Android/Linux Dual Boot
wiki.postmarketos.org
wiki.postmarketos.org
Did you test apps that need sensors and notifications? If I want to run an OpenStreetmaps apk (there's no good way to run OMS on Linux natively), do I get GPS and compass heading? Do I get turn-by-turn navigation? Even if the app is in the background?
Unfortunately CoMaps doesn't seem to have desktop client builds at all yet.
But it's less full-featured than the mobile-only versions.
eOS is basically what you are looking for for most phones or GrapheneOS (pixel only)
But for the reason an antiquated os like postmarketos are suggested is that the project is being opportunistic thinking this is a chance they can be relevant. Additionally, the population of HN has more sentimental view on these legacy operating systems and view it as a chance to go back to the past and use software they are familiar with.
That's not a hard fork. They always rebase on top of AOSP when there's a new AOSP source release
If you don't rebase from AOSP, the apps won't run pretty quickly.
For a while I thought it was a missed opportunity to compete on a hard fork, but then I realised that Huawei probably cannot fork the Android SDK/NDK because it's not open source.
Regulators in the US decided that Android did not have to be split from Google, but they could theoretically decide that Google is not allowed to break AOSP to gain a competitive advantage. Not that it would matter: TooBigTech is too powerful to care about regulations anyway.
- Using the default 5g setting resulted in far worse battery life than stock, telling people to choose 4g isn't a solution. They desperately need something like the adaptive connectivity service.
- Using Homeassistant's GPS tracking feature just destroyed the battery life, even switching to 4g didn't solve this issue. Changing all the GPS settings didn't help either.
- The obnoxious green GPS active icon makes the notification bar useless if using a GPS tracking app (or even gps navigation). The request for a whitelist was either ignored or rejected, the teams communication can come off a bit rough.
No normal user is going to be happy with Grapheneos. From what I've seen postmarketos is much more user friendly.
I am a normal user, extremely happy with GrapheneOS. I just don't use HomeAssistant, which seems to have been your dealbreaker in this case.
I genuinely don't see a difference between Stock Android and GrapheneOS, except that I get more updates and I have more privacy controls (like scopes, but honestly I haven't had a need to use them yet).
Not to mention the 5g battery drain is a hard show stopper, not just Homeassistant issues. I even experimented with different apps like owntracks but same problem with GPS.
I found a solution to the GPS icon but it requires an ADB command so not a great fix.
I ended up using my public ip address in combination with a list of known ips for home and work and such, and building my HA automations around that. I wanted to do it with wifi SSID's, but that also requires the location permission and triggers the indicator (which is understandable, just wish I could still read SSID's with location services disabled entirely) (or, just let me disable the gps antenna and leave everything else).
It's not noise for me, I only ever have GPS on for Google Maps, and I like the indicator because its absence reassures me that nothing is using GPS in the background.
What's obnoxious about the green GPS icon? How does it make the notification bar useless? It is on all the time while I'm using Google Maps, it's small and not in the way and is a good reminder if I have accidentally left Google Maps open in the background. What's the problem?
I think the important distinction is _everything_ should be considered untrusted because even trustworthy software can become malicious. For example, the XZ Utils backdoor[0].
On Android, everything I run is subject to the permission model and sandboxed. That is not the case on Linux.
1. By being baked into the OS itself, which is unavoidable since the OS is the thing providing the sandboxing + security model. It still massively reduces the attack surface.
2. By being run through the android debug bridge, which is far from normal and something users have to explicitly enable. Leaving you the option to shoot yourself in the foot in an opt-in manner 99.9% of users will never touch isn't the same as Linux where foot-shooting is the default.
If you want to confine yourself in a sandbox, feel free to do it. The past decades have demonstrated that it's only necessary for some specific threat models.
I want to confine apps in a sandbox. Android has that, Linux... well not really. I mean "it's possible", but it's not integrated like in Android.
You can configure your flatpak app so that it will have permission to read microphone in the background or have full access to the disk. Many flatpaks of real apps request dangerous permissions that users have been conditioned to ignore. For example Blender is such an app which has full disk access and background microphone access, and I'm sure many people have installed that. This is unlike Android where these are locked down for every app.
The world isn't black and white. Most reasons why Android apps are being so heavily locked down don't apply to Blender. As a user, I'm not interested in Android-bis - if I were, I would just use Android after all. Nevertheless, things like Flatpak give me, the user, the power over application's permissions and I can take them away (or give more) in a few taps at will. The defaults being tuned for different use cases and threat models are not "being decades out of date", especially when you could already use the existing tooling to replicate other models - regardless of whether you happen to like these defaults or whether they fit your specific use case.
This is not possible on a device following the Android security model. Permissioned features should always be implemented using proper security mechanisms like permissions.
>don't apply to Blender
You say that until the SuperRetopologyTools5000.py addon you try out infects your system.
>Flatpak give me, the user, the power over application's permission
Most people are not going to bother with this. It's important for the defaults to be secure. People shouldn't have to opt in to a secure experience, and doing so shouldn't break the program.
Yes, that's the user experience on such devices. "This is not possible on a device following the Android security model, either bypass it or use another device".
Frankly, I still trust this model much more than black box Android apps automatically updating in the background, sending tons of telemetry and demanding random permissions so they can spy on you.
