> that Graphene seems to want to complain about everything and anything that doesn't fit their niche use case
What would you want them to complain about instead? Of course they'll complain about that, just like Googlers will complain about things affecting their stock price, no one is surprised that people care about stuff they're personally involved in, it makes a lot of sense.
Now if these complaints weren't accurate, then I'd walk with you and feel a bit more negative with each piece. But the ones I've looked into, have been spot on, so who cares if it's for their specific niche? I expect them to care about their niche, that's why those people all work together in that organization in the first place.
> As much as it seems beloved here, people that flash custom Android OSs are the very definition of niche users.
Hmm... Let's try reframing this: "as much as it seems beloved here, people that install their own operating systems on PCs are the very definition of niche users"
I'm absolutely certain that's how IBM felt before the clones. But the ability to install what they wanted on a defacto standard platform is what launched the computing revolution. I think we'd still be living in a sterile monopolistic environment with $10k compilers otherwise.
Folks installing their own ROMs on phones are only niche because they've been pushed out at every opportunity using locked bootloaders, embedded security processors, factory installed secret keys, etc.
Despite all that, there's still thriving communities developing and using custom ROMs on their phones. That demonstrates more than niche demand.
> Hmm... Let's try reframing this: "as much as it seems beloved here, people that install their own operating systems on PCs are the very definition of niche users"
I mean yeah, 99% of people never installed an OS and never will, what's your point here?
> 99% of people never installed an OS and never will, what's your point here?
That the 1% who do build visicalc, Linux, the internet, Google, and every application and innovation that happens outside the corporate wall. The entire ecosystem everyone else ends up using.
And that calling that niche is ridiculous, shortsighted, and shooting oneself as a platform owner in the foot.
Perhaps they complain because that's literally the only way to get Google to take notice?
Let's be real, AOSP doesn't exist any more. Google have closed down nearly everything. All the development happens in private, you've stopped addressing bugs raised by the public, the source of patches are only infrequently released, device trees are gone.
All the development happens in private, you've stopped addressing bugs raised by the public, the source of patches are only infrequently released, device trees are gone.
To emphasize this point a bit more: only "QPR0" (major release) and QPR3 are released as part of AOSP. QPR1 and QPR3 are not released at all anymore, but contain fixes for vulnerabilities that are not marked high/critical (so don't end up in ASB). It is not clear to me whether OEMs get access to QPR1 and QPR3, but Google are not only witholding features, but also a set of security fixes.
Besides that, they are torpedoing other systems through Play Integrity.
IMO it would be best if AOSP was spun off from Google into its own org that actually cares about developing an open source system for others (both open source systems like GrapheneOS/Lineage and commercial vendors like Samsung) and that would have an attestation system that is open to vendors that have good device security.
If they're just some "niche use case" then why would Motorola partner with them? The way they see it,
> By combining GrapheneOS’s pioneering engineering with Motorola’s decades of security expertise, real‑world user insights, and Lenovo’s ThinkShield solutions, the collaboration will advance a new generation of privacy and security technologies. In the coming months, Motorola and the GrapheneOS Foundation will continue to collaborate on joint research, software enhancements, and new security capabilities, with more details and solutions to roll out as the partnership evolves.
They’re the second largest manufacturer of Android smartphones in the US, and 10% of the global market. Seems a bit unreasonable to dismiss them out of hand on that basis.
I think that's a worthwhile point to consider but it's only relevant if we move the goalposts from "GrapheneOS is only used by Android ROM enthusiasts" to "GrapheneOS is only supported by one small Android phone manufacturer".
To be frank, though, I don't see any of this line of reasoning as relevant; it's just appeals to greater authorities on either end. If AOSP is only for manufacturers there's really no reason for it to be open source in the first place. And then folks who care about actually improving security end-to-end outside of whatever's convenient to implement by those beholden to the quarterly profit metrics are up a creek.
Personally, if this whole GrapheneOS/Motorola thing doesn't improve the state of the ecosystem I'm going back to Apple or whatever other manufacturer makes it clear they take security seriously.
You might not like their style of speech, at least they care about their users. Maybe Google uses nice flowery language that makes the reader feel nice—IDC—actions speak louder than words.
Stock Pixel is an awful experience. So many useless notifications, popups, ads, privacy not by default.
Company: "We care about your privacy" meanwhile 1400 corporations they share data with
GrapheneOS: "There's zero telemetry in GrapheneOS"
The more you read the more you realize they are nearly always correct.
> Stock Pixel is an awful experience. So many useless notifications, popups, ads, privacy not by default.
Huh? What pixel are you on? You only get notifications from stuff you install after the initial setup is done. And even then you can outright mute applications, completely.
