top 51 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 154 points 1 year ago (21 children)

I know it's not really ready for it yet, but I guess I'm gonna be looking into a Linux phone before I thought I would.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 90 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    Same, though I think this will be the push the community needs to really launch a good Linux phone. It'll suck for awhile, but I'm looking forward to debating phone distros with all of you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    I use Debian as my daily driver and am disappointed to see that the best-supported devices under Mobian within my budget are the Pinephone (which has shockingly low specs) or the Pinephone Pro (recently discontinued, no longer sold. Also had poor specs).

    I was toying with was getting an SBC with an LTE/5G hat & 7in touch screen, plugging it into a portable battery, and 3d printing a case for it.

    Fairphone with PostMarketOS seems more practical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    What are your thoughts on the Furi Phone?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I'd get disappointed if its distro wouldn't be called FuriOS

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    I have the PinePhone Pro in a drawer somewhere. It's just a fun toy, not even remotely usable as a daily driver. But I might have a look at it again and see how many tasks still remains before I could theoretically use Mobian as a daily driver.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 16 points 1 year ago (9 children)
  • [–] 21 points 1 year ago

    My main problem with the current crop of Linux phones is, or at least it's my impression - is that they still struggle with the basic phone part. As in network connectivity (at least in the US), making and receiving calls, SMS & MMS, and VoLTE support. If there's a Linux phone where that stuff is solid and works, I'd buy one. I don't really care about the whole app ecosystem - I barely have any apps on my Android phone now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Waydroid works really well to run Android apps on mobile Linux, even for games. Doesn't help for banking apps though as they'll usually lock you out due to not passing Google safety checks.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    I think I'd be willing to let go of the handful of things that are exclusive, given that I could probably do more with a proper Linux system. It's the basic phone functionality (as others have mentioned) that keeps me from switching.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I thought so too, but over the years I have migrated so much of my life away from apps in order to see if it's possible and apart from games I find that with a browser and an email client I don't really need apps. Still use apps though, they are way more convenient.

    Banking is tedious without apps, but works with browser and an MFA-dongle in my country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 106 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    This is about Revanced, isn't it? They failed to kill it via the YouTube backend so now it's down to lock down the os and browsers as much as possible to keep feeding people the juicy ads.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] 60 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    It's time to start self hosting your own services people!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Yeah, but that doesn't help if you can't make apps that support the hosted services. Google is trying to have complete ownership of what runs on your phone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I hate this move and love my sideloaded apps. However, there are plenty of self hosted apps on the play store. It's just putting in a unique address at setup, not compiling a whole unique app for each server.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    This is about preparing for DMA and the likes in other countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    I don't see how the DMA would cause this other than Google preemptively setting themselves up for malicious compliance. The whole point of the DMA seems to be to give users choice not take it away.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago*

    DMA is only partly for choice. Sorry, different act, but same group (EU). But the rest pretty much stands the same, the EU won't see it as malicious compliance, but as a great design choice.

    https://commission.europa.eu/strategy-and-policy/priorities-2019-2024/europe-fit-digital-age/digital-services-act_en

    This is also huge part of it about being able to “prevent illegal” content.

    “easier reporting of illegal content” “less exposure to illegal content” “level-playing field against providers of illegal content”

    This will help give paper trails for everything, and that allows for easy reporting which is the bigger part of the DMA.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    I think you're on point with the malicious compliance. Google doesn't want to give up power and control. Requiring all installations to run through them seems to be their workaround.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 103 points 1 year ago (13 children)

    Something kind of concerning I just found - there's an option for "limited distribution" which is "Intended for 'students, hobbyists, and other personal use.'" One of the differences is the following:

    Has "capped number of apps and installs"(specific limits not disclosed)

    Doesn't this imply there's going to be global tracking of what apps people are installing even through sideloading or APKs? I can't think of any other way to enforce this. They would have to know how many times people installed an app even when its not through any kind of app store or even from the internet at all.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I'm pretty sure that was implemented a while ago. My install of VLC from F-Droid started showing up in Play Store's update list.

