121–130 of 467 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not run Android directly, such as using Graphene OS. It's decades ahead in both OS architecture, developer tools, and developers compared to non Android based Linux operating systems.
Graphene uses the Google codebase, so Google is choosing its long-term development strategy and standards it will support. It's like choosing Chromium to escape Chrome.
You can tell it's truly secure and private because the Cellebrite leak says they can't break it (one of very few!) and some governments assume you're a drug dealer if you use it. My next phone will run GrapheneOS.
Have a link to the source? And have they said they can’t break it, or haven’t yet? I’d imagine from a business perspective it would hardly be worth it
https://www.androidauthority.com/cellebrite-leak-google-pixe...
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2025/10/leaker-reveals-which...
https://tbot.substack.com/p/grapheneos-new-oem-partnership > GrapheneOS has officially confirmed a major new hardware partnership—one that marks the end of its long-standing Pixel exclusivity. According to the team, work with a major Android OEM began in June and is now moving toward the development of a next-generation smartphone built to meet GrapheneOS’ strict privacy and security standards.
This is excellent news. Google doesn't sell Pixels in my country for some reason. Hopefully the new phones will be easier to obtain.
Hoping this helps you get your hands on a cheap Pixel!
https://tbot.substack.com/p/grapheneos-new-oem-partnership > GrapheneOS has officially confirmed a major new hardware partnership—one that marks the end of its long-standing Pixel exclusivity. According to the team, work with a major Android OEM began in June and is now moving toward the development of a next-generation smartphone built to meet GrapheneOS’ strict privacy and security standards.
Graphene has really caught my eye in the last several months, but unfortunately I couldn't find a good deal for Pixel phones (>128GB storage), used or new. That's the biggest bottleneck for adoption it seems. I just finally switched from an S10E to a S25Ultra (black friday deal brought down to $820), but not being able to use Graphene in the future hurts a bit for sure.
Goodness, friend, where were you looking? A used 256GB Pixel 8 in good condition is $320. https://swappa.com/listings/google-pixel-8?carrier=unlocked&...
> may i ask how you obtain the source? Are you registered as an OEM at Google? Same question, how does Graphene get patches?
They have partnership an OEM who provides them with sources. Currently they're only permitted to release binaries of the patches due to the embargo, this is why these patches are in the parallel stream/optional (so people unhappy with being unable to see the sources won't have them shoved down their throats). I don't have URLs at hand at the moment but all these questions have been asked many times and explained exte…
Well that's untrue. I'd even venture to say that with how many OEMs there are it's insane how safe Android is. Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6, they can't control OEMs who might have ~10 people working on their devices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm
That comparison shows "Deblobbed? Yes" for GrapheneOS. That implies they've replaced (most of) the blobs for wifi, bluetooth, 5g chips etc. Is that actually true? It's such a big deal, and I see little to no work being done on this front. Anyone have any idea what GrapheneOS actually deblobbed?
will other phones be supported? why only pixel?
Understaffed gift product wants 1 week cycles. OEMs want 2-4 month cycles. This is a perfect representation of the state of the software industry.
I don't think that's a fair comparison. OEMs have quite a lot of extra steps before releasing any build to the public. They have to pass xTS, the set of test suites required before getting certified by Google, possibly carrier certification, regulatory requirements and more depending on where the build will be released. There are "quicker" release channels for security fixes, but I don't think it's common for OEMs to…
Fair?
> OEMs have quite a lot of extra steps before releasing any build to the public.
AIUI updates are less stringent and burdensome than initial certification. Regardless much of the process is automated. Graphene has CI too. 3PL's taking 4 weeks to run automated tests is also absurd. There are some "manual steps" to run CTS-V but they shouldn't be weeks level burdensome either. This is the point, this is an industry problem.
The reason that the OEMs even have to deal with this 3PL test mess is for GMS certification, so again this is a policy decision that enforces a poor process. The bad properties of the process are not inherent to the problem space of validating builds against requirements. An industry problem.
> There are "quicker" release channels for security fixes, but I don't think it's common for OEMs to only ship those without any other change to the system.
Seems like a decision that is not user-centric.
> I don't think Graphene does anything of sort, they take what's already certified in the Pixel builds and uses it. Not like they could do much aside testing on the public part of xTS.
Private test suites for software are a toxic idea, it's in the same box as "SSO tax", and other such "pay for security" models. Given the software industry can't be trusted not to do this, I'm almost keen to see legislation to explicitly ban this practice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Graphene uses the Google codebase, so Google is choosing its long-term development strategy and standards it will support. It's like choosing Chromium to escape Chrome.
Not the worst choices!