#Android is dead and we’d better all leave the ship before it sinks entirely.
Earlier this year #Google already took bold steps in moving the development of several AOSP components behind closed doors, removing the open-source foundations of the project one component at the time.
Options to unlock bootloaders on Android devices are also narrowing down. Xiaomi removed the ability to unlock the bootloader entirely in MIUI in August (after months spent making it ridiculously difficult), same for OnePlus, Samsung did so in July, and probably Google devices will soon follow suit.
And let’s not mention the nightmare of the Play Integrity API that forces all Android developers to register through the Play Store and use Google’s signing keys, even if they don’t intend to distribute their apps through it.
Sure, officially Google has taken a step back and has pledged to provide a way for developers and power-users to bypass those restrictions. But we can all expect it to be a cumbersome and change-prone process filled with ridiculous amounts of frictions at every step - and I wouldn’t even expect such a morally bankrupt company to keep maintaining this “sideloading” option.
Google once competed with Apple for customers. But in a world where Google walks away from the biggest antitrust trial since 1998 with yet another slap on the wrist, competition is dead, and Google is taking notes from Apple about what they can legally get away with. And the EU, the biggest opposer of its anti-competitive acts, is also becoming softer with Big Tech - both because Vestager has left the job, and because being soft with trillion-dollar monopolist tech titans is seen as a sign of being “technologically competitive”.
Your best bet is to purchase a Pixel 9a now, before more manufacturers decide to block bootloaders, and immediately flash it with #GrapheneOS.
The long term plan would instead be to throw all of our efforts and energies on Linux phones. The folks at GrapheneOS are doing an amazing job and fighting against all kind of pressures, but at some point we should probably all just acknowledge that anything that is tainted with Android, or runs on a device intended only to run Android, is a liability, and we should no longer build solutions on top of hardware and software that we can no longer trust.
Sailfish, PostmarketOS, UBPorts, MeeGo or whatever comes next must succeed. No matter the cost.
Bootloader unlocking option removed from One UI 8.0
It looks like Samsung has silently removed the option to unlock the bootloader from One UI 8.0 onwards as it has been reported by some users in the forum (here, here). By reversing the Settings...salvo_giangri (XDA Forums)
qkall likes this.
Anomaly ☑️ doesn't like this.
reshared this
Cory Doctorow, Artemis, Jesus M. Gonzalez-Barahona, Jennifer, tian2992, random thoughts, Silmathoron ⁂, xs4me2, Lazarou Monkey Terror 🚀💙🌈, Shannon Prickett, Lady Errant, Billy Smith, The Fulcrum/Battalion ⚒️, Mastodon Migration, Ken Milmore, hex, Gorka Julio ⁂, Festive Yule Roy Pardee 🇺🇸, Alex / catileptic, Paul Schoonhoven 🍋🍉, Christine Lemmer-Webber, Tinker ☀️, Martin Vermeer FCD, Elyastorah, tessarakt, alcinnz, Johan Wärlander 🦀, Lord Caramac the Clueless, KSC, tootbrute, McWabbit 🇺🇦🍋🌻🍉, Bastian Greshake Tzovaras, Dr. Sobek, Disreputable_Craftsman, Jure Repinc, éric 🚲 🇪🇺, GeofCox, Kim Spence-Jones 🇬🇧😷, Thomas Tanghus, 💙🩷💜Ⓑⓡⓔⓣⓣ🐡🍉🐧, Grégory Gutierez 🌻🎸🐧 and Arthurr ⏚ reshared this.
Justin ⏚
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •UBports
in reply to Justin ⏚ • • •Joan CiberSheep (ell/això)
in reply to UBports • • •My future if mu current phone with Ubuntu Touch breaks is a phone similar to what PinePhone did, use an upstream Linux kernel. That, or no phone.
@ubports @JustinH @fabio
Jonathan Frederickson
in reply to UBports • • •Jennifer
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •DFX4509B (Joshua Mason)
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • •like this
zetabeta and ShadSterling like this.
RememberUsAlways
Unknown parent • • •@cyberlyra
I use Fadora , Sailfish and have both Apple and Pixel phones.
Some data I need Apple and Alphabet to consume so their software AI can attempt to learn how we will destroy Apple and Google.
El Pamplina 🇺🇦 🇵🇸
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •For companies, Open Source gives them a boost to develop very quickly and with community support. But, when success has arrived and they have already become a juicy business, the company will try by all means to regain absolute control and close the code.
Pure business logic.
Miakoda
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •Truls
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •Fabio Manganiello
in reply to Truls • • •@truls46 that’s going to be so hard…a lot of their modifications to the vanilla Android images specifically target Pixel phones, as other manufacturers made it much harder to change those things on their systems.
I can see GrapheneOS supporting at some point something like Motorola or Nokia devices that are still close enough to vanilla Android handhelds. But Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo and all the Chinese crap riddled with unmodifiable customizations (and which is making it impossible to even unblock the bootloader) will IMHO be very unlikely.
Τρομοκρατιστής ✭
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •Dźwiedziu
in reply to Τρομοκρατιστής ✭ • • •@tromo
N900 had 768 MB swap, which was even emphasised in marketing materials.
@fabio @truls46
Fabio Manganiello
in reply to Dźwiedziu • • •@dzwiedziu @tromo @truls46 I've still got my N900 here.
And it still works more than fine 16 years later (even though I mainly use it as a terminal to control music over mopidy, the keyboard was way too small to be any practical).
At some point I need some time to make Arch work on it again, as after some experiments with recent versions of systemd I bricked the SD card, but I can no longer find that image online (btw if someone still has the Arch 32-bit image for N900 it'd save me a lot of time).
Maemo also still works more than fine, even though of course the software is ancient and the repos are not even online anymore.
I keep imagining an alternative timeline where Nokia didn't commit suicide by getting in bed with Microsoft and their brain dead Windows Phones, after a lot of internal struggles between the Maemo, Meego and Symbian teams, which eventually opened the road to Google and Apple. By now these Debian-based handhelds could actually be the norm...
Dźwiedziu
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •I gave away mine into good hands, as I was moving countries. Just after I've discovered pmOS.
But that form-factor itch stayed.
@tromo @truls46
GrapheneOS
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •jesterchen42
in reply to Truls • • •@truls46 I hope that as well. For now I follow the advice of @fabio and buy a Pixel 9a.
So sad. But so predictable. Embrace, extend, extinguish, enshittify.
GrapheneOS
in reply to jesterchen42 • • •@jesterchen @truls46 Please read our thread responding at grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/… and don't worry about GrapheneOS going away which is not happening. AOSP is still fully open source and still having each major release pushed to AOSP. We have experimental support for the Pixel 10 devices and it's not going to be any worse than support for earlier Pixels. We're working on hardware with first class GrapheneOS support with an OEM but providing all updates and security features isn't trivial.
@jesterchen @truls46 Please read our thread responding at grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/… and don't worry about GrapheneOS going away which is not happening. AOSP is still fully open source and still having each major release pushed to AOSP. We have experimental support for the Pixel 10 devices and it's not going to be any worse than support for earlier Pixels. We're working on hardware with first class GrapheneOS support with an OEM but providing all updates and security features isn't trivial.
GrapheneOS
2025-12-04 00:28:11
jesterchen42
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS Thank you for Tagung the time to reach out!
Despite being misinforming, the posting above finally pushed me out of my comfort zone. I was too comfy to continue degoogling my life, this has finally changed. GrapheneOS it well be soon, no more google calendar it will be after Christmas.
And it's time to support more projects like yours. Freedom has to prevail! Thanks again for all your work and dedication!
Eelco Mulder 🇪🇺
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •Next to @murena as daily driver, I am running @ubports on a Fairphone 5. It's not 100% there yet, but surely promessing!
Hopefully more people will get involved into linux on the smartphone!
#eos #ubports #linuxphone
haui <- 39c3
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •To be fair, postmarketos is insane. Its surprisingly good and very stable. The only issue that i've had so far was that the phone function did not work reliably. That was ultimately the reason why I had to change to lineageos for the time being. But i still carry a pmos phone with me to be able to work on it.
If we could easily make a raspberry pi compute model based phone I'd go for it. Pmos runs on the rpi and the only thing that really keeps me from making it is time and money atm.
Fabio Manganiello
in reply to haui <- 39c3 • • •@haui two problems I have with PostmarketOS:
1. Every supported device has slightly different setup and configurations (tried it on my N900 too, the setups and even the default WM were completely different from the image I tried on my Nexus 5). Things should probably be a bit more consistent out-of-the-box.
2. It's Alpine-based, hence OpenRC and no systemd - and I had to rewrite most of my system scripts to work on it. Not a huge deal, and AFAIK they were also working on finally getting systemd to work on it.
About the RPi compute module - yes, definitely!
And someone also tried to do something similar - at least with tablets.
I've still got my #CutiePi tablet here.
The idea was amazing - an easy-to-open tablet with an RPi module inside.
The default module was an RPi4 2GB and I've even managed to easily swap it for an RPi5 with 8GB.
Installed Manjaro with GNOME on it and it actual
... Show more...@haui two problems I have with PostmarketOS:
1. Every supported device has slightly different setup and configurations (tried it on my N900 too, the setups and even the default WM were completely different from the image I tried on my Nexus 5). Things should probably be a bit more consistent out-of-the-box.
2. It's Alpine-based, hence OpenRC and no systemd - and I had to rewrite most of my system scripts to work on it. Not a huge deal, and AFAIK they were also working on finally getting systemd to work on it.
About the RPi compute module - yes, definitely!
And someone also tried to do something similar - at least with tablets.
I've still got my #CutiePi tablet here.
The idea was amazing - an easy-to-open tablet with an RPi module inside.
The default module was an RPi4 2GB and I've even managed to easily swap it for an RPi5 with 8GB.
Installed Manjaro with GNOME on it and it actually has potential.
But of course the GNOME mobile experience is still a bit far from being smooth (and IMHO Plasma is a bit more ahead on that front).
I had to do hardcore scripting of stuff like on-screen keyboard, screen rotation etc. or rely on external (and very unstable) GNOME extensions to get a basic mobile experience. And even stuff like locking the screen through the button didn't work without compiling and configuring the MPU6050 driver and building the Qt bindings for it.
They also provided their own custom UI though to provide a pseudo-smooth mobile experience, and I also contributed to it for a while, especially on the middleware layer (github.com/cutiepi-io/cutiepi-…), but I had to reinvent event wheels like battery indicators,and DBus event propagation from the various sensors).
Unfortunately the project has gone burst now and I think I'm the only maintainer that is still "active". But the potential was definitely there, and if there was a low-friction way of getting PostmarketOS to work on a generic RPi module and support some off-the-shelf mobile components I'd definitely be happy to take my soldering iron and build something from scratch.