    It couldn't update since the signature didn't match, but Google knew about it and included it anyway.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    That has just always been the case as long as the app in both stores uses the same package string. (Like org.blitzortung.android.app or org.videolan.vlc)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Wasn't always the case (I think it changed within the past two years), but upon doing research on when it changed I stumbled on this gem.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    It's been the case ever since I started using Android (and modded APKs such as old versions of apps re-signed to not update) in about 2011.

    Some of the root apps back then such as Titanium Backup had features to "unhook" an app so it wouldn't appear as installed in the store, but my experience was that it never lasted long enough to be worth doing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 1 year ago* (2 children)

    Could be, but that could also just be done locally. Like your phone checking the apps you have installed and seeing if the same ones are on the play store. Having an install limit for an app - assuming that means that the app can only be installed some total number of times globally (a local install limit wouldn't make any sense I think) - necessarily implies that when you install an app through an APK, it has to tell Google that you installed that app so it can track how many people have installed it and not approve installation of the app if it's over whatever the limit is.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    If your phone is checking for that information, it's a safe bet it's reporting it back to Google.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Probably. But that might be under the umbrella of optional usage statistics/reporting that you can opt out of. Since this new tracking would be "necessary" for their "security" feature to work, there's no chance that it could be avoided.

  • source
  • parent
  • That's interesting. I was just checking to see if Cromite showed up there but couldn't find it, is there a menu you found yours under outside the update tab? If something as simple as a browser I use is going to be blocked from installs/monitored I can't see why I'd stay in this ecosystem.

  • source
  • parent
  • fuck google tbh

  • source
  • [–] 57 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    This is the risk of "trusted computing" architectures. Who is governing the "trusted" part of that.

    These cryptographic signatures are not as much of a death knell for Android as some would have you believe. The trick is to get a common code signing cert into your device, that is then used to sign any third party APK you want to run. You can avoid the Google tax this way. I assume that's how most sideloading sites and apps are going to handle this.

    The question is, how do you add that certificate? Is it easy and straight forward (with plenty of scary warnings), as a user? Or is it going to be a developer options deal? Or will I need root to add the cert?

    I'm not sure what that answer is right now.

    I just want to finish this post with a few words about trusted computing models. Plainly: Apple has been doing this for years ... That's why you download basically everything from an app store with Apple. Whether on your Mac OS device, your iPhone, iPad or whatever iDevice.... Whether the devs need to sign it, or the app gets signed when it lands on the store, there's a signature to ensure that the app hasn't been tampered with and that Apple has given the app it's security blessings, that it is safe to run. Microsoft and Google have both been climbing towards the same forever. Apple embedded their root of trust in their own proprietary TPM which has been included with every Mac, and iDevice for a long ass time. Google also has a TPM, the Titan security module, I believe that was introduced around pixel 3? Or 4?... Microsoft made huge waves requiring it for Windows 11, and we all know what that discussion looks like. Apple requires a TPM (which they supply, so nobody noticed), Google has been adding a TPM and TPM functionality to their phones for years, and now Windows is the same. None of this is a bad thing. Trusted computing can eliminate much of the need for antivirus software, among other things. I digress. We've been going this way for a long time. Google is just more or less, doing what Apple has already done, and what Microsoft will very likely do very soon, making it a requirement. Battlefield 6 I think, was one of the first to require trusted computing on Windows and it will, for damned sure, not be the last that does. The only real hurdle here is managing what is trusted. So far, each vendor has kept the keys to their own kingdoms, but this is contrary to computing concepts. Like the Internet, it should be able to be done without needing trust from a specific provider. That's how SSL works, that's how the Internet works, that's how trusted computing should work. The only thing that should be secret is the private signing keys. What Google, Apple, and Microsoft should be doing, is issuing intermediary keys that can sign code signing certs. So trusted institutions that create apps, like... Idk, valve as an example, can create a signature key for steam and sign Steam with it, so the trust goes from MS root to intermediary key for valve, to steam code signing key, and suddenly you have an app that's trusted. Valve can then use their key to sign software on their store that may not have a coffee signing key of it's own. This is just one example based on Windows. And above all of this, the user should be able to import a trusted code signing cert, or an intermediary cert signing cert, to their service as trusted.

    Anyways, thanks for coming to my Ted talk.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›
    199 comments in c/android@lemdro.id view that post
    99 comments in c/android@lemmy.world view that post
    7 comments in c/googlepixel@lemmy.world view that post