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

Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

thenewleafjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 245 posts

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#221

Post by em-bee »

soco wrote: post #206
em-bee wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

pretty much the same story for me. started 3 years ago, and got a phone for my 70 year old mother almost two years ago. she gets help to install new apps, but otherwise it works just fine for her.

How is /e/ making things easier for them? My folks are constantly puzzled by their galaxy phones: not only notifications and sudden app changes, but also touching the edges of the screen triggering unexpected things... What will another OS do better?

well, the problem here is that the general market is not targeting elder people. /e/ at least doesn't so far have any sudden app changes, because their focus and selling point is usability and and privacy, and not the latest new and shiny

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#222

Post by npteljes »

martinald wrote: post #70
COGlory wrote: post #12

I use /e/ daily as does a co-worker (we aren't working in tech). It's the one piece of alternative software that I'm comfortable recommending to anyone. It "just works" just as much as Android "just works".

But do apps like Uber, WhatsApp etc work ok on it?

Teams does for example.

SafetyNet checks fail by default, I think. As far as I understand it, you can play a cat-and-mouse game with it, but that's the best on a custom OS.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#223

Post by npteljes »

devonallie wrote: post #36

I love LineageOS and have used microG services for so long but forks like this strike me as sad as needing to assimilate to the look and feel of iOS. It comes off as cheap and unoriginal. Now this is harsh criticism I understand but I do appreciate how much effort it must have taken to make all of these app forks. I only wish the effort was spent building something more interesting.

I think they have even less amount of effort that they can spend. And all of that is spent keeping the builds up to date, the infra up to date and working, and other low level things like that. I wish they get enough resources to employ more people to increase efforts on QA, UX and other such things.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#224

Post by npteljes »

stkdump wrote: post #167
opan wrote: post #96

I'll never use a custom ROM that includes microg by default. LineageOS with no gapps of any kind is my preference. I can get apps from f-droid or even aurora store, and everything I need works. I don't want any google stuff on there, not even a slightly less sketchy version.

I might be misunderstanding it, but microg is not (like the name suggests) a stripped down version of the google services. It is a reimplementation of the APIs that the google services provide to installed apps. It doesn't reuse any code (it couldn't, because the google services are not open source) and doesn't connect to google servers, afaik.

As per their motto, MicroG is "A free-as-in-freedom re-implementation of Google’s proprietary Android user space apps and libraries". They absolutely do connect to Google services, just not with the proprietary Google implementation of the softwares, but with a reimplementation. I think this is very similar to NewPipe for example. Google's proprietary services, with an open source frontend.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#225

Post by _rdvw »

josephcsible wrote: post #181
_rdvw wrote: post #171

I'm biased as a maintainer of my own OS, but there are severe issues with /e/OS: https://divestos.org/misc/e.txt And it is honestly sad to see, because they could be a real viable option and instead choose to largely ignore or hand-wave away these issues.

> - Enables Safetynet checks by default which downloads and executes obfuscated proprietary code from Google > - Includes proprietary Google Widevine DRM on nearly all devices While proprietary code, obfuscation, and DRM are all evil, if /e/OS didn't support these things, then a lot of very popular apps wouldn't work on it, which would make it a lot less viable as a platform. Refusing to do those things wouldn't resu…

My gripe is more so the outdated/insecure browser/webview, PDF viewer, and Tor daemon.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#226

Post by _rdvw »

npteljes wrote: post #209
_rdvw wrote: post #171

I'm biased as a maintainer of my own OS, but there are severe issues with /e/OS: https://divestos.org/misc/e.txt And it is honestly sad to see, because they could be a real viable option and instead choose to largely ignore or hand-wave away these issues.

Very good list. As a daily user of /e/, I can attest to most of the concerns, which I agree are valid. Advanced Privacy is a major WTF. Using TOR without mentioning it is strange. And so is their all-or-nothing location faker tool. Sounded nice until I wanted to use a navigation app, which too got my fake location. Then I had to disable the faking, making my location available to all applications - quite a headscratc…

Devices marked tested working are ones I have myself. But all devices receive the same monthly updates. If you're buying a device I recommend a Pixel 6/6a with GrapheneOS instead however.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#227

Post by derkades »

butterNaN wrote: post #65
chomp wrote: post #3

From /e/'s site, de-googling (because the review didn't go in depth on this): - To remove or disable any feature or code that is sending data to Google servers, or at least to anonymize those accesses - To offer non-Google default online services, including for search. - the Google default search engine is removed and replaced by other services - Google Services are replaced by microG and alternative services - All G…

I wonder why these FOSS-y projects don't bundle Firefox for Mobile with them. It is a far superior experience with Add-Ons. In fact, I don't even use most apps anymore, most websites' web versions are more than adequate nowadays. In fact at least in one instance viz. Duolingo, the web experience is far superior than the app.

I agree that Firefox is great, and addon support is one of the reasons why it is my browser of choice. However, chromium is faster and more secure.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#228

Post by unethical_ban »

Bud wrote: post #183
unethical_ban wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I welcome you to defend why it's embarrassing.

It's embarrassing, a priori. There's so much here that is embarrassing that we'd have to have about five beers to even cover it on a surface level. So much that was just lazily copied verbatim rather than anyone TRYING to do something original, or even do just a slight, semi-creative variation.

Copying good design on a volunteer project is not shameful. We disagree.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#229

Post by _rdvw »

npteljes wrote: post #219
2-718-281-828 wrote: post #119

I have been using LOS since 17.1 on OP3T and OP6. How would my experience with /e/ differ?

It has some preinstalls that make onboarding more straightforward (and opinionated of course). These include MicroG (takes care of some Google services dependencies, should some apps need it), an App store which fronts Google Play, a navigation app. Updates are possible from within the system. With their Advanced Privacy app, you can block trackers in apps (TrackerControl fork I believe), fake your device location, o…

Advanced Privacy is at its core original, with the exception being TorService from Orbot and the basic of the blocker from personalDNSFilter.

Developed on grant from NGI: https://ledgerproject.github.io/home/#/teams/e

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#230

Post by oakpond »

rgmerk wrote: post #190
josephcsible wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws against custom engine firmware and knives are unjust themselves, so they shouldn't be used to justify other things.

I hate to have to make this argument, but here goes... ...where do you draw the line? An M240 machine gun? A Stinger missile? A PFOS factory? A Special Atomic Demolition Munition? We regulate private possession of dangerous items all the time, and pretty much everybody draws the line somewhere despite vigorous dispute where that line should be drawn in specific cases.

What about pre-installed spyware tracking you? Where do you draw the line there?

Did you know that, for example, Roborock stock firmware sends your wi-fi password to Xiaomi? [1]

Does that make you feel secure? Where are the calls for regulation on this?

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhyM-bhzFsI&t=586

Post reply on HN