Post by @Tutanota@mastodon.social

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS the only problem is that as of now GrapheneOS is only compatible with Pixel phones.
From next year it will be compatible also with some select Motorola phones, not clear for now when and which ones.
Short-term solution will be moving to some other Android-ish flavor (HyperOS, ColorOS, ...).
Switching to iOS won't fix anything, as it's already where Google is going
We definitely need a 3td alternative, soon.

@retrocomputing

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS

You don't need to use Graphene to escape Google's monopoly, and if you are looking for large coverage, that's antithetical to Graphene's goals.

@Goodlucksil @Tutanota @GrapheneOS My understanding is that GrapheneOS' compatibility limits are set by the hardware, or lack thereof, not by some policies or intent.
Can you name a phone OS alternative that can be used right now for your everyday phone?

@marcellinusme @Goodlucksil @Tutanota @GrapheneOS I'm not familiar with it, is it related to Murena?
Will look into it, thanks for the heads-up

@retrocomputing @Goodlucksil @Tutanota @GrapheneOS
Oh, GrapheneOS is a dead end; it only works on Google Pixel phones and Google has decided to kill it off by holding back security updates for a year. This bot here, with 0 following, is just spreading misinformation.

@retrocomputing @Tutanota @GrapheneOS ColorOS and HyperOS are proprietary, and one of them is the product of a massive corporation.

Those are odd suggestions, especially since their hardware compatibility doesn't seem to be any better than LineageOS, /e/, Calyx, or other less… let's say "encumbered" options.

@cocaine_owlbear @Tutanota @GrapheneOS
The idea/hope is they won't implement the latest Google restrictions, being derivative OS's.
Not a given, though.

@retrocomputing @Tutanota @GrapheneOS okay, but why not suggest open source solutions rather than proprietary? It's more or less definite LineageOS won't be implementing it, but it's six to one and pick'em at best that Xiaomi won't.

I'm not trying to start a fight. I'm just confused.

@cocaine_owlbear @Tutanota @GrapheneOS why should it be a fight, each of us is proposing something.
Even though the original post was about forcing Google not to close the possibility of loading whatever you want, now that I think of it... got a bit carried away, apologies to Tuta

@GrapheneOS @retrocomputing @Tutanota I agree with all of that. Obviously GrapheneOS is the best Android replacement, but since it's locked to Pixels until next year, and even then will only work on one new Motorola phone model, we need options people can put on their phones *now*.

I'm not trying to slander your project, buddy, but it's not a realistic option for literally *most* android users right now.

I would absolutely welcome your suggestions or advice.

@cocaine_owlbear @retrocomputing @Tutanota Encouraging people to use devices increasingly unable to protect them against severe known privacy and security vulnerabilities isn't going to work out well for them.

It's important for people to buy devices where reasonable updates and security protections are possible to provide. People should buy used devices with many years of updates and decent security protections rather than bottom of the barrel new Android devices without those.

@nahmgood @GrapheneOS @retrocomputing @Tutanota yup. I'm sure it's great. Must've been nice to have that $350 available.

How does that in any way invalidate my point? I mean, once your phone is paid off, you can get it unlocked from the carrier.

@retrocomputing
It's at least possible to buy Pixels second-hand so you yourself aren't handing money directly to Google...
@Tutanota @GrapheneOS

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS The very same term "side loading" makes me mad, it's just loading what you want on an OS you've paid for

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS Once fraphine becomes accessible with Talkback out of the box, I'll most certainly support it. Has any progress been made finding a tts engine that complies with licensing restrictions and can be bundled?

@Tutanota @jolla

Quizá sea mejor acercarse a alternativas como Jolla.
Open y Graphene no creo que quepan en la misma frase

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS I would love to support GrapheneOS, but it works only on flagship phones. Cheap phones (< €300)seem to be out of scope

@madduci@mastodon.social
Two years ago, I got myself a used Pixel 7A for around 160€.
Still works perfectly fine with GrapheneOS.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social

@fasnix @GrapheneOS we are talking about a 4+year old phone which was a flagship one when it came out. What about modern phones that aren't flagships and are < €300? (Example: Motorola G 56, Samsung A1x/2x series or similar)

@madduci@mastodon.social
You're right, of course.
However, that's a question I cannot answer.