GitHub - cutiepi-io/cutiepi-middleware
GitHubhaui <- 39c3
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •I understand that there will always be minor issues, especially considering that there is currently barely any money made by this which is pretty unhealthy for the devs.
But pmos works on rpi without issue. I've tried. You should probably throw in an sd card with the latest edge version and check it out. It works pretty oob afaik.
Julius Schwartzenberg - Юліус
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •Copyleft Compliance Projects - Software Freedom Conservancy
sfconservancy.orgwikiyu
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •Dear Friend
As You told
Please tell me where can I go. What device can I buy.
I have only small requirements:
not be disconnected from my bank account
not be treated like a terrorist on any border checks
Truly yours
Early adopter
BTW I love that name "Sailfish" - it is so good that it (software) doesnt come in first page of google. It is as good as Loops, or any name that microsoft owns for more that 5 years 😉
Fabio Manganiello
in reply to wikiyu • • •@wikiyu the best bet right now is GrapheneOS on a Pixel phone.
It should work with several banking apps too, at least in Europe.
About not being treated like a terrorist at border checks, I can’t assure that. Even a Linux laptop can be seen as a suspicious item if you go to the US now, and GrapheneOS is increasingly seen as a red flag by the countries that are embracing this bold push for surveillance…
wikiyu
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •About graphene there is this sick reason that i would no go into. I do not want to buy any device from google 😉
Why giving them money while trying to get rid of them? 😉
And yes - we need some mid range phones that just should run linux by postmarket os or any other project... even kde mobile or whatever
Fabio Manganiello
in reply to wikiyu • • •@wikiyu that’s a fair point, but I like to see it from a different perspective.
Paying $300 for a second-hand Pixel device is like a one-off tax I have to pay to Google to leave me in peace, and prevent them from making even more profit with my data 🙂
ariarhythmic
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •xorox
in reply to ariarhythmic • • •prince lucija
in reply to xorox • • •wikipedia:
"GrapheneOS is an open-source, privacy and security focused Android operating system"
GrapheneOS
in reply to prince lucija • • •@prinlu @xorgrox @ariarhythmic @wikiyu See grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/… for our thread responding to the misconceptions in the original post. It's very misinformed. Devices not permitting unlocking or apps banning non-Google-certified operating systems isn't addressed by moving to a much less private, secure, usable and compatible OS. SaiflishOS isn't even open source while AOSP is still open and had the latest major release (Android 16 QPR2) pushed with no delay yesterday.
@prinlu @xorgrox @ariarhythmic @wikiyu See grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/… for our thread responding to the misconceptions in the original post. It's very misinformed. Devices not permitting unlocking or apps banning non-Google-certified operating systems isn't addressed by moving to a much less private, secure, usable and compatible OS. SaiflishOS isn't even open source while AOSP is still open and had the latest major release (Android 16 QPR2) pushed with no delay yesterday.
GrapheneOS
2025-12-04 00:28:11
Only Ohm
in reply to wikiyu • • •@wikiyu
@fabio
My impression is that LineageOS will run on a wider range of devices than GrapheneOS, but it may have other drawbacks (?something to do with how it provides the functionality that Android gets from Google Play Services).
But frankly, handsets that will run either GrapheneOS or LineageOS seem to be remarkably difficult to find available for purchase, whether new or refurb. Any leads on where it's possible to buy one in the UK, please?
Fabio Manganiello
in reply to Only Ohm • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •@wikiyu @only_ohm
> However it allows you more easily to use a rooted device, which GrapheneOS made harder for security reasons.
No, GrapheneOS does nothing of the kind. We discourage people from replacing a bunch of the core OS with a rootkit but do nothing which prevents doing it or makes it harder.
We addressed the major inaccuracies in the original post at grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/… and we'll need to invest more time in addressing misconceptions like these from how far it spread.
@wikiyu @only_ohm
> However it allows you more easily to use a rooted device, which GrapheneOS made harder for security reasons.
No, GrapheneOS does nothing of the kind. We discourage people from replacing a bunch of the core OS with a rootkit but do nothing which prevents doing it or makes it harder.
We addressed the major inaccuracies in the original post at grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/… and we'll need to invest more time in addressing misconceptions like these from how far it spread.
GrapheneOS
2025-12-04 00:28:11
GrapheneOS
in reply to wikiyu • • •@wikiyu You should read our thread at grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/… responding to this.
GrapheneOS
2025-12-04 00:28:11
LukefromDC
in reply to wikiyu • • •Fabio Manganiello
in reply to LukefromDC • • •@LukefromDC @wikiyu in my case I have opted for a Pixel phone with GrapheneOS (which means no Google Wallet support discuss.grapheneos.org/d/475-w…) with a paired Pixel Watch (which runs stock WearOS, so it has Google Wallet) with sandboxed Google Play permissions to give Google access to the bare minimum. So at least I can still pay with my watch.
I mean I've been working in tech for a long time and I've helped build some of these solutions (and I even dreamed of open payments APIs at some point when I used to work in Fintech, let thousands of competing payments app sprawl and innovate). 10 years ago things even seemed to go in that direction - ABN Amro, the largest Dutch bank, hired Apigee to help them build their open APIs. For a while innovations like pay
... Show more...@LukefromDC @wikiyu in my case I have opted for a Pixel phone with GrapheneOS (which means no Google Wallet support discuss.grapheneos.org/d/475-w…) with a paired Pixel Watch (which runs stock WearOS, so it has Google Wallet) with sandboxed Google Play permissions to give Google access to the bare minimum. So at least I can still pay with my watch.
I mean I've been working in tech for a long time and I've helped build some of these solutions (and I even dreamed of open payments APIs at some point when I used to work in Fintech, let thousands of competing payments app sprawl and innovate). 10 years ago things even seemed to go in that direction - ABN Amro, the largest Dutch bank, hired Apigee to help them build their open APIs. For a while innovations like payment wearables (I had an NFC ring) and apps to process payments between friends on the fly or keep track of your finances sprawled.
I thought that it was just a matter of time before more 3rd-party apps sprawled around open banking APIs, that the 402 HTTP code would have been properly implemented, and that the future belonged to FOSS banking apps and wearables.
Not only things haven't gone in that direction, but they have actually gone backwards.
The open APIs that ABN Amro and other banks were supposed to release 10 years ago have never been released.
Crypto and the toxic folks behind it have taken the crown of innovation in digital payments, with everything that it entails, while traditional banks have gone more conservative, supporting only their own apps or the integrations with Google Pay / Apple Pay. A lot of the products that sprawled around 2016/2017 have actually been discontinued.
I won't settle for Big Tech oligarchs and corrupt lawmakers to take away from me the tech that we were trying to build. I won't settle for going back to physical cards or cash payments just because those in charge of my industry are MBA parasites or lazy arses just waiting for their pension paychecks.
Wallet - Google Pay - GrapheneOS Discussion Forum
GrapheneOS Discussion ForumBjörn Hesthamar
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •sam
Unknown parent • • •might depend on the banking app and what it checks for? What banking app? I could test out if it installs and opens in waydroid. If it's TBC, I could also try logging in.
Are you using the usb modem for data?
CC: @fabio@manganiello.eu
tootbrute
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •there is furiphone.
furilabs.com/
Home - FuriPhone FLX1 Linux Phone
Furi Labs: Planned PermanenceFabio Manganiello
in reply to tootbrute • • •@tootbrute this is actually new to me, thanks for bringing my attention on it!
This is also the first time I hear of FuriOS and I think I'll take a closer look at it - especially if it promises to bring the best of Debian and Android apps without pain.
And I loved the song that some fan made about it 😂 youtube.com/watch?v=gdS_Kpwrrg…
Wow! A New Linux Phone! FLX1s
David Hamner (YouTube)tootbrute
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •Jennifer
Unknown parent • • •daym
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •shop.fairphone.com/the-fairpho…
The Fairphone (Gen. 6) now with privacy-first /e/OS
FairphoneFabio Manganiello
in reply to daym • • •@mikeday I have a mixed feeling about /e/OS.
I know that the developers are doing an amazing job and they’re also genuinely good people. But they still build a solution that is basically a thin layer on top of AOSP, which is now being disassembled piece by piece.
In the best case scenario they’ll end up with an OS that they can’t control because the development is done in-house by Google. In the worst case they’ll end up with an OS that can’t even be used on any device except the Fairphone and maybe Librem.
I asked their head of engineering in 2022 why they chose to use AOSP as a base rather than building a true Linux-based alternative and maybe support the efforts of folks like PMOS and Sailfish, and he said more or less “because AOSP is FOSS regardless of what Google wants to do”. Curious to know if they still have the same view now…
Mr_Knister
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Mr_Knister • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Mr_Knister @mikeday Most of what's written at discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134… applies to iodéOS too. The articles linked from Divested Computing and Mike Kuketz there have equivalents for iodéOS too.
Fairphone themselves lags behind on updates significantly and has areas they don't cover. FP4 has an end-of-life 4.19 kernel and the FP5 5.4 kernel branch is end-of-life this month. They weren't really shipping the Linux LTS LTS updates regardless but now those don't have updates available.
Devices lacking standard privacy/security patches and protections aren't private - GrapheneOS Discussion Forum
GrapheneOS Discussion ForumGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Fabio Manganiello
in reply to Mr_Knister • • •@Mr_Knister @mikeday I took just a quick glance at it a while ago and it didn’t seem like it added much on top of LineageOS (just some pre-installed applications like F-Droid and Aurora).
And it also suffers from the same issues of LineageOS when it comes to things that percolate to Google’s servers (like microG connections and connections to Google’s SUPL server for efficient location retrieval), but I guess that @GrapheneOS is currently the only AOSP-based alternative that fully addresses those issues. But of course different users lie at different spots on the anti-Google spectrum, so for someone who is fine to use microG to get Google Play payments to work without tears, and they’re fine if it means a few connections to Google’s servers, i
... Show more...@Mr_Knister @mikeday I took just a quick glance at it a while ago and it didn’t seem like it added much on top of LineageOS (just some pre-installed applications like F-Droid and Aurora).
And it also suffers from the same issues of LineageOS when it comes to things that percolate to Google’s servers (like microG connections and connections to Google’s SUPL server for efficient location retrieval), but I guess that @GrapheneOS is currently the only AOSP-based alternative that fully addresses those issues. But of course different users lie at different spots on the anti-Google spectrum, so for someone who is fine to use microG to get Google Play payments to work without tears, and they’re fine if it means a few connections to Google’s servers, it can be an option.
My main concern however is that from what I see the development team that works on it isn’t very big, and I’m not sure if security updates get (or will get for a foreseable future) released at the same cadence as upstream LineageOS.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •@mikeday @Mr_Knister
> microG to get Google Play payments to work without tears
It won't do this.
microG only provides compatibility with a fraction of Play Store apps and a fraction of the functionality. It doesn't include Google Play Store in-app payments and similar functionality.
