these apps work and don't. They're the only ones I know of so a thousand upvotes to Graphene OS. But for my banks, the records in that database are grim. They won't run on Graphene, and they don't respond to reports about it. One of my banks just discontinued its web UI because "people don't use it anymore, they use the app only." This is how they're going to get us, folks. This is how we're going to lose it all. Writing code alone will not solve this. It will require some kind of collective action to defend our liberties. Some parts of the world are already lost. So this situation will likely come to a jurisdiction near you eventually: to make a transaction you will need permission from Google, Apple, Visa, Mastercard, or it won't happen. Then that four company list will start to shrink.

enriquto 8mo ago
> the app my electricity utility provides for viewing and paying my account DISABLES ITSELF FOREVER if you so much as enable USB debugging on your phone (even after you've disabled it again). These are self-inflicted problems by these apps. Nothing to do with the OS. These apps simply don't work. Complain to the companies that push these broken apps to you. Would you buy a microwave oven that kills itself if you play the wrong kind of music in your kitchen?
- abustamam 8mo ago
  The problems may be inflicted by these apps but the reality is that in many cases you're stuck with them. Electric company freezes your account if you enable USB debugging? Well, you can't choose a new electric company. We can complain to these vendors all we want but they just ignore us. So these problems become problems of the OS, not because the OS has a problem, but because it affects the reality of using the OS.

Tharre 8mo ago

> Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. Not sustainable as opposed to what, exactly? Developing and maintaining a completely different mobile operating system? Focusing on truly open platforms sound nice in theory, but completely falls apart the moment you consider what people want to do with their phones compared to the developing resources available. > Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it That's just wrong, there are other forks that still support MV2 extensions right now, and at least brave has no plans of shutting down MV2 extensions even after Google removes MV2 from upstream completely. It will certainly add maintance effort on brave's side, but they already patch a million other things that upstream doesn't support.

goldenarm 8mo ago
(Reposting my comment from below) Brave said they'll try to maintain temporarily limited MV2 support for only 4 specific extensions, but recommend Brave Shields as the go-to adblocker for the future. Google is about to remove most of the MV2 code from the codebase, which will explode the complexity soon. https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/ https://brave.com/blog/brave-shields-manifest-v3/
- Tharre 8mo ago
  The word "temporarily" isn't mentioned anywhere on that page, and that's already a very different claim to "Brave is about to shut down MV2". And the MV2 support is not specific to those 4 extensions, the hosting on Brave's servers is (though for other extensions not that much changes with MV3 anyway).
  - goldenarm 8mo ago
    MV2 is behind a flag for now, but it is about to be removed from the Chrome codebase entirely. Which is why Brave recommends using Brave Shields as the long-term solution, which does not depend on it.
8mo ago

dangus 8mo ago

I think this is a false dichotomy. Basically what you’re implying is that all the people working on Android derivatives like Lineage, Graphene, and /e/ coming together and working instead on a fully open source OS like a Linux mobile distribution would result in better outcomes and actually get us closer to a daily driveable open source environment phone operating system. That’s analogous to saying that an automotive tuning shop that puts turbochargers and body kits on Toyota Corollas shouldn’t waste their time, and they should instead design and mass produce their own sports car. The level of effort difference between AOSP derivatives and a fully open source OS is massive.

kgwxd 8mo ago

> even Brave is about to do it Why anyone ever gave that browser a second of trust is beyond be. The damn thing was built on hijacking ad revenue into some imaginary IOU crypto thing, and built by a creep.

vovavili 8mo ago

Extensions prior to MV3 were notoriously insecure and granted extension developers a very wide attack surface. Assuming that Google only has a sinister reason to switch to a better standard in an ecosystem riddled with ill-intentioned actors is a bit too cynical.

