Ironically the fork that only runs on the phones made by the company that also makes Android
It’s a fork and always will, it’s still android. I don’t get why people refer to it as a different project. It’s the same project with tweaks.
And Google has been taking steps to make Graphene development impossible over the past few years. It’s going to be gone eventually.
With their partnership with Motorola I’m not so sure.
Google is not targeting graphene, google is targeting custom roms in general. Graphene isn’t the only project impacted by them.
That… Doesn’t affect my point at all.
I get what you are saying. But the difference is more akin to Mint and Ubuntu. Where one started as a fork of the other, which itself was a fork of something else, but at this point in time both are so different from their original source material that they’re all three just considered different distributions of the same thing.
Ubuntu, Mint, and Debian all still rely on the Linux kernel, though. A better comparison might be how LineageOS is technically a fork of the dead CyanogenMod project, but even before the latter fully imploded was different enough to be its own thing.
Both of them still relied on the existence of AOSP though, for new features, bug fixes, hardware support, certain core functionality, etc. AOSP is a lot bigger than just the Linux kernel, and because of the tighter coupling between hardware and software on mobile devices, there’s a whole other discussion about creating a real non-Android OS for them, but I think that’s a closer parallel.
Good old Cyanogen, my 10yo found my old nexus one in a draw, charged it up and turned it on…CyanogenMod boot screen, nice.
Mint still takes upstream changes from Ubuntu though right?
GrapheneOS = Android Open Source Project (AOSP) + Open Source Tweaks
Android™ (Google licensed) = Android Open Source Project (AOSP) + Different Commercial Tweaks
The base is the same, the OS is not. Just like Windows 11 is not Windows NT, but the base is the same.
@atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works I’ve started using the Windows comparison instead of Linux, for some reason ot seems to hit harder.
Except that Windows 11 is Windows NT.
They quit using the NT number when they switched from waterfall to “agile” releases. But 10 beta had an official release version of 6.4 and then they switched that to 10.0 which they have left alone since for 11 and the latest Server editions.
They just announced a partnership with Motorola.
I was going to say “isn’t Motorola owned by Google though?”, but then I looked it up. They’re owned by Lenovo. But they were owned by Google! In 2014, which is 12 years ago and I’m going to go crumble to dust now…
Lenovo still not a good company but I likemy Motorola phone
Isn’t there also Jolla? Iirc they run on Linux.
Yeah but sailfish isn’t open source, and it’s not really available North America.
You either die the hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
I wouldn’t call Android “brilliant” nowadays if you count the forks that come pre-installed on most phones nowadays. It’s bloated to the gills and keeps the user locked out of being able to control what certain apps can do and access.
that’s why it says “was”. in my personal opinion it was always hot garbage but that’s besides the point
Linux phone, open for customization… it was brilliant… kinda….
fuck anything related to Java though
There is nothing free or open about Android, it only looks like it is when compared with iOS.
The source code is still fully available (and even searchable with code references) which is why all of these community and FOSS forks are still possible.
Google is absolutely abusing their influence over the Android brand to continually lock down consumer devices and the versions of Android that ship on them, but AOSP has only gotten more open-source friendly over time if anything. The problem is there are fewer and fewer devices that will actually let you leave branded Android™ for some version of AOSP.
Ok, so basically what you are saying is Android is “Open” in name only and that in practice it is functionally not open.
No, they are explaining that “Android” effectively refers to two different things.
And one of those things, in practice, makes it harder for users to take advantage of the openness of the other.
Only on that platform. The Android™ platform is way more popular than AOSP, but that doesn’t mean Android™ precludes AOSP.
For the purposes of making a custom Android-based OS like GrapheneOS, AOSP is better than ever. Whether or not there are actually devices to install GrapheneOS on kind of isn’t the point here in my mind since we’re talking about which one someone prefers, which means they’re already able to use both.
And as GrapheneOS’ existence demonstrates, it’s still pretty easy and even increasingly mainstream now to change your device’s firmware. GrapheneOS currently is only built for Pixel devices, made by Google, the company that also develops AOSP and owns the Android brand. In theory Lenovo is going to have a Motorola branded device running GrapheneOS officially in the near future, but Lenovo doesn’t have a great track record with mobile software support.
Android™ itself might be getting more locked down and centered around Google’s services, but it’s still an option to move to something else based on AOSP, and thanks to things like Project Treble (which is enforced by Google Play’s compatibility tests), you might not even need device-specific firmware to have a usable and pleasant non-proprietary experience.
The situation with Android is weird, because Google technically owns all of it, but it’s completely different departments going completely different directions, and it doesn’t help that we all call the entire concept Android when that’s technically the brand for Google’s special certified versions of AOSP (which also includes the word Android but not as a brand…).
No the software is open, it’s the hardware you run it on that’s locked down to the manufacturers own specific fork.
Android exists only as a place to push ads into people’s faces, with a focus on getting ad displays into less affluent markets.
iOS exists only as a platform to sell iPhones and iPads, which naturally has a focus on affluent markets.
They’re both in the control of megacorps and I can’t figure out why people hold up Android as some kind of open source hero besides a desire to hate on Apple.
But GOS is Android
I don’t get GrapheneOS apologists. If you hate Google so much, how come you all have Pixel phones?
What’s your solution then?
No really, I’m seriously asking. I want to get rid of google everything, but I’m not going to apple either.
I don’t have one. But if I want to degoogle, I’m not giving them my money from the get-go. Are there no more phones with unlockable bootloaders on the market? No more custom ROMs?
I just bought a pixel 8 off of eBay for $100 to address “Google getting my money”.
And in the USA our options are limited when it comes to a modern, decent smartphone with an unlocked bootloader. The relevant consumer protection laws the rest of the world has don’t exist here because our politicians are bought and paid for by the telecoms.
linux phones theoretically exist. There’s pinephone, but the casual research I did couldn’t tell me if they were still in business or not.
This is a case of technology following politics. I wish for a viable third party and they don’t meaningfully exist.
I wish for a viable third party and they don’t meaningfully exist.
You and me both.
I don’t hold my breath for Linux phones ever taking off. They’d need a major player backing them to break the duopoly. Apple and Google won’t let a third player enter the market. Samsung tired at least 2 times and failed. Microsoft was squeezed out. If they couldn’t do it, no one can. We can only hope that one of the big two does something really stupid one day and basically dig their own grave.
how come you all have Pixel phones?
Because they’re one of the very few (And if you’re in the US, the only) phones with decent specs that allows you to unlock the BL
If you’re in the US and want a privacy OS > Pixel
If you’re outside the US and want a privacy OS but don’t want the crap tier specs that have been offered thus far by the specialty phones > Pixel or maybe a Chinese brand phone
If you’re in or outside the US, want a privacy OS and want or need to finance the phone through your carrier so you don’t have to spend $6-800+ out of pocket > Pixel
Graphene in it’s early days supported some non-google phones. The reason they went with Pixels is because it has better hardware and an open bootloader. Nothing to do with supporting google, just the path of least resistance.
Because the irony is that it gives you the most freedom from Google and big tech.
