Hacker News Reader

Comment by pjmlp | Hacker News Reader

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.

Which makes the idea that a group like them could build their own OS from scratch all the more unattainable... That's the point I'm trying to make. At least if Google ever drops AOSP, it would be when it's still an intact OS available to continue development on. Additionally, I suspect a group like Graphene could get a lot more support developing AOSP's replacement in that instance, considering how many other manufacturers and devices utilize AOSP-derived software.

What makes AOSP so much more complex than open-source frameworks like Gtk and KDE? Or even partially-funded software like Gnome?

Graphene relies on a lot of closed source driver code I would imagine

If you define the goal that way, then you actually need to clear a much higher bar of making your own hardware. Personally I'd much rather maintain a long term fork of AOSP than have to design, market, sell, and support a new device.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com