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

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

e.foundation

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 415 posts

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

#341

Post by greentea23 »

przmk wrote: post #7
preisschild wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And even if GOS doesn't support your device (due to minimum security requirements) why not use upstream LineageOS?

Because upstream LineageOS doesn't support microg out of the box. You can install it but it needs signature spoofing to pass Google's SafetyNet garbage. Bonus point for some roms that allow you to relock the bootloader after the install (iodéOS, CalyxOS).

There is a version that makes only the changes to include microg, has OTA updates too: https://lineage.microg.org/

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

#342

Post by mixmastamyk »

em-bee wrote: post #218
jdcaron wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as banking works with web browsers, I think the future looks good for this usage, but I could de-bank my phone and still have plenty of useful things to do with it.

the problem in my case is that the authentication for the banks website requires an app, and that app doesn't work. i am locked out of online banking for that bank because of it. (they also have a windows app that i could not yet get to work on linux/wine)

Find a new bank. Mine has another problem, so behind they don't support mfa beyond a symantec program I've not heard of before. I don't use it, but can't use my yubikeys either.

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

#343

Post by AuthAuth »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #340
dbdr wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Linux's default security mechanisms are simply too weak for something as potentially hostile as a mobile device. Honest question: why are mobile devices more hostile than laptops/desktops?

They aren't, unless you want to run untrusted apps outside of a distribution. Flatpak sandboxing is a thing however, and probably good enough in the meantime.

Flatpak sandboxing is not good and development is very slow.

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

#344

Post by ktm5j »

littlestymaar wrote: post #307
tremon wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google pulls the plug ? cool, you're stuck on Android 17 And you're stuck on the current hardware generation. Pretty much the only reason why Android sucks less than other mobile OSes is that hardware vendors have a pressing reason to make it work. The further the Google Android kernel diverges from its last-open version, the harder it will become to backport drivers -- and that's assuming that hardware vendors eve…

> The further the Google Android kernel diverges from its last-open version Can it even diverge though? The kernel code is GPL so I don't think Google can close it down even if they wanted.

Yes it definitely can diverge while still staying open source. Happens in the Linux kernel for example whenever the ABI changes.

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

#345

Post by mixmastamyk »

AuthAuth wrote: post #343
mixmastamyk wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't, unless you want to run untrusted apps outside of a distribution. Flatpak sandboxing is a thing however, and probably good enough in the meantime.

Flatpak sandboxing is not good and development is very slow.

It's good enough for people running trustworthy apps. Certainly, no worse than your PC. Also we don't need flatpak to be developed quickly.

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

#346

Post by nine_k »

barbazoo wrote: post #303
tremon wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Google pulls the plug ? cool, you're stuck on Android 17 And you're stuck on the current hardware generation. Pretty much the only reason why Android sucks less than other mobile OSes is that hardware vendors have a pressing reason to make it work. The further the Google Android kernel diverges from its last-open version, the harder it will become to backport drivers -- and that's assuming that hardware vendors eve…

> And you're stuck on the current hardware generation. As someone using a Pixel 3a as their main device that gave me a chuckle.

What do we do when the supply of second-hand Pixel 3s on eBay dries up?

A viable project can't be tied to hardware which is not made any more.

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

#347

Post by subscribed »

fransje26 wrote: post #50

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

e/OS is not degoogled, only some of the functionality has been rewritten in microG (eg not implementing security checks but instead spoofing them), but still uses Google play sdk and libraries.

Additionally it runs in the privileged mode, so any exploit on that, well, means back luck.

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

#348

Post by rekabis »

LMAO-class first impressions: builds entire UI into a carbon-copy of iOS

Like, I thought I was looking at an older version of iOS with those screenshots. It took a few of the screenshot flips to realize that things were subtly off and not-iOS.

I mean, okay: use what works. But it’s amusing nonetheless.

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

#349

Post by mixmastamyk »

bramhaag wrote: post #75

> open-source means auditable privacy This is what that auditing actually reveals: * /e/OS sends user speech data to OpenAI without consent [1], and thought this was ok until they got caught [2]. * /e/OS massively delays security patches, and calls this a "standard industry practice" [3]. Meanwhile, GrapheneOS' opt-in security preview releases provide early access to security updates prior to official disclosure [4].…

Your speech data assertion looks to be inaccurate, the user does have to opt in. Nor does the response sound like a mea culpa. I wouldn't use it, but seems reasonable for people who might want to.
Post reply on HN