Google Pay isn't going to work on an alternate OS due to checking for Google certification via the Play Integrity API. There are tap-to-pay implementations which work on another OS, but not on every OS.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •Your claims about Android and the Android Open Source Project are extremely misinformed. AOSP has not made any part of the cross-platform OS closed source. The only changes to what's published was specifically for Pixels. They still provide most of what they did before for Pixels.
A huge portion of the coverage of Android in tech media is inaccurate from people who don't understand it. Android releases were always developed behind closed doors and released as open source on launch day.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Devices disallowing installing another OS impacts any OS, not specifically ones based on the Android Open Source Project. Play Integrity API impacts any OS which wants to provide compatibility with those apps, not only the ones with a base OS based on the Android Open Source Project. You won't avoid either of those by moving to an OS based on the desktop Linux software stack.
Planned checks for sideloaded apps don't apply to an AOSP-based OS not licensing Google Mobile Services anyway.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> The long term plan would instead be to throw all of our efforts and energies on Linux phones.
Android Open Source Project and GrapheneOS are Linux distributions.
Your first listed recommendation, SailfishOS, is a largely closed source operating. It doesn't have an equivalent to the Android Open Source Project. You're promoting moving from a high quality open source OS with strong privacy and security with lots of apps to a largely closed source OS with none of that.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •The operating systems you've listed have atrocious privacy and security. They massively roll those back to desktop operation system standards or below. It's the direct opposite of the direction taken by GrapheneOS.
> that is tainted with Android, or runs on a device intended only to run Android, is a liability
This is nonsense, and you promote unsafe options without basic privacy and security over it. Those far less trustworthy and mislead people about what they're providing.
Fabio Manganiello
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
Thanks for clarifying - this detail wasn’t actually reported by most of the tech outlets.
Yes, I know that AOSP is still open.
But I expressed my concern that this will keep being the case.
We’re basically relying on the good faith of Google in releasing for free to everyone, and not only to commercial partners, the source code that they mostly develop in house - which I wouldn’t take so much for granted.
I’m very well aware of that.
That’s why in other posts we argued
... Show more...@GrapheneOS
Thanks for clarifying - this detail wasn’t actually reported by most of the tech outlets.
Yes, I know that AOSP is still open.
But I expressed my concern that this will keep being the case.
We’re basically relying on the good faith of Google in releasing for free to everyone, and not only to commercial partners, the source code that they mostly develop in house - which I wouldn’t take so much for granted.
I’m very well aware of that.
That’s why in other posts we argued that true peace of mind can only come once we also have friendly hardware producers onboard who won’t lock up their bootloaders without notice.
As me and others on this thread already proposed, by working with hardware manufacturers who are not jerks.
Just like Graphene must rely on Google’s goodwill in keeping the AOSP open, it must also rely on its goodwill not to lock up the Pixel bootloaders in the next iterations. This is a liability.
Partnering together with e.g. Fairphone, Purism or Jolla for example could help. Sure, they aren’t perfect, but your deep knowledge of the Android ecosystem and the best hardening practices could provide invaluable insights on how to build 100% (hardware and software) FOSS devices whose bootloaders won’t be suddenly permanently locked tomorrow.
If instead most of your online activities focus on showing how much better your solution is compared to what everyone else provides, and how each other single hardware and OS manufacturer sucks, then these strategic partnerships are harder to forge.
To be clear, I’m a Graphene user myself, and I largely prefer it over most of the alternatives out there.
But we should also acknowledge that there are multiple dimensions to take into account when considering Google Android alternatives.
Some folks don’t want the full spyware package, but they are ok to accept the microG trade-offs if they come with the comfort of using some apps that rely on the Play Services. /e/, Iode or LineageOS could then be viable options.
Other folks don’t want to have anything to do with anything touched by Google, and want to have a stack as similar as possible to their Linux desktop. And maybe also easy root access. For those folks UBPorts, PMOS or Sailfish can be ok, even if of course it means less security.
Other folks want everything in their device to be FOSS. And for those, at the current state, an AOSP-based solution that doesn’t close up anything it builds on top of it is a better option than Sailfish (but hey you’ve also got PMOS that is actually open).
Of course if you want something that is simultaneously 100% FOSS, de-Googled, secure and always up-to-date with the latest patches you go for Graphene. But there’s a whole spectrum of alternatives that it shouldn’t be ignored just because it accepts one trade-off or another.
Sorry, I used “make it harder” instead of “discouraging”. But the message is similar. Stuff like LineageOS actively provides guides on how to flash rootkit. GrapheneOS discourages it and offers no support to users who do it. People usually choose one or the other according to their needs. If I want a device where I can run my Termux scripts as root I probably would opt for Lineage, not Graphene, even if it’s technically possible on Graphene. And, of course, I take full responsibility of running custom scripts as root on my device. No need for anyone to remind me that it’s very insecure if it’s a trade-off I may accept (and no need to criticize those who accept those trade-offs).
All in all, I love and I fully support what you’re building. But your aggressive interactions alienate people - and I don’t think I’m the only one here.
Most of your posts fall along the lines of “look how much better/open/secure/purist what we build is compared to X, Y and Z - and whatever everyone else builds is awful”. And of course I acknowledge that your points are 100% valid most of the times, but they ignore that different people who choose de-Googled products may have different reasons and may accept different trade-offs, and they also ignore some of your own liabilities (like your reliance on Google’s goodwill both for AOSP and Pixels). This isn’t the kind of constructive behaviour that empowers communities.
main
cs.android.comGrapheneOS
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •> Thanks for clarifying - this detail wasn’t actually reported by most of the tech outlets.
Please correct your post which has been widely propagated and has already created a substantial workload for us correcting misconceptions.
> But I expressed my concern that this will keep being the case.
You're expressed that as part of a post with many inaccurate statements about it which has been widely spread and caused many people to misunderstand the situation and express concerns to us.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> As me and others on this thread already proposed, by working with hardware manufacturers who are not jerks.
We are working with a large Android OEM. It isn't easy to make a device with proper updates and hardware-based security features. We aimed to have it ready for 2026 but the Snapdragon flagship they're using had a deficiency for MTE support.
> Fairphone, Purism
Both companies are scamming people with very false marketing for extremely insecure products without proper updates.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •When it takes Fairphone 3 years to ship a final major OS update, they portray it as providing 3 more years of OS updates than an OEM which shipped it 3 years earlier as their last major OS update. That doesn't make sense. It's an extremely misleading way to present things and they know it. Despite that, their marketing is heavily based around this.
Fairphone 5 is not an old device but the kernel branch is end-of-life this month (December 2025). They weren't updating it anyway.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> If instead most of your online activities focus on showing how much better your solution is compared to what everyone else provides, and how each other single hardware and OS manufacturer sucks, then these strategic partnerships are harder to forge.
We're addressing misconceptions and misinformation about GrapheneOS. Several of the companies you've promoted are heavily invested in misleading people about GrapheneOS with inaccurate claims. You've made the situation worse now.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> Some folks don’t want the full spyware package, but they are ok to accept the microG trade-offs if they come with the comfort of using some apps that rely on the Play Services. /e/, Iode or LineageOS could then be viable options.
GrapheneOS provides our own approach to this with a higher level of privacy, security, usability and app compatibility. microG is not the only project reimplementing Play services functionality, we're doing that ourselves while meeting our requirements.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> For those folks UBPorts, PMOS or Sailfish can be ok, even if of course it means less security.
These have very poor privacy and security, worse than even traditional desktop operating systems. SailfishOS is a closed source OS. We'll be making our own threads addressing it because you made your post.
They're not avoiding Google. Google does most of the upstream Linux kernel hardening and fuzzing work. They contribute a massive amount to Linux, LLVM, GCC and many other projects.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> Stuff like LineageOS actively provides guides on how to flash rootkit. GrapheneOS discourages it and offers no support to users who do it.
That's not true. LineageOS doesn't provide official documentation or support for it. They discourage it and leave it up to third parties. It's the same as GrapheneOS. Those third parties implementing their code modifying the OS provide the documentation and support for us.
GrapheneOS doesn't provide official docs on userdebug builds with root.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> All in all, I love and I fully support what you’re building. But your aggressive interactions alienate people - and I don’t think I’m the only one here.
You're spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS while not correcting or retracting the inaccurate claims. This creates a massive workload for us needing to answer many people's panicked questions and concerns because of misinformation you're propagating. If you don't want us publishing as many threads about us, take down your post.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> This isn’t the kind of constructive behaviour that empowers communities.
You're misinforming people at scale with misinformation about GrapheneOS and the overall topic. You're doing the opposite of supporting actual privacy and security on mobile devices or independence from Google either. You're creating a substantial workload for us, taking away time from development and harming our ability to improve and expand the project. Using it while doing this makes it worse, not better.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Fabio Manganiello
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
You see the pattern here - and also in most of the other things you publish?
I mean, from a technical point of view you’re 100% right. But does it give you the right to constantly criticize so much others who are trying to solve the same problem?
Have you even talked to some folks from Fairphone, Purism or Jolla to understand if it’s even possible to help one another?
Remember that hardware manufacturers who don’t allow users to unlock their bootloaders and companies who try to push their “Integrity APIs” are supposed to be the enemies here. Not Fairphone.
... Show more...@GrapheneOS
You see the pattern here - and also in most of the other things you publish?
I mean, from a technical point of view you’re 100% right. But does it give you the right to constantly criticize so much others who are trying to solve the same problem?
Have you even talked to some folks from Fairphone, Purism or Jolla to understand if it’s even possible to help one another?
Remember that hardware manufacturers who don’t allow users to unlock their bootloaders and companies who try to push their “Integrity APIs” are supposed to be the enemies here. Not Fairphone.
So by using Linux I’m not avoiding Google because Google engineers also contribute to the Linux kernel? Do you realize that this doesn’t make any sense?
I had a lot of respect for you folks and for your work, but you’ve taken it all away.
I still respect your work, to be clear, and I’m still a happy Graphene user.
But I’m not sure if I respect someone who repeatedly threatens users on the Fediverse if they don’t take down their posts and spends all of their communication resources bitching about everyone else.
I have edited the post to remove the link to the article that claimed that AOSP is being dismantled because it was objectively inaccurate.
But everything else (from hardware manufacturers pulling back on unlocked bootloaders, to the Integrity API, to Google’s alarming monopolistic strategies, to the fact that relying on Google’s goodwill is a liability) is true. Why should I pull it down? And, in case you didn’t notice, I also stated in it:
Why do you want me to pull it down then?
Why have you been shouting “misinformation”, “misconception”, “false news” DOZENS of times in this thread?
Why don’t you chill down and take a deep breath before hammering on the keyboard and giving everyone else the impression of a toxic bunch who hates everyone else?
