Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

e.foundation

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 137 posts

Re: E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

#31

Post by thinkloop »

fooqux wrote: post #24
thinkloop wrote: post #12

Why do we have to give access to our entire hard-drive to share one file once? How is it legal for someone else to give away your phone number, your addresses for the last 30 years, your email addresses, and the rest of your personal contact information, along with all the contact information of everyone else they ever met to any app they like? Why can apps run your mic and camera 24 hours a day in the background bec…

Because J Random Grandma just wants to share photos of her grandkids or whatever and doesn't understand all this "computer nonsense". I agree that security needs to be rethought, but putting more moats / popups in the way is not going to work. We already learned that from the past- it doesn't matter how many warnings you put in a web browser, those that are uneducated are still going to mash the install button to get…

Good point but one additional advantage on mobile is the app stores. Currently apps are (supposed to be) rejected if they ask for more permission than their app requires. The problem is that the permissions themselves are too broad. If permissions were divided between regular permissions and super permissions where the latter were flagged for extra approval time and care in approval, it seems like you could have a scalable system vetting the handful of apps that risk asking for them.

Additionally it seems like you could design proper super warnings that get adhered to. Do you know of any interesting examples of really severe/gated warnings that are consistently ignored? If you try to visit a website with a bad certificate, for example, it's almost impossible to get to it.

Re: E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

#32

Post by ignoramous »

phh wrote: post #25
swiley wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was the conclusion I came to after using android 4-5 for a while. Android is not designed for the community to be hacking on it. While these projects occasionally appear they don't last because of the incredible amount of work required to maintain them. You're much better off finding a normal Linux distro/phone pair that can make phone calls etc.

Nowadays I single-handledly (well almost, I do have some contributors, thanks to them) maintain a pure unmodified Android that works on hundreds (probably thousands) of different devices. It has become a lot easier thanks to Project Treble.

Hi phh,

Doesn't the DRM stop working once the bootloader is unlocked? That'd be a big concern since most streaming apps would refuse to install or work in that case.

What other such changes is Google pushing into Android that discourages unlocking the bootloader / rooting?

Re: E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

#33

Post by ignoramous »

vinay427 wrote: post #23

I looked at /e/ extensively before buying a new phone and ultimately settled on GrapheneOS. I'd much prefer the de-Googling to be combined with a focus on security, where Google has admittedly done some important work for Android. I'm sure it's not quite as functional as /e/ given the lack of integrated Google services and other bits and pieces, but a surprising number of apps work perfectly without these things and…

https://calyxos.org/ is another promising Android fork similar in ideals to https://grapheneos.org/

Re: E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

#35

Post by rst »

phh wrote: post #30
izacus wrote: post #13

One of the things that feels a bit problematic here - the webpage is avoiding mention of the fact that this is still Android. In essence, this is still Google's OS and the team has decided to start a fight against Google by taking their opensource and perpetually fight against the main developer by removing their proprietary component. I don't think this is a fight that's sustainable - a giant graveyard of Android pr…

I don't think the graveyard of Android privacy forks is that big? All I can think of is CopperheadOS which died because it was company-backed. You could argue CyanogenMod died, though really it's still well alive in LineageOS. (and CyanogenMod wasn't really privacy-focused) I have a very high respect for all the work that's been done on the various GNU/Linux mobile distributions, but it's still so far away from Andro…

The original developer of CopperheadOS is continuing the work as GrapheneOS, after a split with his former business partner, over dilutions of the privacy guarantees, among other things. https://grapheneos.org/

Re: E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

#36

Post by phh »

ignoramous wrote: post #32
phh wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowadays I single-handledly (well almost, I do have some contributors, thanks to them) maintain a pure unmodified Android that works on hundreds (probably thousands) of different devices. It has become a lot easier thanks to Project Treble.

Hi phh, Doesn't the DRM stop working once the bootloader is unlocked? That'd be a big concern since most streaming apps would refuse to install or work in that case. What other such changes is Google pushing into Android that discourages unlocking the bootloader / rooting?