@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social

@fasnix
Lucky you, here even version 6 costs at least that.

@madduci @GrapheneOS

@Tutanota A shame Google went through with this... Yet not surprising coming from them. The openness of Android served them in the early days of Android to attract people, against big bad "Apple's locked down Iphone". Now it's in their way.
I used to recommend Fdroid to friends and family. Happy #murena_eos user myself (never had a graphene compatible device to try it), but I can't imagine recommending flashing a ROM to just anyone, not everyone is ready to take that big a step.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS would be nice if you pushed actually cool well supported distributions like @LineageOS instead

@Tutanota

AOSP is just AP.
If one must ask Google to send them the source code then there's nothing open-source about it.

https://urlgo.in/fnciz

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS Honestly, if my device were supported I would.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS

Problem with Graphene OS, it is only installable on selected google Pixel Phones.

The cooperation with Motorola is a positive sign but unlikely to be affordable as it will be high end devices only.

For real acceptance we need devices with a reasonable level of performance for around 300 to 400 Euro.

@Kerplunk @Tutanota

> The cooperation with Motorola is a positive sign but unlikely to be affordable as it will be high end devices only.

That's not the case. It's starting with high end devices because those will be the first ones providing reasonable updates and security features.

> 300 to 400 Euro

GrapheneOS supports devices in that range and lower via older devices including budget 'a' series Pixels. Pixel 8a meets all of our latest security requirements and has plenty of support left.

@GrapheneOS @Tutanota

Not a criticism of Graphene OS, just we all need it yesterday and many of us can not afford another expensive purchase.

Apart from the environmental aspect of having to dump good phones, in many cases due boot loader lock.

Btw.
Pixel 8a is hovering around 400 Euro in Germany.

Purchasing one supports google.

I would prefer not to have to do so.

@lispi314 @GrapheneOS @Tutanota

For real acceptance we need devices with a reasonable level of performance for around 300 to 400 Euro.

LisPi wrote
Even that is solidly middle class budget.

Agree but that is where decent build quality is available presently, in part due EU Tarifs and taxes.

Which damages Euro consumers by making long lived devices less affordable..

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS

#Android is supposed to be open, & your phone should be yours → NOT GOOGLES.

YES, BUT we need legislation to force release of Bootloader unlock codes for all phones.

Until we can controll a phone and its software it is not fully our property.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS This all stem from a duopoly where the other player has a closed ecosystem and profits greatly from that, Google played the useful mirage as the open option for far longer than they needed to and now with no other option left on the table, are giving the middle finger. Maybe regardless how loyal to a slogan or fruit brand, don't let a duopoly take hold, let competition foster, duopoly is worse than a monopoly as people believe that illusion of choice is all that is needed.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS I'm faily positive a "phone" has NEVER been our. Google and others have made sure it it just an extension of their advertising and data collection departments from day one. As are most commercial software products and most appliances, autos and everything else we "purchase".

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS I couldn't agree more! While I notice that, in the absence of MicroG and Google Play Services, Tuta’s notifications don’t work—unlike other apps (e.g., Signal, Proton, etc.).

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS

just buy a phone from a left company

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS

Noo nooooo, that cannot be an actual issue!!!!!

I told everyone 10-15 years ago (i.d. when it wasn't too late) that exactly these things are going to happen.

All all the smart people around me agreed:

I'm a stupid idiot. I follow conspiracy theories. I'm a tinfoil hat guy. All these things are FINE and there is DEFINITELY NO PROBLEM AT ALL, everyone agreed.

So, calm down!!!!

Everything is FINE!!! ;) ;) ;)

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS
Does this also has impact on #Murena /e/OS ? (that is Android without google)

@jeroensky @Tutanota @GrapheneOS Android is a Google product - there is no "Android without Google".

@pino @Tutanota @GrapheneOS
But their is a Android without phone home activity to google: /e/OS.