Because I also said that my long-term wish is to have a full Linux phone with open hardware and mainline kernel and I also mentioned a few of the alternatives?
Do you realize how toxic you sound to anyone who reads your messages?
GrapheneOS
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •> You see the pattern here - and also in most of the other things you publish?
We're responding to misinformation about GrapheneOS with accurate information.
> But does it give you the right to constantly criticize so much others who are trying to solve the same problem?
They've been heavily attacking GrapheneOS for years, often in a similar way to what you're doing above. The projects you're promoting have each attacked GrapheneOS repeatedly and we've addressed those attacks.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> Have you even talked to some folks from Fairphone, Purism or Jolla to understand if it’s even possible to help one another?
Yes, we have. Fairphone and Jolla have repeatedly attacked GrapheneOS. Fairphone is closely partnered with a company engaging in extremely malicious attacks on GrapheneOS including libel and harassment towards our team. We can post archive links proving the founder of /e/ and Murena has been attacking our team with libel/harassment in the past week if you want.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> Not Fairphone.
Fairphone is a GMS partner part of the anti-competitive Play Integrity API system too.
Fairphone is the company partnered with Murena and standing by them as they heavily attack GrapheneOS with misinformation and our team with libel and harassment.
See this horrible site?
12bytes.org/tags/conspiracy/
Here's one of many examples of the founder of /e/ and Murena pushing harassment content from there in the past week:
archive.is/SWXPJ
archive.is/n4yTO
Category: conspiracy - 12bytes.org
12bytes.orgGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> So by using Linux I’m not avoiding Google because Google engineers also contribute to the Linux kernel? Do you realize that this doesn’t make any sense?
Google is one of main companies writing the core Linux kernel. The overall core Linux kernel is primarily made by a dozen large tech companies. Google is heavily involved far beyond that. You say you want to avoid them but you're using an OS family where they're easily doing a majority of exploit protection work and much more.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> But I’m not sure if I respect someone who repeatedly threatens users on the Fediverse if they don’t take down their posts and spends all of their communication resources bitching about everyone else.
We've said that if you aren't going to correct or retract it, we'll be posting accurate information to counter it. Responding to inaccurate information with accurate information is hardly a drastic move and is an explanation of how we're going to address it rather than a threat.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •The rest of what you've posted is also largely inaccurate and it's completely fair for us to respond to it with accurate information. That's not toxic and it's not a threat. It's what we should be expected to do.
Multiple of the groups you're promoting are heavily invested in directing harassment towards our team with fabricated stories and blatant bullying. We've provided an example from this week:
12bytes.org/tags/conspiracy/
archive.is/SWXPJ
archive.is/n4yTO
Category: conspiracy - 12bytes.org
12bytes.orgGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •> Do you realize how toxic you sound to anyone who reads your messages?
The false narrative you're pushing about us is part of ongoing libel and harassment towards our team. By participating in lying about what we've said and done, you're directly responsible for a portion of the future harassment towards our team including further violence. There have been numerous swatting attacks and ongoing extreme harassment from the communities of the groups you're supporting this way.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Сара Кварц
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Сара Кварц • • •LisPi
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to LisPi • • •@lispi314 Purism's primary goal maximizing revenue while minimal expenses. Secondary goal is fulfilling the nonsensical Respects Your Freedom standard.
Under the Respects Your Freedom standard, a smartphone with completely closed source hardware, firmware and software would be considered fully freedom respecting as long as absolutely none of that can be updated over-the-air. If it can only be updated by opening up the case and flashing firmware, they consider it to be freedom respecting.
crying_drekavac
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Iron Bug
in reply to LisPi • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Iron Bug • • •burbilog
in reply to LisPi • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to burbilog • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@prinlu @wikiyu @xorgrox @ariarhythmic
> GrapheneOS is currently fighting hard against increasingly tough limitations added by Google almost on a monthly basis, and against new requirements introduced by individual countries.
No, this is not true. Also, none of what we're dealing with is avoided by moving to a much less private, secure, usable and compatible platform or especially a largely closed source one like SailfishOS. How is any of that dealing with any of the problems?
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Joshua Graves
Unknown parent • • •Zenie
Unknown parent • • •I wanted to like sailfish. The fact that it is closed source is a NO for me.
That it it's interface uses Qt and is icon based with no alternative is also a No.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •> Only a SMALL fraction of SFOS is closed source
No, that's wrong. Most of the OS code that's specific to SailfishOS is closed source. It's the parts which come from elsewhere and aren't specific to it which aren't closed source. Their project is mostly closed.
> It does NOT have worse privacy and seurity than Android.
No, SailfishOS objectively has extremely poor privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. It brings desktop insecurity to mobile.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@cyberlyra
> I understand there are a lot of purity tests in F/OSS.
SailfishOS is closed source. It's not a small portion of their code that's closed source but rather most of the code that's specific to it. It has no equivalent to the Android Open Source Project. There isn't a subset of the OS without their proprietary services, etc. but rather it's only usable as a closed source project building on open source ones. The open code is the Linux kernel and other stuff from elsewhere.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Joshua Graves • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@joshua @cyberlyra They've mislead people about privacy and security to an extreme, convincing people that a device lacking a proper sandbox, permission model, exploit protections, widespread use of memory safe language and many modern security features is more private and secure. They have their own invasive services too.
Informing people about the reality of their products is our response to years of misinformation about the GrapheneOS project from their team and community.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@joshua @cyberlyra
> We should be building each other up, not tearing each other down.
Companies selling phony privacy products which do not provide basic privacy or security patches, do not have a modern privacy/security model and do not have modern exploit or privacy protections aren't above being criticized due to portraying themselves as part of open source. They've put massive effort into misleading people about the Android Open Source Project and OSes like GrapheneOS based on it.
Martina Neumayer
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •Zenie
Unknown parent • • •@cyberlyra
I understand. I appreciate your recommendation.
It does add to what I know of Sailfish.
I'm thinking to try postmarket or UB ports.
My biggest problem with Sailfish on the surface is that it has icons and there is no good way to get rid of them. I still don't like that it's proprietary.
But we are choosing between evils.
I've been icon free for too long and I can't go back.
I hate android really. It's just a Linux that had its capabilities removed.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @joshua @cyberlyra huh, you're being pretty bloody aggressive. What exactly is your major beef?
Jolla is a for-profit company. I would expect most companies to be for-profit so as to continue operating. When has Jolla stated AOSP isn't Linux?
The OS has sandboxing and a permission model. What invasive services?
Personally I'm most interested in whether an OS can offer a beneficial experience. Given your tact against a small company, I would now rate you lower.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @joshua @cyberlyra
> aggressive
We're responding with factual information a thread with misinformation about GrapheneOS promoting an unsafe product as a better long term alternative.
> for-profit so as to continue operating.
Organizations don't need to be run primarily based on earning profits for shareholders to continue operating. An operating doing that is not putting their users first.
> When has Jolla stated AOSP isn't Linux?
It's a core part of their marketing.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @joshua @cyberlyra
> The OS has sandboxing and a permission model. What invasive services?
It has incomplete optional sandboxing a very legacy approach to a permission model.
It doesn't provide proper privacy or security patches, doesn't have modern exploit protections, doesn't have full system MAC/MLS policies, lacks verified boot, lacks secure element integration needed for working encryption for most users and more, lacks broad use of memory safe languages and much more.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •acct-user/initra-mf 🔜 39C3
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Minor tone suggestion:
While I wholeheartedly appreciate your providing sources to your arguments, saying "It's a fact." doesn't make them any truer.
On the contrary, in my opinion it is detrimental to your argument, because that statement not only means nothing, but is also often used by people who don't have any meaningful evidence and reach for this to falsely 'reinforce' their position.
I suggest omitting statements like these, and just presenting information supporting your claim. (Like you already do 😀)
Anyways, just thought I'd share.
Keep up the great work!!
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @joshua @cyberlyra you were responding to someone who wasn't even talking about your product, and with a highly negative tone. Definitely looks aggressive.
Jolla has very obviously other goals than 'pure profit at any cost'.
I've been tracking Jolla since Day -1. Can't remember them ever talking about AOSP publicly. I'm sure I might've missed something. Their website doesn't mention AOSP anywhere. So hardly 'core'.
I feel you're merely shining a bad light on yourself here.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Joshua Graves
Unknown parent • • •@GrapheneOS I strongly encourage you to heed @cyberlyra’s advice. This type of discourse isn’t productive and, if continued, will ultimately repel potential newcomers.
I say this as someone who respects the work you do and who wishes continued success in an incredibly difficult sector.
@Setok @fabio
Troed Sångberg
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
"We're responding with factual information"
+
"It has incomplete optional sandboxing"
vs
"Every application, irrespective of its origin, is run in a Sailjail sandbox with an explicitly assigned set of application permissions to limit the scope of malicious activity achievable by exploiting a possible vulnerability in the application."
docs.sailfishos.org/Reference/…
@Setok @joshua @cyberlyra @fabio
Security
Sailfish OS DocumentationGrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •Troed Sångberg
in reply to Troed Sångberg • • •@GrapheneOS
"We're responding with factual information"
+
"lacks secure element integration"
vs
"Sailfish OS includes a system service (extensible via vendor-specific plugins) which offers secure storage of data on behalf of client applications. [...]
Data storage is provided by vendor-specific plugins, and may include value-encrypted databases, block-encrypted databases, or hardware-backed secure storage."
This does read quite similar to "secure element integration" to me.
sailfishos.org/develop/docs/sa…
@Setok @joshua @cyberlyra @fabio
Sailfish Secrets - Sailfish OS
Ville Nummela (Sailfish OS)GrapheneOS
in reply to Troed Sångberg • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> there are so many inaccurate claims about SFOS here --posted as if they are truths-- that it is seriously detracting from your community's reputation.
Everything we've posted about SailfishOS here is accurate. Most of their own code is closed source and it has no equivalent to the Android Open Source Project despite being falsely marketed as more open. It does not provide reasonable privacy and security but rather rolls it back to comparable to a desktop OS.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua The smear campaign against GrapheneOS includes attacks from Jolla and their community as you're doing right here in this thread.
> privacy and security space in a very different way than Jolla.
Jolla is doing the opposite of addressing those things. They're marketing products and services with dramatically worse privacy and security than iPhones as being superior.
False marketing and dishonest attacks on GrapheneOS as you've done here will be countered.
Troed Sångberg
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
How is "Every application, irrespective of its origin" optional?
@Setok @joshua @cyberlyra @fabio
꧁꧂
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS "The smear campaign against GrapheneOS includes attacks from Jolla"
Surely you can provide a source for at least one of those attacks?
GrapheneOS
in reply to Troed Sångberg • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to ꧁꧂ • • •Troed Sångberg
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
You're the one claiming to only posts facts saying it's optional. Thus it is you who should explain how that is since the Sailfish documentation I have cited seems to disagree.
