511–520 of 669 posts
Interesting that they chose Android as a base and not one of the desktop-Linux-for-mobile ports like postmarketOS.
It's an incredible waste and an amazing example of how useless the FSF is today. Instead of supporting real Linux phones they're focusing on trying to degunk Android even more.
Ugh, I don't know. From a practical standpoint, I can see why basing on Android makes sense. But I really wish we can "somehow" extend an existing Linux distribution (or an Android kernel, even) with a user space reworked to function well on small screens. Maybe that's a pipe dream. What I'd really, really prefer is to be able to program the device with the same ease as developing a local Linux application. If I need…
Unfortunately, even if you could completely de-blob the kernel itself (and for many chipsets, that would require a considerable amount of reverse engineering work!), smartphones bear the Curse of the Modem. In a modern smartphone, modem is often a part of the SoC itself - and it runs some of the biggest and fattest blobs you've ever seen.
https://themodemdistro.com/ https://github.com/the-modem-distro/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Phones aren't x86, each is own snowflake, and on Android the nature of being a managed userspace, means there is a certain freedom regarding which ARM designs that Samsung, Qualcomm, Mediatek, and whatever else is out there comes up with. Then there is everything else that happens to be on the motherboard.
The camera is also surprisingly software dependent. Using the pixel camera vs using default configuration with an app called open camera, the difference is so clear. The camera is basically all software — the images are pure trash before processing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu... That page seems to be saying the opposite: hardware attestation would support GrapheneOS, whereas the Play Integrity API would not. Anecdotally, both of the banking apps I use 'just work', and I haven't encountered any app that doesn't work. The closest thing was the Disney parks app a few years ago which would crash on launch until I disabled the harden…
I see "... and permitting our official release signing keys" there, which means you are swapping Google Android for GrapheneOS Android, and you can't use bogwog Android if you wanted to. There is a list of apps banning GrapheneOS keys here, including govt apps, ticket apps, and McDonalds for some reason: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
No? You're adding support for Graphene's keys, not replacing Google's. Obviously, the main barrier is convincing developers of these apps to add support for Graphene's keys. However, this is only a problem for apps that opted to implement the Play Integrity API at all, which doesn't seem to be very common. All the recent monopoly rulings against Google may be deterring devs from implementing this obviously anti-competitive feature, and that's not to mention Google's new responsibility to offer the Play store app catalog to competing stores, thanks to the Epic case.
> The injunction issued last year by U.S. District Judge James Donato requires Google to allow users to download rival app stores within its Play store and make Play's app catalog available to competitors. Those provisions do not take effect until July 2026.
(source: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulat...)
Maybe they'll get away with requiring competing stores to implement Play Integrity API, maybe (probably) not.
Also, that list of incompatible apps is probably out of date since I use the ebay app all the time with no issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see "... and permitting our official release signing keys" there, which means you are swapping Google Android for GrapheneOS Android, and you can't use bogwog Android if you wanted to. There is a list of apps banning GrapheneOS keys here, including govt apps, ticket apps, and McDonalds for some reason: https://grapheneos.org/articles/attestation-compatibility-gu...
> you are swapping Google Android for GrapheneOS Android No? You're adding support for Graphene's keys, not replacing Google's. Obviously, the main barrier is convincing developers of these apps to add support for Graphene's keys. However, this is only a problem for apps that opted to implement the Play Integrity API at all, which doesn't seem to be very common. All the recent monopoly rulings against Google may be d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use Safari as my daily driver and I'm still routinely shocked at just how terrible certain aspects of the experience is compared to Chrome. For example, the UI seems to completely block for most of the website loading process, rather than streaming as Chrome does. Also, rather than restore the previous state when I swipe to go back, it has to reload the page from scratch. Little things like this continue to annoy m…
I've never used safari but to be fair to Firefox: I haven't experienced either on desktop. When I go back, the page loads instantly. I haven't checked the network tab but I'm assuming it's not doing a new request.
Unfortunately, even if you could completely de-blob the kernel itself (and for many chipsets, that would require a considerable amount of reverse engineering work!), smartphones bear the Curse of the Modem. In a modern smartphone, modem is often a part of the SoC itself - and it runs some of the biggest and fattest blobs you've ever seen.
One of the two processors (the ARM one) in the PinePhone modem runs a proprietary Linux distro, which can be replaced by a free distro. The code on the Hexagon processor can't be replaced yet though I think. https://themodemdistro.com/ https://github.com/the-modem-distro/
PostmarketOS can run on some devices with almost no blobs - but there's no escaping the modem curse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LOL. Compare and contrast this: > Say what you want about the Stalleman type he was very inspiring and had real leadership. So a lot of hackers followed him in his crazy vision and that gave us a lot. With this: > It is very feminine and obviously doesn't work that well. It's a super sexist comment. A comment born in the 60s, or I guess in our geek land, still in 2025.
>It's a super sexist comment. Is it? To answer this, just reverse the genders in the statement and see if it's still sexist. "It's very masculine and obviously doesn't work that well"