@pino @jeroensky @Tutanota Android Open Source Project (AOSP) is an open source OS and alternative operating systems based on it are forks of it similarly to each Android fork made by an OEM for their devices. The terminology custom ROM is inaccurate on a technical level and propagates many misconceptions about these. These are not modifications of the stock OS on devices but rather a fork of AOSP which runs on the hardware too with firmware and typically also userspace driver code from the OEM.

@pino @jeroensky @Tutanota AOSP can be forked and developed further without Google, but currently Google are the ones doing most of the development. It would be a massive amount of work to take over developing the whole OS.

It would be far better for Android to be split away from Google into an independent company by regulators due to Google's anti-competitive and fraudulent behavior in many areas. They use their monopolies for coercive control over Android OEMs and go back on commitments.

@GrapheneOS @jeroensky @Tutanota

Ahh, sry, now I read it slowly enough... You are saying that /e/ is not even that good.

Well, yeah, might absolutely be true. Personally, I will not spend lots of efforts into migrating to another Google-based OS, though. I WOULD spend money and effort for a system that is ACTUALLY free and not depending on Google at all.

All these custom ROMs - the good ones and the worse ones - are just a cat and mouse game.

@pino @jeroensky @Tutanota AOSP is an actual open source OS and be developed without continued releases from Google. That would be an enormous amount of work and very difficult to do but it's entirely possible. It's certainly easier than starting over or trying to turn the desktop Linux software stack into a viable mobile OS with similar usability, compatibility and especially privacy/security. Desktop operating systems are extremely far behind on privacy and security, especially outside macOS.

@GrapheneOS @jeroensky @Tutanota

That will only work for some time, up to the point you've largely lost compatibility to actual recent Android versions.

But, yeah, fine for me. As soon as this fictitious OS is actually there, I'd take a look.

But I want to see that new mode of procedure actually working before I'd invest much effort. I don't believe in it at all.

@pino @jeroensky @Tutanota You're using an OS without standard privacy/security patches and protections. Even the standard Android patches and protections are far from adequate to keep users safe, especially with AI models accelerating exploit development.

Currently, your data is up for grabs by any app which wants to abuse known privacy and security vulnerabilities along with remote attacks. It isn't a theoretical problem. There are public exploits on GitHub which you don't have patched.

@GrapheneOS @pino @Tutanota
Why should mac OS be safer then Linux?
Read only OS does not mean it is safer then Linux (read/write), assuming they both uptodate. I think Open source (Linux distro) is more secure then proprietary (OSX, Windows), because with open source their are way more people who can check for and fix security issues.

@pino @jeroensky One might as well say there is no Linux desktop without Red Hat.

(News bulletin: RH has supplied most if not all of the new desktop subsystems because 1) they rejected the projects that actually innovated 2) the community wanted to choose what big business chose, which is RHEL.)

OTOH, Google has no more power to place constraints on Android forks than Red Hat has over other distros.

@pino @jeroensky Actually, RH could do a lot to stop other distros from existing and arguably have already done the same thing as Google in terms of cutting the community off from any modifications which are "only" distributed to paying RHEL customers.

I think the situation with Google is actually a lot more workable, for now. The lions' share of Google dependency is located in Play Services, which the Android-fork community has demonstrated they can replace or live without.

@tasket @jeroensky

What can RH do to hurt my Debian desktop? What modifications do they only distribute to paying RHEL customers? As soon as people get aware of that happening, for relevant stuff, it e.g. will surely make the systemd discussion pop up again - and this time they'll lose.

I have a veeery hard time being optimistic about free Android for the future. If Google wants it to be non-free, it will eventually be. And they want. They just waited for that all the time.

@tasket @jeroensky

PS: I'm not saying that I love RH. I liked them back then, but that's a long time ago.

And surely they contributed all kinds of modules that are fundamental to nowadays Linux desktops - for better or for worse.

And it will lead to some friction if RH tomorrow decides to be maximum malicious.

But it's ridiculous to compare that to Google and Android, isn't it?

@pino It ridiculous to suggest that the billions of people in the Android ecosystem aren't worth fighting for, esp. because you're riding in on your white horse offering a mishmash of completely different UIs and package formats all called "Linux".

(but, I mean, why not - APIs for Android application development aren't Linux-specific).