OsrsNeedsf2P 8mo ago
Google will only ever push major updates that are neutral or beneficial to their ad revenue. I do not believe they killed MV3 due to ad blockers, but it's the type of proposal that can survive at Google.
bornfreddy 8mo ago
No, it's not. They could easily have solved the problems without introducing changes to cripple ad blockers, but they decided their investors need some more cash. Actions speak.
wavemode 8mo ago
> very wide attack surface. Do you have details of specific realistic attacks that were possible under MV2 and now impossible under MV3?
- vovavili 8mo ago
  A very quick Google search could have done the trick for you - https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate/improve-security https://developer.chrome.com/docs/extensions/develop/migrate...
  - wavemode 8mo ago
    That page contains a list of things you aren't allowed to do in MV3 anymore. There's no explanation of attacks being prevented. In what specific ways are you safer when installing a malicious MV3 extension compared to installing a malicious MV2 extension?

trimethylpurine 8mo ago

>We should focus our efforts on truly open platforms. De-Googled Android was/is a truly open platform. Same result. You're pointing out maintenance issues. How many developers do we have to maintain this or any other platform without pay? That problem applies to a de-Googled fork of Android, or a complete bottom up build of a new platform. The benefit of using an Android fork is the labor savings on what's already built. Maintenance is not going away just because we build a new OS.

jraph 8mo ago

> Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. I would say we need both a sustainable free mobile OS in the long term, and a "less worse Android" today in the meantime. Initiatives like FairPhone paying someone to upstream device support in the mainline kernel / postmarketOS are interesting for both approaches at the same time (but extra effort would be needed, the FairPhone 5 almost working under postmarketOS [1] is kinda irritating, I hope it reaches full support before Lineage OS stops being updated for this device). Ignoring hardware support, Linux mobile OSes are quite usable now. Hardware support is the next step, and only then we can imagine the proprietary apps we are forced to use to work there (though Waydroid provides some answer to this as well). Another way of helping the cause would be, I suppose, lobbying for laws that forbid the dependency on an stock Google or Apple mobile OS. Or, maybe we can dream a bit, mandatory open source releases for those apps and standard APIs. [1] https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp5) https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Fairphone_5_(fairphone-fp...

O1111OOO 8mo ago

> that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Let's see... https://www.techpolicy.press/the-true-cost-of-browser-innovation-why-chromes-divestiture-wouldnt-end-the-open-web/ https://www.techpolicy.press/the-true-cost-of-browser-innova... * Most of the personnel involved in developing web technologies are engineers, but they also include product managers, sales, marketing, legal, customer support, and other functions. * Given the complexity of Chrome and web technologies, the engineering teams skew towards higher levels of seniority. Assume that Staff Software Engineer is the most common engineering level represented across the web technologies teams, which is towards the more senior end of Google’s software engineering job ladder. * The average base salary for Google employees working on web technologies is $240k and the average annual take-home pay is $500k, including salary, bonuses, and stock payments. These estimates are close to the current average base salary and take-home pay for Google Staff Software Engineers listed on industry salary data sites. * Google has approximately 2000 staff working on web technologies. Using the above assumptions, the estimated personnel cost for web technologies is 2000 * $596k = $1.2B. Of course there are additional costs associated with these businesses. Based on this sketch, it seems fair to assume that Google spends at least $1-2B annually on Chrome, Chromium, and the evolution of the web platform.

floxy 8mo ago
>> that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Isn't this downright crazy when you think about it? Seems like we need to start from scratch. Create a minimal bytecode (like webasm or whatever) that writes to a virtual frame-buffer of sorts, and has keyboard/mouse inputs. Then content is distributed as compiled byte-code apps. All the fancy stuff you want in your app has to be provided by the app creator, and not essentially using the browser as a library.

pigpag 8mo ago

[dead]

leke 8mo ago

Oh, is this the deal with GrapheneOS too? Damn, I was excited about the Moto GrapheneOS collaboration.

preisschild 8mo ago
So far its working pretty great. Very happy with GrapheneOS. And currently Android AOSP source code is still regularly released. If that changes it becomes a problem then.

pkphilip 8mo ago

At this point it is very difficult to develop truly open OSs for mobiles because so much of the hardware depends on undocumented binary blobs. As I see it, the only options is to go for a drastically simpler design of the hardware - which means, we have to tone down our expectations especially when it comes to things like gaming performance, camera performance etc. Over time even these things can be improved but it is going to take a few years. In the meantime, I am not sure many people are willing to make those compromises to have a truly open hardware and OS though.

