LineageOS 23.2 • Hacker News Board

Re: LineageOS 23.2

#61

Post by hexagonwin » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 11:28 AM UTC

hexagonwin wrote: post #60

JamesTRexx wrote: post #28

I enjoyed LineageOS for years on my Samsung S4 until it finally broke from a fall. It's a shame there was no image to install on my new Xcover 7, but not unexpected as it was a newly released phone. But I doubt there will be an alternative/stripped Android available for this model as I haven't seen anything supporting a Xcover version anywhere. Best I can hope for is eventually a support for rooting and de-installing…

you can use a treble GSI rom, I use one for two of my devices that lack community features and all the features work. Just make sure to not get OneUI8 that blocks bootloader unlock.

Just noticed you mention already updating, in that case check for the bootloader version of the current firmware, if Samsung didn't bump the number (for anti rollback) yet you can get back to previous version.

Re: LineageOS 23.2

#62

Post by hexagonwin » Mon, Feb 09, 2026, 11:32 AM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #13

spaqin wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's alright though. Recent devices still have manufacturer's support. LOS is a godsend for the older devices, often not as powerful as the new ones, that really need the lightweight, bloat free Android for smooth operation.

Yes, but note that very old devices will need mainline kernel support before newer AOSP/LineageOS releases can be ported to them. (Of course, this is also desirable as a way of supporting non-AOSP mobile Linux releases there, which are by far the most exciting development in the custom modding scene.) Old downstream kernels don't cut it any more.

are there any examples of such device that got a recent version of LineageOS ported with the mainline kernel? it seemed like there's almost no android phone with mature enough support in the mainline kernel, and most android custom roms just backport needed functionality to old downstream vendor kernels.

Re: LineageOS 23.2

#63

Post by throwawaypath » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 8:07 AM UTC

dijit wrote: post #43

throwawaypath wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>thats effectively the same thing. No it's not. "Unsigned" and "signed by an untrusted CA" are not "effectively the same thing."

To the bootloader? They absolutely are. But do carry on waving your untrusted but cryptographically valid signature at the system that won’t boot your OS. I’m sure it’ll be very impressed.

>To the bootloader? They absolutely are.

To the bootloader? They absolutely are not. Else they wouldn't give distinct errors, which they do for unsigned vs. signed by an untrusted CA.

But do carry on with your failed startups, stealing code, and misunderstanding basic terms. I’m sure you'll be very impressed.

Re: LineageOS 23.2

#64

Post by dijit » Sat, Feb 14, 2026, 7:51 PM UTC

throwawaypath wrote: post #63

dijit wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To the bootloader? They absolutely are. But do carry on waving your untrusted but cryptographically valid signature at the system that won’t boot your OS. I’m sure it’ll be very impressed.

>To the bootloader? They absolutely are. To the bootloader? They absolutely are not. Else they wouldn't give distinct errors, which they do for unsigned vs. signed by an untrusted CA. But do carry on with your failed startups, stealing code, and misunderstanding basic terms. I’m sure you'll be very impressed.

Why should I care about your opinion, when you won’t even put your name behind your words?

Pathetic.