I was on stock recent pixel A17 for a few hours before flashing GrapheneOS. They took over the power button for Gemini, there's gemini in Messages, there's 50 apps you don't need. Yeah you can disable notifications but it was constantly giving tips and tricks and other bullshit. The OS feels super bloated compared to GrapheneOS.
Even in the EU spyware use is prevalent (and i 'd guess everywhere else in the world). There have been many scandals of government authorized commercial spyware been deployed against journalists. Is it really that niche a mobile OS that tries to not be exploitable by them?
GrapheneOS have mentioned wanting to expand the logging/intrusion detection capabilities of their Auditor app but contend with the need to include it as a system app which is against their philosophy (PoLP). It is not accurate to say they don't want to do anything about spyware.
They are also completely against Play Integrity as implemented on principle.
Also your argument about a user inspecting and editing application files feels like a strawman argument. For example many spyware use malicious links to infect the devices, not malicious apps.
So other projects are not supposed to critize Google? Graphene's focus is on security and they complain about lack of security in your products. Seems valid to me.
Also security and using non-Google OS are not niche usecases. I'm not sure how you are working on Android, the most popular OS while claiming security is a niche usecase. In fact, I have less confidence in security of your work.
Thankfully the project doesn't care about your personal attitude. That "niche use case" literally saves lives in countries where saying the wrong thing can put you to death. Since when is calling something out a rant?
In a world where economics makes security hardly a secondary concern, a situation exploited by both the intelligence and surveillance broker sectors, dogmatic sanctimony for high security is a feature and not a bug.
This doesn't read as a rant to me, but as calm and factual, regarding a genuine security regression that merits public attention. What is your interest in mischaracterizing it?
Could you please explain why supporting MTE/potentially EMTE in production as a goal represents a niche use case? Isn't mitigating memory corruption issues a mainstream ideal? How else would you propose to do it?
> people that flash custom Android OSs are the very definition of niche users.
This is a mischaracterization. The niche isn't Android hobbyists, it's people with what should be a basic expectation for privacy. I wouldn't flash GOS or any other OS if I could safely avoid it.
Maybe if Google did not shove their spyware down people's throats and actually allowed users control of their phones, there wouldn't be a need for projects like Graphene and Lineage. Until then, complaints are more than justified.
Security shouldn’t be a niche use case. There’s a constant trickle of CVEs, and spyware vendors are known to abuse these exploits in their software. All this on devices that are reachable in the US through a text or MMS, sent to an easily located 10 digit number that isn’t easily changed. These are devices that people now use for all kinds of sensitive tasks!
Security should be the number one priority, frankly. Graphene has shown that this is possible, and they have tried multiple times to get Google to integrate their work.
... and my opinion becomes more positive with each rant. We'll have to agree to disagree. The only reason I buy Pixels for myself and my family members is because of GrapheneOS, otherwise it would be used out of date hardware for LineageOS or some kind of Linux phone. I am thankful that they are attempting to diversify with Motorola, being entirely Pixel dependent has been a project vulnerability; anytime Google decided to lock down the boot loader, it would have been curtains for the project.
I've never seen them call it "evil". I've seen them debunk CalyxOS security claims as well as criticism of GrapheneOS, and they usually provide some serious reasoning and technical information when they do it. They know what they're talking about.
Don't take it personally. I'm a huge fan of Linux, and GrapheneOS routinely comes here and calls it a huge security liability. And they are right.
Tbf with all the information that has come to light since then Rossmann and FUTO were also not behaving correctly and it was fair from him to deny coming onto their show (where they have also invited fascists before)
I'm not an AOSP engineer, but that was my thought reading GOS's comments: Why be negative toward the people who you want help from?
What help though? Google has closed off AOSP and only does source code drops twice a year. Google has embargoed security patches for three months and only provides them to OEMs of Google-certified Android phones, not other AOSP-based projects. Google stopped providing git trees of kernel sources and instead requires projects to submit a request for a Google drive link for each kernel version that takes up to weeks to process. Google is shutting out open Android systems through Play Integrity.
Google is not helping anymore, over the last 1-2 years they have tried everything to sabotage AOSP-based projects. The only reason that they are not fully closing AOSP is probably because 1.) they would get in hot water with regulators; and 2.) AOSP will probably get forked.
> that Graphene seems to want to complain about everything and anything that doesn't fit their niche use case
What would you want them to complain about instead? Of course they'll complain about that, just like Googlers will complain about things affecting their stock price, no one is surprised that people care about stuff they're personally involved in, it makes a lot of sense.
Now if these complaints weren't accurate, then I'd walk with you and feel a bit more negative with each piece. But the ones I've looked into, have been spot on, so who cares if it's for their specific niche? I expect them to care about their niche, that's why those people all work together in that organization in the first place.
> As much as it seems beloved here, people that flash custom Android OSs are the very definition of niche users.