@Setok @joshua @cyberlyra @fabio
Spoofy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
Please don't take this as an attack - it's just my opinion, based on my knowledge as a long-time user of this platform (who has also tried GraphaneOS).
Apart from user comments, can you give a specific example of the "campaign" by Jolla that you are referring to?
SailfishOS is way more secure and private by default than every android based system.
AFIK only two areas contain closed-source components - the UI layer (Silica) and Android compatibility layer (Aliendalvik). The rest of the system - whole middleware, core OS components, Mer/Nemo stack, kernel, system services - are open source.
SailfishOS is designed from the ground up to operate without Google services, without Play Services shims, and without the telemetry that comes baked into the Android ecosystem. It does not inherit the Android attack surface unless the user explicitly opts into the compatibility layer.
So no - calling SailfishOS "mostly closed source" or "worse
... Show more...@GrapheneOS
Please don't take this as an attack - it's just my opinion, based on my knowledge as a long-time user of this platform (who has also tried GraphaneOS).
Apart from user comments, can you give a specific example of the "campaign" by Jolla that you are referring to?
SailfishOS is way more secure and private by default than every android based system.
AFIK only two areas contain closed-source components - the UI layer (Silica) and Android compatibility layer (Aliendalvik). The rest of the system - whole middleware, core OS components, Mer/Nemo stack, kernel, system services - are open source.
SailfishOS is designed from the ground up to operate without Google services, without Play Services shims, and without the telemetry that comes baked into the Android ecosystem. It does not inherit the Android attack surface unless the user explicitly opts into the compatibility layer.
So no - calling SailfishOS "mostly closed source" or "worse than Android in privacy and security" is simply incorrect.
If you want to argue threat models, fine.
But at least get the basics right.
@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •꧁꧂
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •@spoofy @cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> Apart from user comments, can you give a specific example of the "campaign" by Jolla that you are referring to?
They've spent years marketing SailfishOS by attacking projects based on the Android Open Source Project. We can make a detailed post which among other things documents this with many sources.
> SailfishOS is way more secure and private by default than every android based system.
This is extremely false. It has atrocious security vs. Android.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @cyberlyra @Setok @joshua SailfishOS has dramatically worse privacy and security than the Android Open Source Project and iOS. Your claim that it's more private and secure is completely backwards. We have no issue writing a very detailed post going into why along with documenting their years of false marketing. That's going to be the end result of the false accusations towards us here.
You're demonstrating examples of attacks on the GrapheneOS project they've made right here.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> SailfishOS is designed from the ground up to operate without Google services, without Play Services shims, and without the telemetry that comes baked into the Android ecosystem. It does not inherit the Android attack surface unless the user explicitly opts into the compatibility layer.
This is an extremely misleading, manipulative and inaccurate attack on the GrapheneOS project and resembles how Jolla has attacked it. There will be a response to it from us.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> AFIK only two areas contain closed-source components - the UI layer (Silica) and Android compatibility layer (Aliendalvik).
A massive portion of what they provide themselves is closed source and the OS is not usable without it. It has no equivalent to AOSP.
> whole middleware, core OS components, Mer/Nemo stack, kernel, system services - are open source
This is nearly entirely not written by them but rather code they're using from other projects.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> Aliendalvik
You brought up the fact that they're providing an Android app compatibility layer and clearly see it as very important. The claim that it's a clean break from the Android ecosystem is false. They're using lots of AOSP code, drivers made for Android and much more. Most people expect mainstream apps to work on any OS and they're not able to sidestep that. Why use a much less private and secure OS than AOSP underneath, which is absolutely is?
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> If you want to argue threat models, fine.
> But at least get the basics right.
It's the posts from Jolla supporters attacking GrapheneOS with many of the typical talking points they've used to disparage us for years which are not getting the basics right. The claim that their OS has better privacy or security than AOSP is outrageously false. It's far less private and secure than AOSP or iOS. We'll be writing a detailed article instead of responding here.
madcap
Unknown parent • • •I've been a happy user of GrapheneOS for several years, but I'm suddenly feeling an urge to test Sailfish.
@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua @fabio
GrapheneOS
in reply to madcap • • •Spoofy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS "They've spent years marketing SailfishOS by attacking projects based on the Android Open Source Project. " - Where and when? I have NEVER noticed anything like that, except for the aversion to Android itself and all its forks by the USERS themselves, who expect a real alternative. They have been around for a long time (much longer then you guys) and they are the real alternative, originating from Maemo and Meego. They simply do not have the means or resources for their own marketing, focusing on their main goal, so what you are saying is not true.
"We have no issue writing a very detailed post going into why along with documenting their years of false marketing. That's going to be the end result of the false accusations towards us here." - Please do so in order to maintain a professional standard and the ability to respond to such false accusations.
"You're demonstrating examples of attacks on the GrapheneOS project they've made right here." - Why? Be
... Show more...@GrapheneOS "They've spent years marketing SailfishOS by attacking projects based on the Android Open Source Project. " - Where and when? I have NEVER noticed anything like that, except for the aversion to Android itself and all its forks by the USERS themselves, who expect a real alternative. They have been around for a long time (much longer then you guys) and they are the real alternative, originating from Maemo and Meego. They simply do not have the means or resources for their own marketing, focusing on their main goal, so what you are saying is not true.
"We have no issue writing a very detailed post going into why along with documenting their years of false marketing. That's going to be the end result of the false accusations towards us here." - Please do so in order to maintain a professional standard and the ability to respond to such false accusations.
"You're demonstrating examples of attacks on the GrapheneOS project they've made right here." - Why? Because I said at the beginning that you shouldn't take it as an attack, but as the opinion of a long-time, conscious user? It's ridiculous, after all.
"A massive portion of what they provide themselves is closed source and the OS is not usable without it. It has no equivalent to AOSP.
> whole middleware, core OS components, Mer/Nemo stack, kernel, system services - are open source
This is nearly entirely not written by them but rather code they're using from other projects." - This just illustrates your level of knowledge on the subject and answers my question as to why you suddenly got so triggered. That's sad.
@n
GrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •@spoofy @n
> Where and when?
They've spent years what you're doing here: disparaging projects like GrapheneOS based on AOSP and making inaccurate marketing claims about their products.
> much longer then you guys
SailfishOS was launched in 2013. Our project was launched in 2014. SailfishOS is not the same as the previous open source projects they worked on without major portions of it being closed source where there's no open source usable subset like AOSP.
Spoofy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
nope, it's not crucial, not designed and not working in that way. I'm using many native apps without even need to open Android ones, but never had problems with running those. SailfishOS is just able to run android apps in LXC containers - can be separate ones - is that a false sense of security? I don't think so. Is it better than android based fork? Of course it is, because whole lower layer is "OPEN SOURCE BASED", that I can control and manipulate it, however I want.
Can you give some examples of "mainstream android app" that's not working on SailfishOS?
@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @n
> They simply do not have the means or resources for their own marketing, focusing on their main goal, so what you are saying is not true.
That's outrageously false and another dishonest attack on GrapheneOS.
> Please do so in order to maintain a professional standard and the ability to respond to such false accusations.
We'll be responding to everything here with a detailed post heavily criticizing Jolla and SailfishOS with lots of sources. We'll ask others to help.
Spoofy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS ok, but you do know that it's meego/mer based, and the same guys are doing it for much longer. Even insiders and supporters of SailfishOS remember pre-launch developer sprints.
@n
Spoofy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
> We'll be responding to everything here with a detailed post heavily criticizing Jolla and SailfishOS with lots of sources. We'll ask others to help.
Great! I can't wait to hear the details.
@n
GrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •Spoofy
Unknown parent • • •@GrapheneOS I have never participated in your project and I have no intention of doing so, but after these statements (and previous ones), I see only pure hate, without any specifics regarding the project, which simply remains independent.
@n
Spoofy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS That's probably a very mature and clear answer for me. 🤣 Well, good luck.
@n
GrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •@spoofy @cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> I'm using many native apps without even need to open Android ones
Using an app platform with a dramatically less private and secure sandbox / permission model is not a positive thing.
> SailfishOS is just able to run android apps in LXC containers - can be separate ones - is that a false sense of security?
It has most of the Android privacy/security model disabled and doesn't provide a replacement.
> Is it better than android based fork?
It's far worse.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> because whole lower layer is "OPEN SOURCE BASED", that I can control and manipulate it, however I want.
Android Open Source Project is open source. SailfishOS components specific to SailfishOS including the application and UI layer are mostly closed source. There's no equivalent to AOSP for SailfishOS. It's far less open than Android, not more. The claim that it's more open is fully backwards. Another example of an inaccurate attack they make themselves.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •꧁꧂
in reply to ꧁꧂ • • •Or you got caught in a lie and have nothing to back it up and are therefore no longer replying to what should be the easiest possible request to provide 1 (one) source for your recurrent claim that Jolla itself has attacked GrapheneOS at least once with a smear campaign.
꧁꧂
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@n
> Or you got caught in a lie and have nothing to back it up and are therefore no longer replying to what should be the easiest possible request to provide 1 (one) source for your recurrent claim that Jolla itself has attacked GrapheneOS at least once with a smear campaign.
Jolla has done a smear campaign against everything based on AOSP which includes GrapheneOS. The lies in this thread are from SailfishOS supporters making inaccurate claims about it, about GrapheneOS and what we've said.
Spoofy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS I am only expressing my personal point of view, but remember that everyone represents only (or perhaps as much as) themselves and is responsible for their words and actions, often exposing their own stupidity. You blocked me in a childish way, leaving no room for a meaningful, honest discussion based on FACTS, so end your flaming already.
@n
꧁꧂
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •@spoofy @n
> I am only expressing my personal point of view
Jolla and their employees have regular made similar attacks on every project based on AOSP which includes GrapheneOS. They've made many of the same kinds of highly inaccurate comparisons disparaging us. It's not only your point of view, it's aligned with theirs and what they say.
> You blocked me
We haven't blocked you. We said we would if you continued and didn't walk it back. It wouldn't be fair to block right after.
Spoofy
in reply to Spoofy • • •@GrapheneOS I am only expressing my personal point of view, but remember that everyone represents only (or perhaps as much as) themselves and is responsible for their words and actions, often exposing their own stupidity. You blocked me in a childish way, leaving no room for a meaningful, honest discussion based on FACTS, so end your flaming already.
I will only wait for the "explanatory publication" you mentioned here - it will probably be the subject of discussion in many places. Please remember that silencing and censorship will never be tolerated.
@n
GrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •@spoofy @n Jolla and their employees have regular made similar attacks on every project based on AOSP which includes GrapheneOS. They've made many of the same kinds of highly inaccurate comparisons disparaging us. It's not only your point of view, it's aligned with theirs and what they say.
