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

GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

discuss.grapheneos.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 653 posts

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#431

Post by flaburgan »

throawayonthe wrote: post #299
bigiain wrote: post #248

I have two questions, if anyone has any advice. 1) What's a reasonable Pixel phone to buy to try out GrapheneOS? Is a 128GB Pixel 7 "good enough" or will I get a significantly better experience with a newer phone and/or more storage? 2) Is there a Graphene alternative that would let me de-google an Samsung A12? Back in the day I had some Galaxy S3 and S4 phones that I installed Lineage on, I have no idea if that's co…

1) any currently-supported device is good, but i'd say go for minimum pixel 8a if you can it ships with Memory Tagging Extensions (armv9 security feature) and two more years of support than previous generations; pixel 7 might be eol in oct 2027 https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-lifetime official recommendation page: https://grapheneos.org/faq#recommended-devices 2) there is no real graphene alternative for other devi…

What are the reasons to avoid /e/, according to you? (And not according to the GrapheneOS maintainer).

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#432

Post by flaburgan »

bigiain wrote: post #248

I have two questions, if anyone has any advice. 1) What's a reasonable Pixel phone to buy to try out GrapheneOS? Is a 128GB Pixel 7 "good enough" or will I get a significantly better experience with a newer phone and/or more storage? 2) Is there a Graphene alternative that would let me de-google an Samsung A12? Back in the day I had some Galaxy S3 and S4 phones that I installed Lineage on, I have no idea if that's co…

Pixel 7 is definitely good enough if you don't have special needs. I'm writing this from a 6a right now.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#433

Post by flaburgan »

anonymousiam wrote: post #179

I took the plunge into GrapheneOS a week ago. I picked up a new Pixel10 Pro and never even tried the stock OS (except to unlock the boot loader). I've got almost everything working the way I want. There were a few non-essential banking apps that won't install. The most annoying problem I had is when I tried to install Strava, which I cannot get working. The app installs, but it will not let me sign in. I guess I need…

I know a friend is using Strava on his Pixel 10 running graphene so there should be a way

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#434

Post by haltcatchfire »

anonymousiam wrote: post #179

I took the plunge into GrapheneOS a week ago. I picked up a new Pixel10 Pro and never even tried the stock OS (except to unlock the boot loader). I've got almost everything working the way I want. There were a few non-essential banking apps that won't install. The most annoying problem I had is when I tried to install Strava, which I cannot get working. The app installs, but it will not let me sign in. I guess I need…

I run Strava on my Pixel 10 Pro Fold running GrapheneOS. IIRC you need to have Google Play Store installed (with zero permissions, preferably) to make Strava work.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#436

Post by fsflover »

seany wrote: post #199

GrapheneOS would be so much more interesting if there was an official supported way for rooting it. That's the only reason I haven't switched to it on my several devices (all rooted)

If you value freedom to do what you want on your devices, then you may want to consider Librem 5 instead. It runs a desktop Debian derivative with full root access.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#437

Post by fsflover »

strcat wrote: post #320
iririririr wrote: post #22

permanent reminder that graphene and all other "alternatives to android" depend on extracted binary blobs. tons of them. which is the reason new (kernel) versions are such a chore/achievement.

The kernel drivers are fully open source and moving to new kernel branches is a standard part of the update process. Pixels are currently moving from 6.1 and 6.6 to 6.12 with Android 17 QPR2. This is part of the hardware requirements for GrapheneOS listed here: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

Are you saying that GraphebneOS running on Google Pixels has no proprietary blobs apart from the firmware?

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#438

Post by fsflover »

okanat wrote: post #85
prmoustache wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure why you even consider an android based OS then.

Because AOSP is open source and can be built without Google Play running at the background unlike the other alternative: giving up privacy to yet another big tech Apple. Graphene adds many privacy features on top of regular AOSP. But it only works on phones that has good security features that are not woefully outdated or completely closed-off. Google has complete control over Pixel supply chain and they can make the…

Perhaps you may be interested in GNU/Linux phones, which do not rely on Google in any way.

Re: GrapheneOS has been ported to Android 17

#440

Post by fsflover »

microtonal wrote: post #290
dredmorbius wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a value judgement, and it's a fair one. It does throw an additional constraint in the works though. FWIW, I've been looking at the mobile / portable computing space fairly intensively for a month or so. I share your quite dim view of Google. GrapheneOS does seem to be one of the most attractive Android alternatives. There are also Lineage (based on CyanogenMod), AOSP, KaiOS (based on AOSP, via Firefox OS), Lig…

If you want full freedom / maximal privacy, and are prepared to make compromises on capabilities and battery life, look at one of the Linux-based, non-Android options. I've heard of quite a few bugs with these. Most of them also have really bad security, for various reasons, including: - Since virtually no hardware vendor (outside Jolla) supports non-Android phones, they typically use phones that were made by their O…

> Let's say, if I was a bank, I can understand why I would want to block such devices.

So as a bank, you would be forcing your customers into the duopoly of the American megacorps. Thankfully, there are banks that do not do this.

Post reply on HN