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

Keep Android Open

keepandroidopen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

861–870 of 907 posts

Re: Keep Android Open

#861

Post by Andromxda »

NoGravitas wrote: post #722
kevincox wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GrapheneOS is in some ways not an open OS. The official builds don't provide root access. So for example apps are able to hold your data hostage from you. I get that this is in the name of security hardening. And you can make a build that has limited root access and is officially supported. But GrapheneOS isn't the end-all solution to computing freedom. Although hopefully on those devices you will be able to install…

GrapheneOS is all about security, not privacy or freedom. You coincidentally get privacy and freedom benefits, but only where they don't conflict with security.

That's untrue. The main focus of GrapheneOS has always been privacy. This level of privacy is enabled through good security. GrapheneOS goes above and beyond in regards to privacy. No other custom Android OS hosts its own time server, proxies for PSDS and SUPL, captive portal, Wi-Fi positioning proxy, Widevine provisioning proxy, etc.

GrapheneOS doesn't make any connections to Google or Qualcomm by default, unlike all the other other Android-based systems. https://grapheneos.org/faq#default-connections

See https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

As previously mentioned, GrapheneOS hosts a proxy for the Qualcomm SUPL service. In addition, it removes unique device identifiers from the requests, that would normally be present.

GrapheneOS supports the Pixel tool for provisioning eSIMs, but it's fully sandboxed and doesn't share any data with Google.

Re: Keep Android Open

#862

Post by MarsIronPI »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #798
MarsIronPI wrote: post #729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, how do you plan on taking calls? Will you notice an incoming call even though your tablet is in the bag? (Asking because this idea sounds appealing to me as well.)

As is typical on Linux, lots of duct tape. Probably starting with https://github.com/dscripka/openWakeWord and speaking to https://github.com/rafael2k/ofono , then hacking from there.

Will you be able to notice when you receive a call? The only way that I can think of off the top of my head would be to make it ring out loud, which is more disruptive than a phone in-pocket set to vibrate.

Re: Keep Android Open

#863

Post by Andromxda »

edm0nd wrote: post #565
codedokode wrote: post #29

Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models. The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writabl…

fyi you can buy refurb'd pixel 7's off eBay for like ~$170 great for playing around with or if you want to install something like GrapheneOS.

The Pixel 8 and 8a aren't that expensive either. And keep in mind that they are supported until 2030 and 2031 respectively. [1] They not only receive security updates for 7 years, instead of the 5 years for previous Pixel generations, but also have stronger hardware security, by implementing the ARM memory tagging extension. [2]

[1] https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-lifetime

[2] https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices

Re: Keep Android Open

#864

Post by Andromxda »

codedokode wrote: post #786
gf000 wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get a new Pixel 8 for ~500$, I would say that has a very decent price to value, and will be supported for longer.

It's hard to find. Pixel 8 costs $670 here, and the cheapest Pixel is 9a for $470. At this price, it is overpriced. Pixel 8 has 8 GB RAM, Samsung A16 with 8 GB costs just $230. It's almost 3 times cheaper. And Samsung supports 2 SIM cards, unlike Pixel, so you can have, for example, one SIM for Internet and another for calls.

Used or refurbished devices are typically much cheaper. It's what I would recommend.

You can also use 2 SIMs on a Pixel by using an eSIM.

Re: Keep Android Open

#865

Post by Andromxda »

andrepd wrote: post #260
codedokode wrote: post #29

Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models. The solution, I think, would be a regulation that forbids manufacturers of any chip or device CPU from making obstacles to reprogramming the device (using fuses, digital signatures, encryption etc). So if you buy a device with CPU and writabl…

> Before buying a smartphone I tried to find an inexpensive model that supports open source OS, but I couldn't. What open OS support is ether expensive Pixels, or outdated models. You can buy a refurbished Pixel 5 for less than 200$. Great screen, great camera, 5G, the works. It's definitely not an "outdated" device, and it runs Graphene or Lineage with minimal hassle.

The Pixel 5 isn't supported anymore. The Pixel 6a still has a little less than 2 years of support left. These have become pretty cheap.

The Pixel 8 and 8a aren't that expensive either. And keep in mind that they are supported until 2030 and 2031 respectively. [1] They not only receive security updates for 7 years, instead of the 5 years for previous Pixel generations, but also have stronger hardware security, by implementing the ARM memory tagging extension. [2]

[1] https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-lifetime

[2] https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices

Re: Keep Android Open

#866

Post by angiolillo »

hajile wrote: post #835
angiolillo wrote: post #814

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Web standards have progressed but your other points would still apply. Does there exist a company or project that has the resources to develop a smartphone with better performance, UI, and cost than Android or iOS devices? Microsoft couldn't pull it off, and I am skeptical that Meta would have been able to. I can imagine an alternative smartphone carving out a niche audience like older users, FLOSS enthusiasts, digit…

Nobody was wanting to pay for and deal with the Microsoft lock in. A new web-centric OS could fix those issues by doing a few things to reduce friction. First, use an Android-compatible kernel version so drivers are easy to port. This gets manufacturers on board. Second, make your App Store a non-profit that charges enough for ongoing store development and distribution. This gets devs on board. Third, make sure you h…

Developers are typically motivated by net revenue which is more dependent on audience size than fees. That is, if you sell an app for $1, would you prefer to earn $0.70 on a million downloads or $0.99 on a thousand? (With the former you can buy a house, with the latter you can buy a laptop.)

