Live data from Hacker News

/e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

e.foundation

321–330 of 415 posts

Re: /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

#321

Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. Look at the AdBlocker crackdown of Google Chrome. Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it, because it is impossible to maintain features that complex on a browser that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Same story for /e/ and…

"Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable."

Not sure about the first claim but the second is obvious. Yet peculiarly ignored

The OS literally comes from Google. As such, the term "de-Googled" is quite strange. Another recent HN front page item about the other project mentioned recently used the phrase "break free from Google" and currently only runs on Google hardware

AFAICT, the most significant issue with Android is "phoning home". Unwanted data transfer to third party. This is embedded in the OS. Google is the third party. Google operates as if it should be trusted as if it was a first party (why)

IMO, a user-friendly (cf. user-hostile) mobile OS would be one that does not phone home. But at times it seems like these projects are OK with the idea of phoning home to third party, as long as it isn't Google

Users will never have a mobile OS that does everything Android does, with the same polish, that isn't attached to a trillion dollar corporation. That "goal" results in projects where the majority of the Google-sourced code is unchanged instead of user-controlled source code

It isn't _that_ difficult to stop Android, i.e., system, pre-installed and user-installed "apps", from successfully phoning home (cf. trying to phone home) over WiFi. For example, this can be done by changing gateway and DNS settings. If the user installs an app that can forward ports nd use the the built-in VPN support, successfully phoning home over cellular data can be stopped, too

But a corporate-sourced OS like Android can change at any time for any reason. It changes often. Users have no control

I see some HN comments are starting to acknowledge the idea that control can be more important than performance. IMO, it can also be more important than "features"

Only if a user can embrace this idea can he begin to truly "break free" from the trillion dollar surveillance advertising company. Otherwise, sacrificing control for "performance", "features", etc., will always leave the user tethered to the company

With the corportate-sourced OS users have no control over performance, features, etc. anyway. The corporation controls them

Until there is a user-controlled, open source mobile OS like other form factors (HN commenters often claim this is not going to happen for good reasons), then, IMHO, "mobile" sucks

Generally, we all have to use mobile, as least for some purposes, e.g., it's replaced residential landlines, paper maps, and so on. But none of this means it is a good choice for for so-called "general purpose computing". It's not a computer the user can control

Re: /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

#322
MicroG does an excellent job at reimplementating most of Google's proprietary APIs on the client side.

I don't know how feasible this is, but it would be cool if there were open-source drop-in replacements for Google's server-sided APIs that app developers could use to replace Google's services with alternate servers running open source software.

Re: /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

#324
https://e.foundation/legal-notice-privacy/

Read this. They still collect much of the same data Google does. Why should I trust them over Google? And even if they might be morally better, it's basically impossible for them to have better security than Google.

If I were to want a Google-free phone, I'd want it to be everyone-free. Not replacing Google with some French corporation (even if it's non-profit).

Re: /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

#325
post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This account has three comments on HN, all of them essentially the same type of /e/OS advocacy pablum. "I wanted to add a perspective from an LLM sockpuppet, because I know you're all not deeply cynical and mistrustful yet."

My account has more comments than that and I share OC's opinion and experience. I've been daily driving /e/ since its FP3 era and lately the experience has been really well polished. Even things that had been "tricky" in the past, like Android auto integration, now work seamlessly.

So FP3 is shipped with the /e/ or you need to install it manually?

Re: /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

#326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(GNU/)Linux on mobile is the true sustanable, independent OS. It relies on the existing, strong Linux development, natively runs existing Linux apps and guarantees you lifetime updates. What else do you need? Sent from my Librem 5.

>fsflover Username checks out (I kid, I'm also a fan of their work). Also, if you're using PureOS, what's that like? Have they updated to a debian 13 base yet? Pretty much the only thing stopping me from at least trying it out is the super old version of GNOME

I configured my user to run Cinnamon as desktop which works ok'ish.

I am not a great fan of the GNOME desktop, though.

