779
this post was submitted on 04 Jan 2024
779 points (99.2% liked)
Technology
59589 readers
3332 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
To me it is super weird that GrapheneOS positions itself as a way to degoogle - but it is only supported on google's Pixel hardware.
Pixel hardware is some of the easiest to get/best/cost effective with an unlocked bootloader.
Too bad the only affordable ones are those that have little to no support left.
Why would anyone care about official support? That's not why you buy a pixel
I meant support from Graphene itself.
is it that bad? I though Graphene supports all Pixels well
well, I see. thankfully there's loads and loads and loads of alternatives over on XDA still in development
They only support Pixel hardware because it's currently the only line that meets their list of requirements. I'd guess that if something came around which beat the Pixel line, they'd support it...but I also don't see anyone positioned to do that right now.
Though it's worth mentioning that the developers don't emphasize degoogling all that much and their community often have a bit of tension with degooglers who come to join them. The OS certainly meets the needs of those of us getting away from Google but the developers have no problem recommending workflows that go through Google (albeit with regular app access rather than the privileged and deeply integrated access on stock Android) when they're more secure than the alternatives. For example, they'll regularly suggest using sandboxed Google Play over F-Droid or Aurora Store, again because of their stance of prioritizing security above all.
It can sometimes be a bit annoying when your priorities are more about avoiding corporate surveillance than protecting yourself from attackers or a snooping government, but their work ends up supporting both regardless.
That sounds like a reasonable position. Google would have an advantage in getting timely AOSP and security updates, but getting that stuff done should be a high priority for all manufacturers anyway. As for the rest of the list, there are things I don't know about - but at a glance it looks fair enough. So I guess there could and probably should be other phones trying to meet those conditions.
Because many of my used apps are only available in Google Play.
GrapheneOS gives you options that you don't have to use. I don't agree with you.
You know what Aurora Store is, right?
What is it?
An anonymous frontend for Google Play
Thanks. I thought there may have been some sort of controversy about it, that's why I asked.
I didn't say it was a problem. When security and privacy come into conflict, they pick security. Myself, I don't care as much and I'm perfectly happy grabbing those apps through Aurora Store. My personal preferences don't completely line up with them in this case, but it's a principled position in its own way, and they don't stop me from doing it the way I prefer.
I think because on other manufacturer android phones, like Samsung, you'd have to de-Google and also de-Samsung.
I'm betting it's because Pixels have some unique hardware/ software quirks or something.
iirc they are the only phones that allow adding custom avb keys and then relocking the bootloader