...yeah, whoops! The UI and API are what's more important to users, and those have already been forked by the community.

Speaking of whoops, here's a chart for you (we've been here before...)

#byelinux

@pino Interestingly, Android 17 introduces a desktop UI.

If it were included in this chart it would probably surpass Windows in another 6-12 months.

@tasket Well, you started a discussion about Linux here. I don't even get the point that you are trying to make tbh. For me it's absolutely fine if you dislike Linux. I explicitly tell people to stay where they are, all the time. I don't need the masses being on Linux at all. But again, you came up with Linux!

(I don't see a #byelinux in your chart though. Even not if it wouldn't be a silly one year time range)

@pino

As soon as people get aware of that happening, for relevant stuff, it e.g. will surely make the systemd discussion pop up again - and this time they'll lose.

Dude, the calvary isn't showing up for 0.3 million moblin users. Red Hat's dominance has withered consumer interest, and the Linux community is fine with that.

OTOH, some large phone brands (Huawei and Xiaomi) have already demonstrated in their mainline products that the Android framework can run apps successfully on non-Linux kernels (kernels that are head-and-shoulders more secure than Linux will ever be).

@tasket They run Android on non-Linux kernels? That's interesting (but, I mean, why not - APIs for Android application development aren't Linux-specific).

But how is that related to the original discussion? Sry, I don't get it.

@jeroensky @Tutanota /e/ is highly unsafe due to lack of important standard privacy/security updates and features. Murena is also heavily pushing anti-privacy propaganda including repeatedly claiming highly private and secure devices are mainly beneficial to criminals and pedophiles. It's not a legitimate privacy OS on either a technical level or the fact they're siding with highly anti-privacy policies. Don't be fooled into using it. It isn't what it claims.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS signed the petition, this is very disappointing if I wanted a locked down device I'd buy an Iphone
(edit, there's workarounds of course, google Shizuku and Universal Installer)

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS
So glad I ordered a Jolla phone expected to be shipped these days. Only not yet sure how to deal with banking and health care apps ...

@fablog @Tutanota @GrapheneOS By not using them at all. Use ATMs not banking apps, or exile them to a clunker phone used for nothing else.

Most of human history we did not have health apps and they are not at the core of modern medicine either.

@fablog @Tutanota SailfishOS is a massive downgrade for privacy and security from the Android Open Source Project or iOS. It's also giving up a lot of usability, battery life and compatibility but you're losing that while also losing a lot of privacy compared to many other options. Unlike AOSP which is open source and can be turned into projects such as GrapheneOS, SailfishOS has a largely closed source application and user interface layer. It's not possible to truly fork it due to that.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS someone tell me, what's the worst thing that could happen if I sign this?

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS why Firefox is not support KaiOS? Is a fork of the old abandoned Firefox OS with a little help from Firefox can be a good Android alternative.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS

It's already here.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS Guess they're following apple's lead... Not that I agree with either model, mind. Nor own their products.

Good call from you guys though. Let's hope it sinks in... Maybe.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS I build apps for personal use with MIT App Inventor - will these stop working?

@makerblock @Tutanota No. There will be a warning for users on the a Google Mobile Services OS if you don't do identify verification with Google via a Play Console account. There's a toggle to enable installing apps without ID verified developers which has an initial 24 hour delay for enabling it. It can be bypassed right away using ADB. If you're only using the apps personally then it makes little difference. If you're publishing apps for others, there's a scary warning without ID verification.

@Tutanota

@GrapheneOS

#DiDay #Android

My next phone will be a #Linux

@mikeb @Tutanota Android Open Source Project (AOSP) and everything based on it including GrapheneOS are Linux distributions. It's not glibc, systemd, GNU coreutils, GNOME, etc. which makes it Linux.

This warning isn't part of AOSP and has no impact on GrapheneOS. It's part of Google Play and also doesn't impact sandboxed Google Play since it's not integrated into the OS with any special privileges or as the backend for anything such as checking apps at install-time, network location, etc.

@Tutanota @GrapheneOS Government just needs to get off their asses and break up big business, and pass laws to make dam sure it dont happen again. they also need to restore freedom, privacy, law and order.