Hmm... Let's try reframing this: "as much as it seems beloved here, people that install their own operating systems on PCs are the very definition of niche users"
I'm absolutely certain that's how IBM felt before the clones. But the ability to install what they wanted on a defacto standard platform is what launched the computing revolution. I think we'd still be living in a sterile monopolistic environment with $10k compilers otherwise.
Folks installing their own ROMs on phones are only niche because they've been pushed out at every opportunity using locked bootloaders, embedded security processors, factory installed secret keys, etc.
Despite all that, there's still thriving communities developing and using custom ROMs on their phones. That demonstrates more than niche demand.
> Hmm... Let's try reframing this: "as much as it seems beloved here, people that install their own operating systems on PCs are the very definition of niche users"
I mean yeah, 99% of people never installed an OS and never will, what's your point here?
> 99% of people never installed an OS and never will, what's your point here?
That the 1% who do build visicalc, Linux, the internet, Google, and every application and innovation that happens outside the corporate wall. The entire ecosystem everyone else ends up using.
And that calling that niche is ridiculous, shortsighted, and shooting oneself as a platform owner in the foot.
6 replies →
Perhaps they complain because that's literally the only way to get Google to take notice?
Let's be real, AOSP doesn't exist any more. Google have closed down nearly everything. All the development happens in private, you've stopped addressing bugs raised by the public, the source of patches are only infrequently released, device trees are gone.
Wouldn't you complain?
All the development happens in private, you've stopped addressing bugs raised by the public, the source of patches are only infrequently released, device trees are gone.
To emphasize this point a bit more: only "QPR0" (major release) and QPR3 are released as part of AOSP. QPR1 and QPR3 are not released at all anymore, but contain fixes for vulnerabilities that are not marked high/critical (so don't end up in ASB). It is not clear to me whether OEMs get access to QPR1 and QPR3, but Google are not only witholding features, but also a set of security fixes.
Besides that, they are torpedoing other systems through Play Integrity.
IMO it would be best if AOSP was spun off from Google into its own org that actually cares about developing an open source system for others (both open source systems like GrapheneOS/Lineage and commercial vendors like Samsung) and that would have an attestation system that is open to vendors that have good device security.
If they're just some "niche use case" then why would Motorola partner with them? The way they see it,
> By combining GrapheneOS’s pioneering engineering with Motorola’s decades of security expertise, real‑world user insights, and Lenovo’s ThinkShield solutions, the collaboration will advance a new generation of privacy and security technologies. In the coming months, Motorola and the GrapheneOS Foundation will continue to collaborate on joint research, software enhancements, and new security capabilities, with more details and solutions to roll out as the partnership evolves.
https://motorolanews.com/motorola-three-new-b2b-solutions-at...
[flagged]
They’re the second largest manufacturer of Android smartphones in the US, and 10% of the global market. Seems a bit unreasonable to dismiss them out of hand on that basis.
I think that's a worthwhile point to consider but it's only relevant if we move the goalposts from "GrapheneOS is only used by Android ROM enthusiasts" to "GrapheneOS is only supported by one small Android phone manufacturer".
To be frank, though, I don't see any of this line of reasoning as relevant; it's just appeals to greater authorities on either end. If AOSP is only for manufacturers there's really no reason for it to be open source in the first place. And then folks who care about actually improving security end-to-end outside of whatever's convenient to implement by those beholden to the quarterly profit metrics are up a creek.
Personally, if this whole GrapheneOS/Motorola thing doesn't improve the state of the ecosystem I'm going back to Apple or whatever other manufacturer makes it clear they take security seriously.
Neither is google.
You might not like their style of speech, at least they care about their users. Maybe Google uses nice flowery language that makes the reader feel nice—IDC—actions speak louder than words.
Stock Pixel is an awful experience. So many useless notifications, popups, ads, privacy not by default.
Company: "We care about your privacy" meanwhile 1400 corporations they share data with
GrapheneOS: "There's zero telemetry in GrapheneOS"
The more you read the more you realize they are nearly always correct.
> Stock Pixel is an awful experience. So many useless notifications, popups, ads, privacy not by default.
Huh? What pixel are you on? You only get notifications from stuff you install after the initial setup is done. And even then you can outright mute applications, completely.
I was on stock recent pixel A17 for a few hours before flashing GrapheneOS. They took over the power button for Gemini, there's gemini in Messages, there's 50 apps you don't need. Yeah you can disable notifications but it was constantly giving tips and tricks and other bullshit. The OS feels super bloated compared to GrapheneOS.
1 reply →
[flagged]
> If they happen to overlap, that's a happy coincidence.
I can't know what the developers of any OS are actually thinking, but based their actions, GrapheneOS does more for their users than any other OS.
Therefore I assume that doing good things for users equals care for users. It's probably stupid to try to guess about care.