We haven't blocked you. We said we would if you continued and didn't walk it back. It wouldn't be fair to block right after.
Blocking someone engaging in trolling making inaccurate claims is not censorship.
Spoofy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •So what if you block me? You've already shown your true colors here.
Please be specific - where and when do "Jolla and their employees" regularly attack GraphaneOS?
Is asking for specifics or examples is "trolling"? So far, you're the only one making far more inaccurate claims.
@n
GrapheneOS
in reply to ꧁꧂ • • •@n You can read the detailed post we'll be making about Jolla and SailfishOS in the future where we'll include many sources. It will resemble the response we posted to /e/, Murena and their supporters attacking us:
discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134…
Here's an example of the founder of /e/ and Murena linking harassment/libel content on a neo-nazi conspiracy site, before you claim they don't attack us:
archive.is/SWXPJ
archive.is/n4yTO
We haven't seen Jolla make similar personal attacks.
Devices lacking standard privacy/security patches and protections aren't private - GrapheneOS Discussion Forum
GrapheneOS Discussion ForumGrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •@spoofy @n Jolla and their employees have spent years disparaging projects based on the Android Open Source Project in general, including making many inaccurate claims similar to the ones you've made here.
We haven't made any inaccurate claims in this thread. You've made many inaccurate claims which we've addressed and will address further in a post countering the attacks Jolla and their community are making on AOSP-based projects including GrapheneOS. What did you achieve pushing us to that?
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @n You can read the detailed post we'll be making about Jolla and SailfishOS in the future. It will have sources. It will resemble the response we posted to /e/, Murena and their supporters attacking us:
discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134…
Here's an example of the founder of /e/ and Murena linking harassment/libel content on a neo-nazi conspiracy site, before you claim they don't attack us:
archive.is/SWXPJ
archive.is/n4yTO
We haven't seen Jolla make similar personal attacks yet.
Devices lacking standard privacy/security patches and protections aren't private - GrapheneOS Discussion Forum
GrapheneOS Discussion Forum꧁꧂
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •The source counter still remains at zero, or perhaps even minus two because you've provided two links completely irrelevant to the claim, trying to deflect the conversation.
Spoofy
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS Ah, so now it's "general".
"We haven't seen Jolla make similar personal attacks yet."
Thank you.
Further discussion is pointless, and I can see that we won't be able to talk technically, as we are living in two worlds - the real and the imaginary - that's how I see it.
I look forward to the publication you mentioned.
@n
GrapheneOS
in reply to Spoofy • • •@spoofy @n
> Ah, so now it's "general".
They've spent years posting large amounts of inaccurate disparaging claims towards projects based on the Android Open Source Project. That has regularly included doing it in response to people bringing up GrapheneOS, which is a specific attack on GrapheneOS.
> Thank you.
Stating we haven't seem them engage in personal attacks on our team with libel and harassment doesn't mean they haven't attacked GrapheneOS. You're misrepresenting what we said.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @n Lack of personal attacks on our team as other companies have done isn't lack of attacks on GrapheneOS.
> Further discussion is pointless, and I can see that we won't be able to talk technically, as we are living in two worlds - the real and the imaginary - that's how I see it.
Jolla has spent years disparaging anything based on AOSP. People regularly bring up GrapheneOS and they disparage it. Your attempt to pretend otherwise and present it as a delusional is simply dishonest.
Zahox
Unknown parent • • •Bring your points about it being not insecure
GrapheneOS is not eating anyone or tearing others down. It was facts. Do your research. SailfishOS and your phone are not secure at all. Only at least Iphone/Pixels to secure your data
And where is your data now?
Reputation? Because they speak the truth? GrapheneOS had swatting attacks where lives was in danger. It's not just about "attacks"
You should not be offended by facts. Those are not aspersions
Zahox
Unknown parent • • •GrapheneOS does not rely on Google. They support devices which are secure and meet their requirements, which are not high. And GrapheneOS is working with an OEM to support them 2027. So an alternative to Google. Android is the most secure and private one and it's open source. GrapheneOS is a Linux distro. Waiting or using insecure devices, don't get you anything. You recommend insecure devices and software, which is dangerous. There is no data sovereignity at all with those.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @cyberlyra @joshua even the statement about ‘most’ being closed source is misleading. It’s only really the Silica GUI. Pretty much everything else is open source. Except for hardware blobs, which are closed for everyone.
Not that this is a major concern for me one way or another, but once again it sounds like you have some weird beef with them and thus are spending effort trying to be negative.
Kristoffer Lawson
Unknown parent • • •@GrapheneOS @cyberlyra @joshua you once again claim Jolla is putting down GrapheneOS. Where have they done that?
No doubt some Jolla supporter may have mentioned something negative somewhere. That’s the Internet for you. Though I have never witnessed that myself. Indeed I can’t remember GrapheneOS being mentioned much at all in the Jolla community (though admittedly I don’t religiously follow it).
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @madcap @cyberlyra @joshua that sounds an awful lot like “You the community are indebted to us” rather than, you know, the other way round.
And still lacking evidence of Jolla disparaging GrapheneOS. I only see you going on the offensive.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @n quite the reverse. This thread shows you going on the offensive against Jolla, with people merely pointing out some of the errors in your statements.
I don’t see anyone smearing GrapheneOS. Frankly you’re sounding a bit paranoid.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @n
> quite the reverse. This thread shows you going on the offensive against Jolla, with people merely pointing out some of the errors in your statements.
Jolla has spent years disparaging GrapheneOS and their community has spent years taking that further by attacking our team with libel, bullying and harassment which is visible in this thread and on the forum thread being used to brigade this thread. There's explicit support for Kiwi Farms libel/harassment content towards us there.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @n
> I don’t see anyone smearing GrapheneOS. Frankly you’re sounding a bit paranoid.
It's very common for you folks to engage in personal attacks on our team including claiming we're crazy, insane and delusional. That's paired with explicit support for doxxing, harassment and even violence towards our team through the support you folks give to Kiwi Farms harassment content and attacks. That's explicitly being done in the SailfishOS forum thread and is not being addressed by their mods.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @madcap @cyberlyra @joshua
> And still lacking evidence of Jolla disparaging GrapheneOS. I only see you going on the offensive.
Jolla has attacked ALL AOSP-based projects for years including GrapheneOS. That's visible out in the open throughout their marketing.
Direct libel and harassment towards our team explicitly supporting Kiwi Farms harassment content is plainly visible in the SailfishOS forum thread and elsewhere in their forum. They haven't removed the posts.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
Jolla has attacked ALL AOSP-based projects for years including GrapheneOS. That's visible out in the open throughout their marketing.
Direct libel and harassment towards our team explicitly supporting Kiwi Farms harassment content is plainly visible in the SailfishOS forum thread and elsewhere in their forum. They haven't removed the posts, either in this recent thread or past cases of it. That's their forum and it's within their power to stop the harassment.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> even the statement about ‘most’ being closed source is misleading. It’s only really the Silica GUI. Pretty much everything else is open source. Except for hardware blobs, which are closed for everyone.
We're talking about code specific to SailfishOS rather than the open source projects they use from elsewhere. The code they make themselves is largely closed source and not limited to the GUI. GUI and application layer code is largely what's specific to it.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> you have some weird beef with them and thus are spending effort trying to be negative.
They've spent years attacking AOSP-based projects. When people bring up GrapheneOS they've attacked it. They permit libel and harassment towards our team on their forum which is present in the thread directing people here.
Rossmann is a Kiwi Farms user who started the Kiwi Farms harassment towards us, which is explicitly being supported there.
kiwifarms.st/members/larossman…
Just a moment...
kiwifarms.stGrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @spoofy @n It is true and there's very little point in their supporters brigading this thread lying about it as you're doing. They've attacked AOSP-based projects as a core part of their marketing, including the strange claim that it isn't "real" Linux.
Jolla's community platforms including their forum regularly have blatant libel and bullying towards our team in support of Kiwi Farms harassment content. They aren't addressing it which shows they don't have a problem with these attacks.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@spoofy @n
> Because I said at the beginning that you shouldn't take it as an attack, but as the opinion of a long-time, conscious user? It's ridiculous, after all.
Using our work but still engaging in dishonest attacks smearing us makes it far worse, not better. This is not the defense which you think it is. You're no longer welcome to contact us or participate in any part of our project our community until you take down the attacks and apologize. We expect that's never going to happen.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @n "you folks" — I'm not sure what you want to imply by that. I'm not part of Jolla. I was only even vaguely aware of GrapheneOS before this, and have no idea what Kiwi Farms even is.
That I view you as a little off your knocker, or that something is touching on a particularly sensitive nerve for some reason, is based purely on the very antagonistic messaging I see here.
I think it would be wise to take a breath and see how to frame things more constructively.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @cyberlyra @joshua You mentioned they disparage GrapheneOS explicitly. Please point to where they do that.
If that is not forthcoming then at least point to evidence where Jolla is attacking AOSP. I have never noticed that to be a significant message from them (as mentioned I was running an AOSP based company), but I'm sure there must be something specific you are referring to.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @cyberlyra @joshua considering they themselves built and continue to contribute to many of those open source projects, that's hardly a fair differentiation.
What other parts other than the GUI would you be referring to? Parts of the hardware specific bits are (as is the case for virtually everyone, and stems from the manufacturers), and they have licensed some 3rd party components for the end user experience (though one can generally run Sailfish without). Others?
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> considering they themselves built and continue to contribute to many of those open source projects, that's hardly a fair differentiation.
They also have many closed source projects including a huge portion of the GUI and application layer, which is most of what's unique to SailfishOS. The overall OS is not open source. iOS is not open source just because it uses a lot of open source code and some of their own projects such as the kernel as published as such.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> What other parts other than the GUI would you be referring to?
Someone provided an at least partial list in the forum thread you likely came from.
> Parts of the hardware specific bits are
Not what we're talking about.
> and they have licensed some 3rd party components for the end user experience
Overall GUI, application layer and many other closed source components for the high level OS are what we're talking about, not low-level code not unique to it.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> You mentioned they disparage GrapheneOS explicitly. Please point to where they do that.
Jolla has endlessly attacked AOSP-based operating systems in general. People have brought up GrapheneOS through no fault of ours and it has been subjected to that too.
We plan to make a detailed article similar to how we countered attacks from Murena which you'll be able to read with similar links to third party content and various examples of what we're documenting.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> If that is not forthcoming then at least point to evidence where Jolla is attacking AOSP.
It's a core part of their marketing to present their product as great because it isn't based on AOSP and to strangely claim AOSP is somehow not Linux. They make inaccurate claims about how the privacy and security compare to it, among other things. People often ask us about the inaccurate claims made by these companies so it's an ongoing burden for us and we're aware.
thereisnoanderson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> OK, so as of now there is nothing solid you would like to provide as evidence.
