this post was submitted on 01 May 2026
1380 points (98.6% liked)
Privacy
9717 readers
252 users here now
A community for Lemmy users interested in privacy
Rules:
- Be civil
- No spam posting
- Keep posts on-topic
- No trolling
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So what do we do when they start making it harder and harder to install graphene?
Getting a motorola cause they explicitly will be supporting GrapheneOS.
But all of that is just a stepping stone. As soon as I deem linux phones to be usable as a daily driver for me, I won't look back.
We still don't know anything about the phones' specifications, prices.
Ironic that graphene is developed most for pixel phones
Not really. They develop for Pixel because those devices have the most secure hardware available for developing a modified Android OS.
If the rest-of-the-world can get its head out of its ass, a fork of AOSP with an open governance and a commitment to opensource and open platform, so that every one benefits from it. You wouldn't need that much from each country to get more resources on that AOSP-bis than Google will ever be able to pour on its homebrew version.
You make a rule that public service can only buy devices using AOSP-bis based systems (or even better: states choose their own AOSP distros) and quickly, Google has no choice but to follow your version, not the other way around.
don't give Google the monopoly
better: "You make a rule that public service can only buy devices using libre systems"
If you fork, by definition, they no longer have the monopoly. The fork does not even have to follow Google's updates.
Yes. But still, it should be "libre systems" rather than "AOSP systems".