That's a globally incoherent mess, I'll try to summarize, but the TL;DR is that depending on the device and on the streaming service, it ranges from "it'll just work after bootloader unlock" to "nope, there is no way to get it to work", with an intermediate of "shitload of hacks are required".

So first point about the DRM itself: - Google here is "benevolent". Devices are allowed to keep working Widevine L1 working after bootloader unlock (without needing relock), and it does work just fine on Pixels. - Some devices clears their key after bootloader unlock, so unlocking means you'll never get Widevine L1 - Some devices have the key tied to being locked, to relocking will work - Some devices doesn't have restrictions, but have poorly written drivers that need to be hacked around to allow to work on unlocked bootloader

And then, there is the extra issue of what streaming apps decide to give you. For instance Netflix will not use Widevine L1 even if it works unless your device is whitelisted. So if you flash a "simple" alternative ROM on a Pixel 5, you still would get only 480p. The ROM needs to lie, and tell it is the original Pixel's ROM. (Also Netflix won't be listed from PlayStore unless the ROM lies and says the app that yes the bootloader is locked)

In my opinion, the biggest vendor lock-in about bootloader unlocking is that you'll loose all your data when unlocking, with no way to properly backup your data on stock ROM.

Re: E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

#37

Post by veridies »

aspyct wrote: post #5
ForHackernews wrote: post #2

I've been using /e/ as my primary smartphone for a couple months now. It's certainly usable: The experience is more pleasant and integrated than stock LineageOS + MicroG, but there's still quite a few rough edges. I hope they can make a go of it, but I think it'll take adoption by a deep-pocketed sponsor (Samsung? Huawei? The German government?) before it would be polished enough to be a real contender for non-techni…

Care to elaborate on the "rough edges"? Is it a reliable day to day phone?

I have been using it for I think over a year now as my only phone, on a Samsung Galaxy S9+. It's honestly not much different from Android (although a little out of date), and the only real issue I have is that installing software is a little inconvenient. (The built in app store doesn't work reliably.)

Re: E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

#38

Post by vdddv »

izacus wrote: post #13

One of the things that feels a bit problematic here - the webpage is avoiding mention of the fact that this is still Android. In essence, this is still Google's OS and the team has decided to start a fight against Google by taking their opensource and perpetually fight against the main developer by removing their proprietary component. I don't think this is a fight that's sustainable - a giant graveyard of Android pr…

"Since our OS runs on a totally deGoogled Android" Was that added to their site after you wrote your comment?

Re: E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

#39

Post by pas »

vdddv wrote: post #38
izacus wrote: post #13

One of the things that feels a bit problematic here - the webpage is avoiding mention of the fact that this is still Android. In essence, this is still Google's OS and the team has decided to start a fight against Google by taking their opensource and perpetually fight against the main developer by removing their proprietary component. I don't think this is a fight that's sustainable - a giant graveyard of Android pr…

"Since our OS runs on a totally deGoogled Android" Was that added to their site after you wrote your comment?

izacus' comment is exactly about that. That keeping it deGoogled is a constant uphill battle, and it sounds good in theory, but as previous forks show - according to izacus - it's eventually a losing strategy.

Re: E Foundation – deGoogled unGoogled smartphone OS and online services

#40

Post by kochthesecond »

thinkloop wrote: post #12

Why do we have to give access to our entire hard-drive to share one file once? How is it legal for someone else to give away your phone number, your addresses for the last 30 years, your email addresses, and the rest of your personal contact information, along with all the contact information of everyone else they ever met to any app they like? Why can apps run your mic and camera 24 hours a day in the background bec…

This is sort of how iOS works(worked?). To share a photo, you had to go find the photo you want to share, then pass that photo explicitly to the app/context you wanted to share it. So a model where you push the content you want into the share app, the app itself was unable to request (pull) data.
Post reply on HN