The fallacy is that AOSP (which GrapheneOS forks from), and Chromium used to install it, are both dependendent on Google engineers, money, and the willigness to keep the platforms open, to some extent.
Is your alternative that someone should build a complete from-scratch alternative OS that can still be booted on the same hardware?
For the time being, AOSP and Chromium are still open source, so why not piggy-back off of all that labor and development to provide what GrapheneOS users want at minimal cost and effort?
Desktop Linux works very nicely on smartphones actually provided all the drivers are there. I lived with a PinePhone running FVWM on Xorg for a couple years and if the hardware didn't crumble away I'd still be using it today.
No need to "build a complete from-scratch alternative OS" when that was already done 30 years ago.
If the source is fully open (it is) than detecting and disabling backdoors is completely possible. Not to mention the fact that other OS projects face the same risks.
If Google cuts development of AOSP in favor of some closed-source alternative, the GrapheneOS team could simply continue development of AOSP on their own.
They really don't. It's just that development of custom roms like GrapheneOS are centered around Pixels. Plenty of other devices have unlockable bootloaders. The custom rom scene though is so small that concentrating on a couple devices is the only way to keep development moving forward though. Same reason why Asahi Linux is the only option on Apple Silicon Macs.
Many have unlockable bootloaders (though the number is rapidly declining with Samsung closing up). But not many have relockable bootloaders. This is one of the things that grapheneos have set as a minimum standard, hence the reliance on pixels. There's a few other specific things that the titan chip provides which they rely on but the relocking is the main thing.
This looks the same kind of situation when I noticed FOSDEM corridors started to be full of Apple laptops, but apparently the irony is lost on new generations.
I remember about 10 or 15 years ago somebody pointed out that a big chunk of the GNOME devs used Apple laptops, even at public appearances, and it answered a lot of my questions about the state of the project.
How do you see that playing out in the medium to long term? Google have made it very clear that they're done with the "open" side to Pixel, and they have comparatively unlimited resource to throw at the issue.
GrapheneOS team have published that they're working with a smartphone manufacturer that is working on releasing a phone that matches their security requirements.
Imo, Graphene wants to be a "Google certified" ROM OEM, they don't make devices but software. A good and secure ROM for sure but they're still begging them for Play Integrity[1] and "sandboxing" GMS isn't fighting Google.
[1] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/112878070618462132
This is not what they've claimed. Their pursuit of their own hardware phone next year could rattle the phone duopoly. If, and a big if, the intelligence agencies of the world will allow it to be sold.
Those operations, much as i respect them, did not reach the attention that GrpaheneOS has. Have they reached a takeoff velocity that more principled players didn't? Wouldn't be the first time we sang that chorus.
The fallacy is that AOSP (which GrapheneOS forks from), and Chromium used to install it, are both dependendent on Google engineers, money, and the willigness to keep the platforms open, to some extent.
Is your alternative that someone should build a complete from-scratch alternative OS that can still be booted on the same hardware?
For the time being, AOSP and Chromium are still open source, so why not piggy-back off of all that labor and development to provide what GrapheneOS users want at minimal cost and effort?
Sailfish is alright.
Desktop Linux works very nicely on smartphones actually provided all the drivers are there. I lived with a PinePhone running FVWM on Xorg for a couple years and if the hardware didn't crumble away I'd still be using it today.
No need to "build a complete from-scratch alternative OS" when that was already done 30 years ago.
If the goal is to be fully free from backdoors and development being cutted out at any time, yes.
If the source is fully open (it is) than detecting and disabling backdoors is completely possible. Not to mention the fact that other OS projects face the same risks.
If Google cuts development of AOSP in favor of some closed-source alternative, the GrapheneOS team could simply continue development of AOSP on their own.
> If the source is fully open (it is) than detecting and disabling backdoors is completely possible
There exists a possible world where a group of underpaid FOSS devs forked Chromium and AOSP and effectively developed it further.
But it is not our world.
> the GrapheneOS team could simply continue development of AOSP on their own.
They won't be able to do so.
Graphene relies on a lot of closed source driver code I would imagine
A fallacy which the author acknowledges.
> "I guess the best way to degoogle right now is to buy from Google"
Google has a monopoly on sort-of-open-but-not-really smartphones. And interoperability on ARM desktop isn't looking pretty either.
They really don't. It's just that development of custom roms like GrapheneOS are centered around Pixels. Plenty of other devices have unlockable bootloaders. The custom rom scene though is so small that concentrating on a couple devices is the only way to keep development moving forward though. Same reason why Asahi Linux is the only option on Apple Silicon Macs.
Many have unlockable bootloaders (though the number is rapidly declining with Samsung closing up). But not many have relockable bootloaders. This is one of the things that grapheneos have set as a minimum standard, hence the reliance on pixels. There's a few other specific things that the titan chip provides which they rely on but the relocking is the main thing.
To be more specific - relockable with a custom AVB key. I think most devices can relock with the default Google AVB key.
This looks the same kind of situation when I noticed FOSDEM corridors started to be full of Apple laptops, but apparently the irony is lost on new generations.
I remember about 10 or 15 years ago somebody pointed out that a big chunk of the GNOME devs used Apple laptops, even at public appearances, and it answered a lot of my questions about the state of the project.
(and I say this as a user of GNOME)
There is no winning. Get an iPhone, or a dumbphone.
An iPhone is even less open
None of these options are "open". You just have to decide what you really want from a communications device.
A Pixel with GrapheneOS is pretty much as open as it gets. Any iPhone or Samsung is a downgrade from that.
How do you see that playing out in the medium to long term? Google have made it very clear that they're done with the "open" side to Pixel, and they have comparatively unlimited resource to throw at the issue.
GrapheneOS team have published that they're working with a smartphone manufacturer that is working on releasing a phone that matches their security requirements.
Imo, Graphene wants to be a "Google certified" ROM OEM, they don't make devices but software. A good and secure ROM for sure but they're still begging them for Play Integrity[1] and "sandboxing" GMS isn't fighting Google. [1] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/112878070618462132
This is not what they've claimed. Their pursuit of their own hardware phone next year could rattle the phone duopoly. If, and a big if, the intelligence agencies of the world will allow it to be sold.
If Pine64 can't pull it off with millions in funding then I'm not sure how Graphene is going to accomplish that.
Those operations, much as i respect them, did not reach the attention that GrpaheneOS has. Have they reached a takeoff velocity that more principled players didn't? Wouldn't be the first time we sang that chorus.
"Taking legal steps" isn't "begging" though.