Re: /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

#327

The irony of advertising a privacy-enabled de-googled system, and then telling me that my Firefox browser is not support, and that I should use Edge, Opera or Chrome instead.... Browsing: https://e.foundation/installer/ Reply: https://imgur.com/a/al1Q9DM

This is related to Firefox unwilling to add support for WebUSB because, I suppose, they believe that a browser is not a general purpose application launcher and the scope of what it can do should be limited. As such, it should not be allowed to e.g. control peripherals like the USB devices. Which is in my opinion a fairly reasonable take. But given the current situation, I would assume that the companies providing We…

WebUSB Indeed sounds like madness

Re: /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

#328
post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda dont see how both of you cant be right. We need a mobile OS that google isnt involved in. Why not use pure open source android to do it. It can only be cheaper than making it from scratch, since it has alot of work already done on it

AOSP has so few of the features a full phone needs today. Google has moved too much of the Phone OS into "Google Play Services". This is already the Extend phase of the classic "embrace, extend, extinguish". Given how the next most popular AOSP implementation, Amazon's Kindle Fire isn't even trying to compete in the phone space and involves an equally large company throwing nearly as much money into an "also ran" alt…

There's not actually much in Play Services. The biggest losses are fused location providers and notification services which you would consider core to the OS. Maps are a loss, but these are very clearly Google branded.

Huawei provides HMS for example, a somewhat close feature wise set of APIs for their phones that are still on Android. They can even shim play services API, the same way microg does. If anything, what would be needed would be a common abstraction library with different backends to not depend directly on play services

The reason amazon and Microsoft gave up is because they had no commitment, and that operating these services is just pure loss.

Yes, the default apps in AOSP suck. Making a proper dialer is a two day job, so is a contacts app. Android's core APIs are good enough, and privileged permissions are only privileged by the manufacturer, and its IPC mechanisms are very well documented. Noone does it because it sucks, it's a thankless job and nobody's going to install your dialer. The very fact that each manufacturer has their own custom software is demonstration of how easy it is.

Re: /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

#329

Tweaking user-hostile OSes into user-friendly ones is impressive, but not sustainable. Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. Look at the AdBlocker crackdown of Google Chrome. Every single chrome-fork has shut down MV2 extensions, even Brave is about to do it, because it is impossible to maintain features that complex on a browser that Google spends >$1B/year to develop. Same story for /e/ and…

Helium still allows MV2

Re: /e/OS is a complete, fully “deGoogled” mobile ecosystem

#330
post #2

There's absolutely no reason to use /e/ when GrapheneOS exists. https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm

As someone who switched from FP4 with /e/OS to GrapheneOS - absolutely not true. My reason for switching was a bug where the phone calls didn't display the caller number. So I switched to GOS in hope it would be better... and it is, but not in all areas. For example their insistence on not supporting MicroG leads to poor UX, because let's face it, you can't trust Google services, even sandboxed, to not syphon tons of…

I am not a project member so I cannot speak for GrapheneOS, but maybe I can help clear up some misunderstandings.

>insistence on not supporting MicroG leads to poor UX,

The problem they are trying to solve is apps not working without the presence of Google Mobile Services or Google Play. They don't want to compromise by having a component with high privileges integrated in their image that involves security issues like signature spoofing.

MicroG will send less data to Google partly because it is simply an incomplete implementation of the features offered by GMS (sanboxed-google-play appp compatibility is quite a bit higher), partly because the access is more granular or there are choices offered for services like location (GrapheneOS provides non-Google location services and community support on only installing and enabling the parts you need for specific app features to work). UX is not adversely affected, but if you want to use a privileged app bypassing security checks and sending data to Google anyway then you have the freedom to compile microG with it integrated if you would like.

>They also seem to be very opinionated about (not) using a firewall for privacy, like NetGuard, instead recommending some weird alternatives like DNS firewalls

GrapheneOS tries to implement or end encourage sustainable approaches to privacy and security, and this partially means approaches that don't break if the adversary knows what you are doing.

Egress/outbound traffic filtering is fundamentally unworkable. Apps do not have to connect to known privacy a invasive third party domains to violate your privacy or expose your data to extra parties, they can simply send anything they want to their own servers and do anything they like with the data. From my understanding this is why GrapheneOS do not want to encourage the approach of blocking apps from connecting to certain domains/addresses.

Instead they tackle the problem at its source by providing a direct AND indirect network access toggle which cuts off an apps access to the outernet without letting the app know (pretends the network is down). This makes it non trivial for apps to exfiltrate data and as a side effect can provide benefits like data conservation (for capped plans).

>instead recommending some weird alternatives like DNS firewalls.

DNS based solutions are offered (not promoted) if you want more control over your DNS query resolvers or you want to improve your quality of experience by blocking advertisements and malvertising domains.

>they (heavily) prioritize security over privacy.

Can you point out another OS project with real privacy features like a network permission, sensors data access permission, contact access scopes, storage access scopes, per connection MAC randomisation and so on? https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm They have even more plans for privacy like location scopes, anti-fingerprinting for Vanadium browser and maybe AnonymisedDNSCrypt/Oblivious DNS and probably more they haven't mentioned. If you suggest some more on their issue tracker they may get back to it when they have the resources.

Post reply on HN