And as you've pointed out, implementing support for third party frameworks and funding improvements to webGPU, wasm, etc is expensive. Even recreating the webOS UI would be a considerable undertaking.

> The biggest issue as you said is financing.

Exactly. I agree that it is technically feasible, my point is that it is economically challenging. Not impossible, just extremely unlikely.

> The best bet here would be replacing something like Tizen where a corporation is already investing.

It looks like the last Tizen phone was released eight years ago and the Tizen app store shut down four years ago. Like webOS, it lives on as an OS for TVs, but I am skeptical it can rebuild enough momentum to challenge Android or iOS.

Re: Keep Android Open

#867

Post by dns_snek »

davisr wrote: post #856
dns_snek wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the motivation of FOSS just fine, majority of my published side projects are AGPL licensed. I'm also glad that you found a niche selling FOSS software and wish you best of luck, I really do, but your comment doesn't make a lot of sense in terms of economic principles. > If someone wants to make themselves my distributor, they /should/ get paid for that. I have to admit you're the first person I've ever t…

> I have to admit you're the first person I've ever talked to who would be happy to let others commercially exploit the fruits of their labor without any sort of compensation, while actively trying to make a living from that labor yourself, fascinating! What's fascinating is that you just described every employee, ever. At this point, I'm giving up on you. Consumers are price sensitive? Please, they buy Funko Pops an…

> What's fascinating is that you just described every employee, ever

Really, employees do work "without any sort of compensation"? Are you even listening to yourself?

Stop projecting, if you don't want your arguments to be scrutinized then don't engage in debate.

Re: Keep Android Open

#868

Post by CuriouslyC »

MarsIronPI wrote: post #862
CuriouslyC wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As is typical on Linux, lots of duct tape. Probably starting with https://github.com/dscripka/openWakeWord and speaking to https://github.com/rafael2k/ofono , then hacking from there.

Will you be able to notice when you receive a call? The only way that I can think of off the top of my head would be to make it ring out loud, which is more disruptive than a phone in-pocket set to vibrate.

My thought was a tone in buds (if they're in my ears) or just vibrate/straight to message otherwise, but I'm sure I'll be doing a lot of tinkering.

Re: Keep Android Open

#869

Post by hajile »

overfeed wrote: post #850
hajile wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody was wanting to pay for and deal with the Microsoft lock in. A new web-centric OS could fix those issues by doing a few things to reduce friction. First, use an Android-compatible kernel version so drivers are easy to port. This gets manufacturers on board. Second, make your App Store a non-profit that charges enough for ongoing store development and distribution. This gets devs on board. Third, make sure you h…

> Second, make your App Store a non-profit that charges enough for ongoing store development and distribution. This gets devs on board You're hilariously underestimating the difficulty of getting the dev/user flywheel started: developers go where users are, and users won't adopt a platform without the apps they need. Microsoft was literally paying devs for submitting apps, and they mostly got variants of Flashlight a…

I didn’t say it was easy, but what I listed are to me the best ways to reduce as much friction as possible.

AsI recall, Microsoft wanted devs using their proprietary silverlight and c# which required a complete rewrite from iOS or Android. Allowing existing apps to bundle their preferred Android runtime is a lot closer to something like containers or flatpak and is a proven way to reduce developer friction. Ironically, such an app running in wasm would be supported indefinitely while Android apps on Android eventually lose support.

Re: Keep Android Open

#870

Post by immibis »

bayindirh wrote: post #433
state_less wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I booted Slackware from a pile of floppies back then. I thought the Germans had a pretty good offering with SuSE at the time. Look I get it, even back then, most folks felt Windows was the obvious choice (and still do) for their jobs and so on. Sometimes you have to make do with with the unappealing choice in front of you. For a little more context, my cracked screen iPhone can still do banking or whatever, but I cho…

Slackware always brings out the inner teen in me. I feel giddy like in the old days. I need to install and maintain it somewhere some time, just for kicks. I support FOSS wholeheartedly, and believe that it's possible to have a device which is completely Free (not Open but, Free) from hardware design to firmware and software. On the other hand, there are some nasty realities which bring hard questions. For example, r…

Luckily not everyone agrees with Richard Stallman's hard-line take on proprietary chips.

IMO, if the radio chip just acts as a radio, and passes packets as requested, and any needed firmware blobs are freely distributable, it's fine. It's not ideal, but it's good enough to make a libre-phone.

We all know the network is spying on us anyway, and the radio should be treated as being part of the network, on the other side of the security boundary from the main processor - and since we don't trust it, we don't have to demand that it helps us verify our trust in it!

Post reply on HN