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

Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

commonsware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 311 posts

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#41

Post by microtonal »

charcircuit wrote: post #38
dns_snek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is not FOSS in any sense of the word and doesn't produce any user benefits that FOSS is meant to produce.

Most of AOSP is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license and GPLv2 for the Linux kernel. These are FOSS licenses recognized by the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2

I think that they are pointing at that using Android in daily life in a meaningful way requires installing Google Play Services because many apps require it.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#42

Post by charcircuit »

microtonal wrote: post #41
charcircuit wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of AOSP is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license and GPLv2 for the Linux kernel. These are FOSS licenses recognized by the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2

I think that they are pointing at that using Android in daily life in a meaningful way requires installing Google Play Services because many apps require it.

And my point is throwing out all of AOSP because of that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Whatever other FOSS OS someone comes up with won't have Google Play Services built in either.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#44

Post by dns_snek »

charcircuit wrote: post #38
dns_snek wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Android is not FOSS in any sense of the word and doesn't produce any user benefits that FOSS is meant to produce.

Most of AOSP is licensed under the Apache 2.0 license and GPLv2 for the Linux kernel. These are FOSS licenses recognized by the FSF. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#apache2 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLv2

Android is a proprietary operating system developed by Google. Try running your "free" modified AOSP in the real world, on a real device, like a real person would and see how far you get before being blocked and restricted due to hardware attestation.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#45

Post by mac-mc »

teekert wrote: post #19
userbinator wrote: post #5

This shouldn't just be "questions"; this should be a full-on opposition. Do not give them even an inch, or they'll take a mile. "debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers." - Richard Stallman, The Right to Read , 1997

Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS. I only have Linux PCs (laptops) and servers, 100% of my work and personal stuff is done there (though for work I do need to hop into MS365, Google Workspace, Zoom, etc, hooray for browsers, my final firewall between me and the walled gardens, though we can have a whole discussion on that). For mobile, we have PostmarketOS, Phosh, Ubuntu Touch. I really must try living in…

It's pretty obvious, it's costly to make one that is up to the level of quality of commercial ones. It's not a mistake that the 2 mobile oses are owned and created by some of the largest and most profitable companies in the world.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#46

Post by gorgoiler »

Almondsetat wrote: post #30
teekert wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it so complex to have a foss mobile OS. I only have Linux PCs (laptops) and servers, 100% of my work and personal stuff is done there (though for work I do need to hop into MS365, Google Workspace, Zoom, etc, hooray for browsers, my final firewall between me and the walled gardens, though we can have a whole discussion on that). For mobile, we have PostmarketOS, Phosh, Ubuntu Touch. I really must try living in…

Linux is 30 years old, and still it has a laughable percentage of desktop usage. Plus, the only reason it's even usable is because of the relentless work by thankless developers for reverse engineering device drivers. On smartphones this is orders of magnitude more difficult. How do you properly profile and debug a random modem in a phone? What about the cameras? So, how can anyone expect FOSS mobile OSs to ever exis…

I know this isn’t what you meant but it’s important to remember there is some hope. Thirty years ago I was required by my CTOs to use Windows, Borland, AIX, and Solaris. Linux, FreeBSD, and Free dev environments were viewed with deep suspicion.

In 2025 you’d be viewed just as much suspicion for not building your stack on Freedom. I still have hope that we’ll get there with phones, too, some day.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#47

Post by microtonal »

llamavore wrote: post #37

Maybe we can finally spark an omarchy style user driven linux mobile OS ala DHH? Or are users just going to face network bans and additional tracking like with grapheneos?

Omarchy is just a set of defaults for an existing software stack. The problems here are at a much more fundamental level: getting devices that can be unlocked, getting device drivers/firmware that are also updated on a regular basis, supporting hardware attestation and getting app makers to support it without Google's support (assuming an Android compatibility layer), getting a healthy app ecosystem (if there is no Android compatibility layer).

Currently probably the best route is basing the OS on Android (so that you can benefit from all the existing apps), making a non-hostile reference device, and getting regulators' attention (the EU is probably the most likely to succeed) to break Google's monopoly on attestation.

This is largely what GrapheneOS is currently trying. I think what we can do as users is install GrapheneOS with sandboxed Google Play and for any apps that do not work, contact their developers. If GrapheneOS manages to get millions of users and get on the radar of app developers, that's the best shot I think.

But it feels like the window is closing quickly. So if you care at all about any of this, today is the day to get a GrapheneOS device and make yourself heard.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#49

Post by generic92034 »

p0w3n3d wrote: post #34
qalmakka wrote: post #33

This is intolerable. You own the device. You must be able to run whatever you want on it. Locking or limiting your access to the stuff you bought is not only unacceptable, it's basically like saying you don't really own anything. You're basically leasing a device until the OEM decides you can't run anything on it anymore. Would people accept if a car manufacturer prohibited you from driving their cars in certain plac…

Meanwhile: VW is already limiting horsepower when the yearly subscription is ceased to be paid It's already happening. The greediness of vendors, the ignorance of users...

Do not forget the inaction and/or corruption of lawmakers.

Re: Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

#50

Post by microtonal »

charcircuit wrote: post #42
microtonal wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that they are pointing at that using Android in daily life in a meaningful way requires installing Google Play Services because many apps require it.

And my point is throwing out all of AOSP because of that is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Whatever other FOSS OS someone comes up with won't have Google Play Services built in either.

Oh yes, I fully agree. AOSP is the best shot at getting an alternative OS and sandboxed Google Play (like in GrapheneOS) is a good transition method.
Post reply on HN