1vuio0pswjnm7 8mo ago

"Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable." Not sure about the first claim but the second is obvious. Yet peculiarly ignored The OS literally comes from Google. As such, the term "de-Googled" is quite strange. Another recent HN front page item about the other project mentioned recently used the phrase "break free from Google" and currently only runs on Google hardware AFAICT, the most significant issue with Android is "phoning home". Unwanted data transfer to third party. This is embedded in the OS. Google is the third party. Google operates as if it should be trusted as if it was a first party (why) IMO, a user-friendly (cf. user-hostile) mobile OS would be one that does not phone home. But at times it seems like these projects are OK with the idea of phoning home to third party, as long as it isn't Google Users will never have a mobile OS that does everything Android does, with the same polish, that isn't attached to a trillion dollar corporation. That "goal" results in projects where the majority of the Google-sourced code is unchanged instead of user-controlled source code It isn't _that_ difficult to stop Android, i.e., system, pre-installed and user-installed "apps", from successfully phoning home (cf. trying to phone home) over WiFi. For example, this can be done by changing gateway and DNS settings. If the user installs an app that can forward ports nd use the the built-in VPN support, successfully phoning home over cellular data can be stopped, too But a corporate-sourced OS like Android can change at any time for any reason. It changes often. Users have no control I see some HN comments are starting to acknowledge the idea that control can be more important than performance. IMO, it can also be more important than "features" Only if a user can embrace this idea can he begin to truly "break free" from the trillion dollar surveillance advertising company. Otherwise, sacrificing control for "performance", "features", etc., will always leave the user tethered to the company With the corportate-sourced OS users have no control over performance, features, etc. anyway. The corporation controls them Until there is a user-controlled, open source mobile OS like other form factors (HN commenters often claim this is not going to happen for good reasons), then, IMHO, "mobile" sucks Generally, we all have to use mobile, as least for some purposes, e.g., it's replaced residential landlines, paper maps, and so on. But none of this means it is a good choice for for so-called "general purpose computing". It's not a computer the user can control

cupcake-unicorn 8mo ago

Helium still allows MV2

uoaei 8mo ago

The day Google pulls the plug on source code releases is the day the open source community forks the last release... Not sure what this fatalism is about but it's a hysterical take.

akimbostrawman 8mo ago
Yes and that seems not very realistic considering they would need to replace the Linux kernel because of the GPLv2 license not allowing that. It would be a giant undertaking akin to rebuilding the whole OS from scratch considering they have build thousands of hard and software dependencies over two decades. Reminds me of "just rebuild windows" lol

poulpy123 8mo ago

It's not sustainable but it is better than the alternative. For the moment there is no alternative for a phone os that will start from zero

TingPing 8mo ago
There are multiple Linux shells that work on mobile today… They could become usable with some investment. The main issue is Android apps that require certified devices, which would also be a problem for truly stripped down Android.

jasonvorhe 8mo ago

I don't get what's so user-hostile about Android. Everything negative about the ecosystem is mostly Google Play and the legacy of every OEM forking Android for the better part of a decade. Sure, file pickers are inconsistent, filesystem is chaotic but it's performing quite well on most hardware, runs on phones, TVs, laptops, tablets and mini PCs and AOSP doesn't contain any hooks for Google to siphon off data. GrapheneOS isn't so much undoing evil Google stuff but extending upon their work and improving memory protection and adds security features that can be easily toggled based on assumed threat models of the user. Google's ownership of Android is definitely headed towards user hostility though, I'm not arguing against that. But just the source that GrapheneOS is based off of doesn't contain too much stuff that shouldn't be there, to my knowledge.

ta8903 8mo ago
>I don't get what's so user-hostile about Android. How about the fact that you can't install applications without having a google account. Right from the get go, it isn't a serious OS.
- aembleton 8mo ago
  That's strange, I don't need one to install from FDroid or GitHub Store or Firefox. You need one for Play Store but you don't have to use that.
- jasonvorhe 8mo ago
  I don't have a Google account. No idea what you're on about, tbh.
  - ta8903 8mo ago
    I used to not use one either, and used Aurora Store for certain apps. But at some point, my bank's app stopped working if I installed it from Aurora Store, and would only work from the play store. Since then I've seen a lot more apps that work this way.
    - 8mo ago