Libel and harassment content can be seen on their forum, which is likely what led you to this thread as part of the brigading. Evidence of them not removing libel and harassment content is there.
> I would like to remind you that you specifically said Jolla has disparaged GrapheneOS
They have done so repeatedly.
> not, more vaguely, AOSP
There's nothing vague about this.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> unless you are willing to withdraw that claim
Why would we withdraw an accurate statement? It's now worse than it was before with their community organizing attacks on their forum with it not being addressed by them. In that forum thread, multiple people engage in libel towards our team including personal attacks using a real name referencing harassment content from a Kiwi Farms user. You're conveniently ignoring what's plainly visible in that thread.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua Jolla chooses what's acceptable on their platforms. Choosing to permit libel and harassment towards our team in a thread being used for brigading is a decision which will have long lasting consequences.
> Though I certainly welcome pointers to Jolla making consistent and specific statements about AOSP as well
They've repeatedly attacked AOSP-based projects with inaccurate claims promoting their products over those, including when GrapheneOS was brought up.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@Zenie @zahox @cyberlyra
> the proprietary bits
It's not only a few bits but rather the majority of the graphical user interface and application layer. Those are a huge portion of what's specific to it rather than the external projects.
> AOSP is open.
Yes, unlike SailfishOS.
> But google is clamping down on releases
No, they're not doing that.
> and doing bad things with the apps
Play Integrity API is the only relevant thing and impacts compatibility with those services anywhere.
Zenie
in reply to Zahox • • •I don't believe either of us said anything to the contrary. My objection to sailfish is icons and the proprietary bits. Neither of us like buying google hardware even used.
AOSP is open. But google is clamping down on releases and doing bad things with the apps. I use f-droid. But the implications are there that google wants more control.
I'd rather be on Linux personally. I've never liked android, AOSP or otherwise. Although AOSP is what I've usually run. The ROM selection isn't what it used to be.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Zenie @zahox @cyberlyra
> But the implications are there that google wants more control.
As do other for-profit companies trying to build a business around a product. It's why Jolla keeps large portions of their OS closed source. It's not possible to make an actual fork of SailfishOS due to that.
> I'd rather be on Linux personally.
Android is Linux. Linux is not systemd and glibc.
> never liked android
Most people greatly prefer the usability and functionality over something like that.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Zenie @zahox @cyberlyra
> The ROM selection isn't what it used to be.
There are fewer tiny hobbyist projects making AOSP-based operating systems but there are more large projects doing it than there ever were before. People have higher expectations from an OS and there's a lot more to do than before. Android itself has also improved a massive amount so fewer people want it for UI features, etc.
The term ROM isn't an accurate way to refer to an Android-based OS and not a term we use.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> This is absolutely insane.
Stop calling our team insane and delusional. There's no basis for it.
> How is this still going on?
Your community continues to brigade this thread and our account. Our chat rooms are being actively raided. Stop doing it.
> I have seen zero concerted organizing against GrapheneOS on Jolla's forum
The thread on the forum has libel and harassment towards our team with personal names and Kiwi Farms harassment content references.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> but that isn't formulated as an attack on Graphene.
Your community is spreading misinformation about GrapheneOS and engaging in libel/harassment towards our team. The with libel/harassment towards our team should be removed from the SailfishOS forum quickly or it demonstrates Jolla condones harassment towards our team which will be publicly documented.
> They don't deserve this torrent of vitriol.
The vitriol is coming from your community, not us.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> Regardless of whether you believe that, please believe that these posts are working against your cause. I understand GrapheneOS has real enemies out there.
Your community has a forum thread with highly inaccurate claims about GrapheneOS and fabrications about our team. One of the posts targets the founder of GrapheneOS with libel using their person name and refers to harassment content from a Kiwi Farms member. Jolla has not removed it or banned them.
Zenie
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @zahox @cyberlyra
I've been a Unix dev for over 40 years. I know what is and what isn't. I never liked the android design.
Don't care too much for systemd either.
Roms are how they have always refered to Android images on XDA. Doesn't really matter to me what you want to call them.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> you will sink your own project from paranoia and make the future you are most afraid of come true.
Stop calling our team insane, delusional and paranoid. It's bullying and harassment. Libelous claims are repeatedly being made by yourself and other SailfishOS community members. The forum thread contains libel/bullying content using someone's personal name with a reference to harassment content from a Kiwi Farms member. Those are facts. It's not a delusion.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@cyberlyra @Setok @joshua
> I can't stand to watch a project I had respect for and have recommended repeatedly shoot themselves continuously in the face like this.
You've repeatedly made inaccurate attacks on GrapheneOS. You're repeatedly referred to our team as being insane, delusional and paranoid.
We expect all libelous claims removed from Jolla's forum and for people to stop being sent to brigade our account with a link. If not, then we're publishing a thread with archives of it.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •Sailfish OS: Clarifying claims about open/closed source, security and privacy
Sailfish OS ForumKristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @cyberlyra @joshua FWIW I don’t see Cyberlyra making any attacks against your product whatsoever. Quite the opposite, in fact.
But we are now both utterly mystified why you think this is a good tactic for your organisation to be doing, and why you chose to aggressively respond to her original reply, which wasn’t even about GrapheneOS. But just a positive take on Sailfish.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @joshua so you have an issue with some random user on an Internet forum (and frankly, based on your outburst here, I find myself starting to believe his take)?
No specific case of Jolla, the company, talking down GrapheneOS, or even AOSP?
You’ve gone from stating Jolla disparages GrapheneOS, to that it’s actually AOSP they do it do — and that it’s core to them, to now saying well actually it’s some rando on the Internet?
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @joshua
> so you have an issue with some random user on an Internet forum
We have an issue with the SailfishOS community repeating making false claims about us including personal attacks on our team naming people with their real names to target them with libel/bullying and reference harassment content. We have an issue with Jolla providing a platform for it and not moderating even the worst of it. It has occurred a bunch here and on that forum, and we'll make a post about it.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @joshua
> No specific case of Jolla, the company, talking down GrapheneOS, or even AOSP?
There are a bunch of specific cases of Jolla disparaging AOSP and GrapheneOS. As we said earlier, we'll be making a post about it due to the attacks that are being made against us here and on the forum. We have little interest in showing a bunch of links to the people brigading here from the SailfishOS forum with repeated attacks on our project and team including lying about what we've said.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @joshua
> You’ve gone from stating Jolla disparages GrapheneOS, to that it’s actually AOSP they do it do — and that it’s core to them, to now saying well actually it’s some rando on the Internet?
No, you're lying about what we've said in this thread as part of brigading from the SailfishOS community. We're archiving it and will include it as supplementary content in our post showing the abusive behavior of the SailfishOS community which appears to be condoned by Jolla.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @joshua Great, you can read it when we post it on our forum. It will not be the only post if these attacks from the SailfishOS community continue. Ongoing attacks will receive an ongoing response.
We only posted anything about Jolla and SailfishOS due to the attacks on GrapheneOS here aimed at promoting it. The more you attack us, the more we're going to post about it across platforms. Each time you leave a reply misrepresenting our statements and attacking us, we'll do more.
Ni
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •"that forum thread" URL please.
@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua @fabio
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •@Setok @joshua The original post in the thread is manganiello.eu/notice/B0px7LRV… which is about AOSP and GrapheneOS. The post attempts to promote SailfishOS. We responded to the post mainly to address the things it claimed about AOSP and GrapheneOS. We also specifically addressed bringing up an OS that's not open source and has much worse privacy/security.
In context, @cyberlyra's post is a further attempt to promote SailfishOS based on the original inaccurate claims about AOSP and GrapheneOS.
Fabio Manganiello (@fabio@manganiello.eu)
manganiello.euKristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @joshua great. I look forward to the post. Especially if it actually shows the things people have been asking of you.
I also eagerly await the mentions of me lying.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS er, that original post specifically tells people to install GrapheneOS and that the person loves it?
It mentions Sailfish in passing, as something to check out, amongst others.
Hardly an attack on your project.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Kristoffer Lawson • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok What was achieved by the SailfishOS community through doing all of this and continuing to double down on it? Do you think that this is going to help promote Jolla and SailfishOS?
Do you think the personal attacks occurring in the forum thread targeting the founder of GrapheneOS including references to harassment content are acceptable and something Jolla should permit on their forum? We have an archive of the current state of the thread.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@Setok @ni
> I’m not sure, though. Not much I can witness in the way of Jolla making it a core thing to disparage GrapheneOS, ‘for years’ (as stated).
We said they've repeatedly disparaged AOSP and AOSP-based projects which is completely true and many of their claims about it can be easily found over the years. They've made a point of promoting their product by saying it's not Android but rather "real" Linux and making often inaccurate attacks on anything based on AOSP as part of it.
Kristoffer Lawson
in reply to Ni • • •@ni @GrapheneOS I’m guessing whoever is behind the Graphene account is referring to this thread:
forum.sailfishos.org/t/sailfis…
I’m not sure, though. Not much I can witness in the way of Jolla making it a core thing to disparage GrapheneOS, ‘for years’ (as stated).
But I’m ever hopeful something more concrete will be revealed.
Sailfish OS: Clarifying claims about open/closed source, security and privacy
Sailfish OS ForumNi
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •is the URL correct?
@Setok @fabio
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to Ni • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Ni
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS are you gonna let me read?
@Setok @fabio
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> look, what I read in the post you linked doesn’t seem like a personal attack or harassment.
It's absolutely libel and bullying. It explicitly references extraordinarily dishonest character assassination videos including one from a Kiwi Farms user too.
> you need to harass the whole Internet with victimism
We aren't harassing anyone. Repeated false claims the people being targeted are the aggressors doesn't change who is doing the actual libel/bullying.
Fabio Manganiello
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS look, what I read in the post you linked doesn’t seem like a personal attack or harassment. It seems like a legit opinion about the way many perceive your way of communicating. A perception that you’re only making worse on this thread btw.
And just because you don’t like what someone wrote about you online it doesn’t mean that you need to harass the whole Internet with victimism or litter my thread with >100 replies ALL repeating the same things. This was a genuinely interesting thread where we were all exchanging our opinions and experiences about Linux on mobile, in a very civilized way. Until you stormed through the front door yelling that, just because we didn’t all praise and bow at how great GrapheneOS is, and how nobody else is worth of even trying to build an alternative mobile OS, we were harassing/attacking/defamating you and your product (even when I praised GrapheneOS multiple times myself).
I hope
... Show more...@GrapheneOS look, what I read in the post you linked doesn’t seem like a personal attack or harassment. It seems like a legit opinion about the way many perceive your way of communicating. A perception that you’re only making worse on this thread btw.