2 replies →
Even in the EU spyware use is prevalent (and i 'd guess everywhere else in the world). There have been many scandals of government authorized commercial spyware been deployed against journalists. Is it really that niche a mobile OS that tries to not be exploitable by them?
[flagged]
GrapheneOS have mentioned wanting to expand the logging/intrusion detection capabilities of their Auditor app but contend with the need to include it as a system app which is against their philosophy (PoLP). It is not accurate to say they don't want to do anything about spyware.
They are also completely against Play Integrity as implemented on principle.
Graphene puts a HEAVY emphasis on security.
Also your argument about a user inspecting and editing application files feels like a strawman argument. For example many spyware use malicious links to infect the devices, not malicious apps.
3 replies →
When you are a minority you have to be incredibly loud for any chance to sway things your way.
Not saying whether it's a good thing or a bad thing, but just the nature of reality.
[flagged]
So other projects are not supposed to critize Google? Graphene's focus is on security and they complain about lack of security in your products. Seems valid to me.
Also security and using non-Google OS are not niche usecases. I'm not sure how you are working on Android, the most popular OS while claiming security is a niche usecase. In fact, I have less confidence in security of your work.
[flagged]
[flagged]
5 replies →
[flagged]
Thankfully the project doesn't care about your personal attitude. That "niche use case" literally saves lives in countries where saying the wrong thing can put you to death. Since when is calling something out a rant?
[flagged]
In a world where economics makes security hardly a secondary concern, a situation exploited by both the intelligence and surveillance broker sectors, dogmatic sanctimony for high security is a feature and not a bug.
This doesn't read as a rant to me, but as calm and factual, regarding a genuine security regression that merits public attention. What is your interest in mischaracterizing it?
Could you please explain why supporting MTE/potentially EMTE in production as a goal represents a niche use case? Isn't mitigating memory corruption issues a mainstream ideal? How else would you propose to do it?
> people that flash custom Android OSs are the very definition of niche users.
This is a mischaracterization. The niche isn't Android hobbyists, it's people with what should be a basic expectation for privacy. I wouldn't flash GOS or any other OS if I could safely avoid it.
They are good enough to have their own Cellebrite column. If they complain about something, you should probably listen.
Maybe if Google did not shove their spyware down people's throats and actually allowed users control of their phones, there wouldn't be a need for projects like Graphene and Lineage. Until then, complaints are more than justified.
"I don't know anything but I don't like Graphene"
Well we know Google isn't enabling MTE, while LLM-enabled exploits are multiplying rapidly. Maybe you need to get back to work?
Security shouldn’t be a niche use case. There’s a constant trickle of CVEs, and spyware vendors are known to abuse these exploits in their software. All this on devices that are reachable in the US through a text or MMS, sent to an easily located 10 digit number that isn’t easily changed. These are devices that people now use for all kinds of sensitive tasks!
Security should be the number one priority, frankly. Graphene has shown that this is possible, and they have tried multiple times to get Google to integrate their work.
> I doubt I'd go far out of my way to help them, even if I had exposure to them.
Too busy crippling sideloading I guess
... and my opinion becomes more positive with each rant. We'll have to agree to disagree. The only reason I buy Pixels for myself and my family members is because of GrapheneOS, otherwise it would be used out of date hardware for LineageOS or some kind of Linux phone. I am thankful that they are attempting to diversify with Motorola, being entirely Pixel dependent has been a project vulnerability; anytime Google decided to lock down the boot loader, it would have been curtains for the project.
[flagged]
I've never seen them call it "evil". I've seen them debunk CalyxOS security claims as well as criticism of GrapheneOS, and they usually provide some serious reasoning and technical information when they do it. They know what they're talking about.
Don't take it personally. I'm a huge fan of Linux, and GrapheneOS routinely comes here and calls it a huge security liability. And they are right.
[flagged]
Tbf with all the information that has come to light since then Rossmann and FUTO were also not behaving correctly and it was fair from him to deny coming onto their show (where they have also invited fascists before)
[flagged]
[flagged]
I'm not an AOSP engineer, but that was my thought reading GOS's comments: Why be negative toward the people who you want help from?
What help though? Google has closed off AOSP and only does source code drops twice a year. Google has embargoed security patches for three months and only provides them to OEMs of Google-certified Android phones, not other AOSP-based projects. Google stopped providing git trees of kernel sources and instead requires projects to submit a request for a Google drive link for each kernel version that takes up to weeks to process. Google is shutting out open Android systems through Play Integrity.
Google is not helping anymore, over the last 1-2 years they have tried everything to sabotage AOSP-based projects. The only reason that they are not fully closing AOSP is probably because 1.) they would get in hot water with regulators; and 2.) AOSP will probably get forked.