135
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2025
135 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
77815 readers
513 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- 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, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I'm checking out Graphene OS next week and pretty pumped about it. This Google ratfucking has been just the push I need to get off Android.
And obviously I haven't stopped telling people around me haha
Most F-Droid users are NOT custom ROMs.
This means that as long as F-Droid does not get their own developer key - it will become useless. F-Droid is privacy focused - both dev and user, and they oppose requiring devs to essentially give up their privacy and sign the APK with their own dev key.
Now, if F-Droid is dead, GrapheneOS becomes useless. Who would want to develop apps for the 0.0001% of the population (i.e custom ROM users)
This.
I am the person you are talking about. I've looked into graphene before and I do host some of my own services at home. I also work full time and I don't want to spend all of my free time managing things. I use F-Droid, but I am on stock android on my pixel.
I appreciate the privacy and FOSS nature of F-Droid, but I use things like Android auto Google maps for work, I use banking apps on my phone as well. I know technically micro G and blah blah blah, but like I said: work full time.
Graphene is bult on top of android AOSP, which is owned by google... And of course they are fucking it over.
Check calyxos.org s recent blog posts, it is basically dying (and graphene is the same)
What happened to the Open Handset Alliance?
So.. huh, so what's the alternative then? I guess some other flavour of linux?
For mobile phones that works as a daily driver? Gobbling up iOS. Or gobbling up what's becoming of Android.
I really wish we had open phones that "just work". I'd even go with slightly quirky but functional. Unfortunately, that requires strong cooperation between hardware maker and software developers; and it will require a lot of work. But that's not the main issue. The direction we're headed toward is "everything need an official app", and those will mostly only work on "official" phones made by big manufacturers.
Even today, making some bank apps work on non vanilla Android is not always straightforward, and it's still relatively open and easy to do. The move by Google is going to tighten this even more, and I have no doubt, if they pull through, that this will go in the requirements for the "play protect" validation BS. Meaning if you want that bank app, or whatever state digital ID app (meh) to work, you'll need a "real" Android or an iOS device. And those apps are becoming more and more mandatory (I can't log-in to my bank's online website without their app and proprietary 2FA…).
A niche, open-source OS, Linux or modified AOSP or whatever, will have a hard time filling that gap as things keep moving. Which is really sad.
GrapheneOS isn't dying. There's an OEM partnership in the works and they'll release devices with support for GrapheneOS in a year or two. GrapheneOS still provides updates and while the changes have made some things harder, the project is still going strong.
You are of course aware that Graphene OS is affected just like any other version of Android?
I don't see why it would need to be affected.
The constraint to require a valid signing isn't something imposed by the license on the Android code. If you want to distribute a version of Android that doesn't check for a registered signature, that should work fine.
I mean, the Graphene guys could impose that constraint. But they don't have to do so.
I think that there's a larger issue of practicality, though. Stuff like F-Droid works in part because you don't need to install an alternative firmware on your phone
it's not hard to install an alternate app store with the stock firmware. If suddenly using a package from a developer that isn't registered with Google requires installing an alternate firmware, that's going to severely limit the potential userbase for that package.
Even if you can handle installing the alternate firmware, a lot of developers probably just aren't going to bother trying to develop software without being registered.
I don't think most developers who are putting their Open-Source apps on F-Droid have any minimum user threshold.
But if Graphene chooses not to do this, they diverge from the Android project. Which will take more time to maintain the project which will ultimately lead to more developers burning out and dropping out of the project.
It doesn’t need to be affected, but most open source projects don’t have the resources to keep going against big companies when most of their users aren’t contributing.
They already diverge by having a network permission and a bunch of other differences, and not being allowed to use Google Pay because of those differences
The aosp has been in the process of being gutted, I surmise in preparation of these anti consumer measures, graphene os has its work cut out for it. I imagine that after the dust settles, consumers will have to pick between an immature Linux os or their personal preference of walled garden.