And just because you don’t like what someone wrote about you online it doesn’t mean that you need to harass the whole Internet with victimism or litter my thread with >100 replies ALL repeating the same things. This was a genuinely interesting thread where we were all exchanging our opinions and experiences about Linux on mobile, in a very civilized way. Until you stormed through the front door yelling that, just because we didn’t all praise and bow at how great GrapheneOS is, and how nobody else is worth of even trying to build an alternative mobile OS, we were harassing/attacking/defamating you and your product (even when I praised GrapheneOS multiple times myself).
I hope you realize that you’re really not adding any value here and you’re actually actively tainting the reputation of a brand that got a lot of respect among the tech savvy.
We understand that you folks are stressed, and that you don’t deal only with software geeks but also with real dangerous criminals. I get it. But it doesn’t mean that everyone you meet on the Internet (especially here on Mastodon) is a Kiwi Farms psychopath ready to ruin your lives. And you would probably have much more sympathy and solidarity from the folks you’re constantly attacking if only, you know, you weren’t so bent on attacking them.
Given the amount of persistent noise you’re making I’m left with no choice but to defederate grapheneos.social. It’s a hard decision, and one that I’m taking while composing this message on my Pixel phone with GrapheneOS (which I love btw). But I don’t feel like I’m going to miss much, as long as the GrapheneOS official accounts keep shouting “libel and harassment” and throw vitriol at other alternative products 100 times a day, rather than talking of what makes their product great and how they solved hard problems.
I wish that at some point GrapheneOS chooses to put in charge of their communication channels someone who actually doesn’t suck at communication.
@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
GrapheneOS Mastodon
Mastodon hosted on grapheneos.socialGrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> Until you stormed through the front door yelling that, just because we didn’t all praise and bow at how great GrapheneOS is
That's not what happened here at all, and many of the claims you made in your original post were highly inaccurate far beyond the one thing you decided to fix. We already addressed that in our original response.
> Kiwi Farms psychopath
Users in the SailfishOS thread are directly participating in that libel/bullying and referencing it.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> while composing this message on my Pixel phone with GrapheneOS (which I love btw).
Using it while attacking our team makes it worse, not better.
> Given the amount of persistent noise you’re making I’m left with no choice but to defederate grapheneos.social.
Fine with us. We can post responess to future attacks on our forum. Far more people will read it there than here so it makes it worth spending more time writing it and including a lot more links.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> shouting “libel and harassment” and throw vitriol at other alternative products 100 times a day
The libel/bullying directed towards an individual is plainly visible in the forum thread. It references harassment content including from Kiwi Farms members. Jolla has not removed it.
If the attacks on GrapheneOS are removed, we'll remove our responses to them. That includes removing our thread about their forum thread with personal attacks if they remove that.
John Mierau
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @Setok @joshua @cyberlyra graphene account posters please hear me: I am one of your full-throated fans... But why the HECK are you coming out of the gate all aggro?
I agree with many of your points, but have we not sent how fast attitude and arrogance can scare people off?
C'mon let's start out civil OK?
GrapheneOS
in reply to John Mierau • • •@john @Setok @joshua @cyberlyra There's nothing civil about the personal attacks being made towards our team by multiple people in this thread participating in Kiwi Farms harassment claiming one of us is insane, delusional, paranoid and more. That's ongoing on the SailfishOS forum which is linking here where people are referencing harassment content.
Jolla should do something about their forum being used to direct hate towards us with false claims and personal attacks towards our team.
Ni
in reply to Ni • • •@GrapheneOS thank you to let me the time to read your source.
I have few questions requiring very short answers. Can I?
@Setok @fabio
John Mierau
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS @Setok @joshua @cyberlyra did any of he people in this thread do those things?
Post a link here if they did, I want to know!
If not, don't alienate more folks OK?
Ni
Unknown parent • • •I'm actually asking you.
@Setok @fabio @joshua
GrapheneOS
in reply to John Mierau • • •@john @Setok @joshua @cyberlyra
> did any of he people in this thread do those things?
Yes, our statements have been repeatedly misrepresented and lied about here. Our team has repeatedly been personally attacked, including references to ongoing harassment. Here's the SailfishOS forum thread directing people here:
forum.sailfishos.org/t/sailfis…
There are multiple posts there making personal attacks with libel/bullying using one of our real names and referencing harassment content.
Sailfish OS: Clarifying claims about open/closed source, security and privacy
Sailfish OS ForumNi
in reply to Ni • • •@GrapheneOS Have you taken legal action against this alleged harassment?
@Setok @fabio @joshua
GrapheneOS
in reply to Ni • • •@ni Yes, we're taking legal action against people engaging in libel.
Due to the swatting attacks, law enforcement was involved and attempted to investigate who was doing that but were unsuccessful in achieving anything. The swatting attacks were very likely done via a paid swatting service where the owner was caught and charged. The person who paid for that was raiding our chat rooms for many months so we know who it is in that sense and why they were doing it but not their real identity.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> The only one who has been vomiting hate is YOU. More than 100 posts of hate on this thread alone, repeating always the same things.
Your original post is filled with hate and inaccuracies, although directed towards Android-based operating systems in general. This thread is filled with people from a SailfishOS forum brigading here to attack us by misrepresenting our statements and making personal attacks on our team. We've responded to attacks being made.
Fabio Manganiello
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
@GrapheneOS
I’m seriously sick of your bullshit. And someone must tell you at some point. The respect we all have for your product doesn’t allow you to throw shit at everyone around you.
The only one who has been vomiting hate is YOU. More than 100 posts of hate on this thread alone, repeating always the same things.
The only claim that I retracted was that more components of the AOSP were taken under Google’s internal development and wrapped in the Play Services. A claim that btw was published by many tech outlets, including the one that I cited in my post. It was naive of me not to double check it, and I corrected the original post.
Everything el
... Show more...@GrapheneOS
@GrapheneOS
I’m seriously sick of your bullshit. And someone must tell you at some point. The respect we all have for your product doesn’t allow you to throw shit at everyone around you.
The only one who has been vomiting hate is YOU. More than 100 posts of hate on this thread alone, repeating always the same things.
The only claim that I retracted was that more components of the AOSP were taken under Google’s internal development and wrapped in the Play Services. A claim that btw was published by many tech outlets, including the one that I cited in my post. It was naive of me not to double check it, and I corrected the original post.
Everything else in the post is still the same. Nothing has been edited. Nothing was so outrageously wrong that I had to amend it, nor that justifies your pathetic outbursts.
YOU ARE FUCKING LYING IN OUR FACES AND HARASSING PEOPLE HERE. And the only reason why you haven’t been massively blocked is just the respect we all hold for GrapheneOS.
Now stop the damage that you’re causing at the reputation of your product. Get out, touch some grass, stop thinking that everyone who talks about GrapheneOS is a criminal who wants to kill you, and ask for someone else to be in charge of GrapheneOS’ social media channels from now on.
@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> The only claim that I retracted
That's far from the only inaccurate claim you made, and others did far worse than you misrepresenting our statements and lying about us.
> YOU ARE FUCKING LYING IN OUR FACES AND HARASSING PEOPLE HERE.
The information we've replied with here is accurate. We're not lying about anything. We're not harassing anyone. The repeated personal attacks on our team with bullying and references to harassment content ARE harassment.
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
> stop thinking that everyone who talks about GrapheneOS is a criminal who wants to kill you
These lies about what we've said and done attempting to frame us as insane, delusional and paranoid is the main form of the ongoing bullying and harassment. That's being done openly here and in the SailfishOS forum thread directing people here. You're openly engaging in it while claiming that it's not happening and falsely claiming us replying is somehow harassment.
Fabio Manganiello
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS
Everyone else who boosted it and replied to you seems to disagree. And at this point the conversation is clearly not leading anywhere.
I’ll lift the block on the grapheneos.social instance once GrapheneOS chooses another person to be in charge of their social media communications, and once you’re given the chance to take a much needed break for your own mental health.
@Setok @cyberlyra @joshua
GrapheneOS Mastodon
Mastodon hosted on grapheneos.socialNi
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS I'm sorry to hear that the police stormed your house.
@Setok @fabio @joshua
GrapheneOS
in reply to Fabio Manganiello • • •> for your own mental health
If you care at all about the well being of our team, then please remove all of the personal attacks and accusations towards us. We'll happily remove our responses to posts which are removed.
> I’ll lift the block
It's fine with us if you block our instance and keep it blocked as long as you hold the feelings about us that you do. Ideally, you would avoid posting about GrapheneOS or interacting with us as long as you have so much hostility towards us.
GrapheneOS
in reply to Ni • • •@ni @Setok @joshua
> I'm sorry to hear that the police stormed your house.
There have multiple swatting attacks and it's only one of the ongoing forms of harassment towards the founder of the project and the overall team. It's not simply 1 swatting attack, although the initial one where multiple people had over a dozen guns pointed at them after midnight while exiting a house was definitely the most severe. Multiple more followed that and it's an ongoing issue rather than the past.
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •@ni @Setok @joshua
> but if the justice is already involved, why don't you back off?
They were involved in investigating the swatting attacks, but were unable to identify a perpetrator who paid for it to happen. They were unable to identify the swatting service but a different police force appears to have done so.
> only you have the power to SIGKILL
No, we don't. It's self-perpetuating and occurs across platforms. We mostly don't response to it, and that changes very little.
Ni
in reply to Ni • • •@GrapheneOS but if the justice is already involved, why don't you back off?
Because from an external point of view it's just looks like an infinite loop where only you have the power to SIGKILL the situation. In France we have a saying "Le crachat du vil crapaud ne touche pas la blanche colombe" meaning if you don't reconized yourself in what other are saying, it shouldn't bother you.
@Setok @fabio @joshua
GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@ni @Setok @joshua The police don't actually acknowledge that they're a serious threat to people's safety and can be used as a weapon via swatting attacks. They mostly see the swatting attacks as an issue due to a waste of resources.
This person tried to kill people with law enforcement 375 times and got 48 months for it:
arstechnica.com/security/2025/…
It seems very likely he goes back to doing it afterwards since that's already essentially what happened after the initial intervention.
Serial “swatter” behind 375 violent hoaxes targeted his own home to look like a victim
Nate Anderson (Ars Technica)Ni
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •why do you think he's doing that to you?
@Setok @fabio @joshua
GrapheneOS
in reply to Ni • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •Ni
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS my question was retorical.
@Setok @fabio @joshua
GrapheneOS
Unknown parent • • •Ni
in reply to Ni • • •@GrapheneOS the answer is easy: it's because you're feeding the trolls.
That why I told you it shouldn't bothering you. Keep your focus on your project, let people having the conversations they want, let other projects run as they like… you're not Atlas, don't let the entire world sit on your shoulders. But be patient, because you're wounded and wounds need time to heal.
@Setok @fabio @joshua
Ni
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •@GrapheneOS again: don't. give. a. fuck.
@Setok @fabio @joshua