81–90 of 415 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't have to use Chrome or Chromium.
The irony of this is that when using Firefox to browse to /e/OS url to check for compatible devices: https://e.foundation/installer/ I get a pop-up telling me that my browser is not compatible, and I should use Edge, Opera or Chrome. See [1] [1] https://imgur.com/a/al1Q9DM
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not an installer, that's a device page. It's the specific functionality needed here that Firefox lacks that makes the /e/ page show the warning, unlike the lineage page that does not have the problem in the first place.
The fun part is that I got to this installer page by clicking on "Check device compatibility" on the https://e.foundation/e-os/ page.. So I was actually expecting a device page, not a WebUSB program..
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
This is related to Firefox unwilling to add support for WebUSB because, I suppose, they believe that a browser is not a general purpose application launcher and the scope of what it can do should be limited. As such, it should not be allowed to e.g. control peripherals like the USB devices. Which is in my opinion a fairly reasonable take. But given the current situation, I would assume that the companies providing We…
No, it's security concern.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony of this is that when using Firefox to browse to /e/OS url to check for compatible devices: https://e.foundation/installer/ I get a pop-up telling me that my browser is not compatible, and I should use Edge, Opera or Chrome. See [1] [1] https://imgur.com/a/al1Q9DM
That's a bizarre one. 'You need Chrome' is bad enough, which even the bloody NHS are guilty of, but I always assume that's 'just' an assumption that not Chrome means IE or something, and they haven't woken up even to the proliferation of mobile Safari users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I must agree, you are right, GOS is only on Pixel phones. But we have to keep in mind that /e/ has a lot of problems, the only one solved is sending data to Google. The security aspect of the OS is problematic and some key elements of a privacy seem questioning (AI integration, commercial collaborations, ...). Fix: IA => AI typo and various English errors.
What IA?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. There are zero OSes that are 1/ open source 2/ appropriate for phones 3/ with good hardware support. There's absolutely nothing. Running Ubuntu Touch isn't a viable option. Neither is postmarket, librem, tizen, they're all terrible. Security wise, for something as critically important in our lives as a smartphone, I am also not trusting any new pet projec…
I do agree, mobile OSS OSes are rough. My point is that we should help them instead of helping Google's toxic relationship. It happened with Chrome/Blink, and everyone already forgot that lesson. About hard-forking Android, no one was brave enough (pun intended) to do that for Chrome, considering the insane complexity and engineering costs (>$1B/y). (Only Apple was able to affort it with Webkit/Safari, but they are i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do they do that? I'm not doubting that, it's an honest question. I understand how this works on Apple phones but I don't understand why an identity or attestation service cannot be replaced by another one by the alternative operating system when the hardware is not controlled by Google. Does Google have keys in tamper-proof chips? How else would those banks determine their apps are on the right phone? Or do those…
Depending on the level of security you ask for Play Integrity, it can be: * is this device rooted, is it an unsigned build ? * Device is signed, but is it part of the blessed signing keys ? is play services untampered with ? * Additional checks over the lifetime of the device. You could fully trust the results of Play Integrity on device, but you can also send the returned token to your server, and your server then c…
This is something that could be addressed at least in the EU by mandating banks to allow alternative services or not use this service at all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Even worse, it slowing us down from leaving Android entirely. There are zero OSes that are 1/ open source 2/ appropriate for phones 3/ with good hardware support. There's absolutely nothing. Running Ubuntu Touch isn't a viable option. Neither is postmarket, librem, tizen, they're all terrible. Security wise, for something as critically important in our lives as a smartphone, I am also not trusting any new pet projec…
I do agree, mobile OSS OSes are rough. My point is that we should help them instead of helping Google's toxic relationship. It happened with Chrome/Blink, and everyone already forgot that lesson. About hard-forking Android, no one was brave enough (pun intended) to do that for Chrome, considering the insane complexity and engineering costs (>$1B/y). (Only Apple was able to affort it with Webkit/Safari, but they are i…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But GrapheneOS doesn't exist. It works only on a few devices created by Google, so their claim of being degoogled is a bit funny.
> their claim of being degoogled is a bit funny. I don't think they use this term anywhere. It also now works on Motorola devices, it's on my HN feed literally right above this post.
Did you read the article you mentioned? There's not yet a single non-Google device that can run GrapheneOS.