Not to mention the security model preventing many useful things from working properly (try to get a SFTP working on an Android system so that you can copy out photos taken by the phones camera.
You're comparing a security model to... apps? I don't see how that makes sense.
Apps you install on Linux can do more than apps you install on Android, period. That's part of the security model.
Of course I like that I am an admin on my computer, but I don't need that on my phone. And one can enable root on Android and still keep the apps sandboxed...
That might work if the main danger was upstream maintainers with bad intentions. But the main danger is security holes that no upstream or distro maintainer knows about, which allow attacks by parties that are not open-source maintainers.
Big picture is that GrapheneOS is much, much more secure than PostmarketOS.
It's called installing. Language matters and I see no reason to concede this point in Google's favour.
On Linux you have the default package sources, but for instance adding third party sources will still integrate the same with the system, I also never heard someone call installing Go or Java "side loading", though you're getting an installer from the site you need to run on your own. Same way for building from source.
IMHO "sideloading" would not apply to any system open enough, where adding stuff from multiple sources is expected from the start.
I don't think so, it's still an official channel offered by the OS maker.
> adding third party sources will still integrate the same with the system
but obviously with a higher risk of breakage since it was not tested while the official release was cooking (at least for Debian the official set of packages in stable is expected to have virtually no conflict issues, but as soon as you add third-party sources all bets are off).
> I also never heard someone call installing Go or Java "side loading"
neither have I, but I can imagine that in some contexts it could be a useful term. Like "did you sideload Go?" (implicitly asking if you got the third-party release vs installing from the official distribution repository). I'm not saying people say that, but that the term might also make sense in the Linux world.
> IMHO "sideloading" would not apply to any system open enough, where adding stuff from multiple sources is expected from the start.
Yeah if there's no sense of "main" channels that are more trusted or more stable the term doesn't make sense.
Let's just call it alternate install.
So we can rewrite the story to something like: Google wants to prohibit app installation on Android phones. The only way to get an app would be through playstoring.
There are legitimate uses of sideloading for regular users, for example if you have solar panels that work with a Huawei app, they can't put it on the Play store because of US sanctions. But that's not Google's fault, and that does mean the app is more risky since it's not monitored by Google.
(I'm not saying sideloading is otherwise illegitimate, it's an important feature but it's not something I'd normally recommend to a non-technical user that already chose to use a phone with Google's system.)
This implies the play store isn't hosting tonnes of malware right now
It gets tricky with alternative stores like F-Droid. I guess if you use F-Droid as a trusted source then it shouldn't be called sideloading.
Why is Google the arbitrator of risk here ?
As a user I'm capable of assessing the risk directly or indirectly by delegating that responsibility to another store or another program a.k.a anti-virus programs, its my choice in the end.
I want Google to build software like Windows Defender and allow others to build similar software. I want the ability to chose my security provider or not have one. I don't want Google to play nanny.
Because they do the monitoring and take some responsibility? I'm just comparing "install from the Play store" with "install some apk from wherever". If you bring additional context/knowledge of course it makes a difference.
Google's store has malware, but the point is there would be even more if Google was not monitoring the apps there. The store is less risky than getting apks from the wild web, TikTok, etc.
Sure F-Droid is safer (as you would expect from a curated store of a few thousand open source apps compared to a store with literally millions of apps). But I wouldn't call that sideloading either when it's your regular channel to get apps.
it's google's monopolized install that needs to be called by a long name
google has control on their android ecosystem behave, same reason why its not allowed in playstation or xbox or ios
The point of the above comment is that Google intentionally introduced the word "sideload" to make "installing an app on your own device which Google did not curate" sound more risky and sinister than it is, and I'm inclined to agree.
I "make" coffee on my keurig. If Keurig decides that making any single-serve coffe pods that aren't owned by the Keurig brand is now called "off-brewing," I'd dismiss it as ridiculous and continue calling it "making coffee."
We should use the language that makes sense, not the language that happens be good PR for google.
we can debate whether this is bad thing or good thing, it would have no ends
what matters is reality, the reality is google have the right to change it.
My reason for bringing up the "selling point" was to bring attention to the language -- "You can install any app you want" has always been the common refrain when I see friends get into a debate about IOS vs Android. People are already using the term because it makes the most sense.
the asnwer is not anymore
sideload is illegal
I do not believe an an OS vendor with an app store has a right to limit alternate distribution channels or that a government does something wrong by restricting such practices as unfair competition.
but its not illegal and wrong tho???? if this is probihited then xbox,playstation,nintendo,ios etc would be fined already
unironically android is still more "open" than all of its competitor even after all of this
It's no longer 30 years ago when hardware was unique and quirky and programs were written in assembly specifically for the hardware. It's all the same commodity parts along with what is supposed to be illegal business practices. In a reasonable world, something like Ryujinx would be just as front-and-center as Proton as part of Valve's product features, and courts would fine companies for trying to stop their software from working on other platforms.
I know, I know everything can be a "PC" if you look close enough but hear me
people can create their own ecosystem of walled garden whenever they want
game console has been doing it for 20+ years and they are fine, apple has doing it for 10+ years and they are fine
Google wants doing it???? they are fine to do that. if you have problem then you are hypocrite
Wrong in this context is an assertion about morality. I do think it's wrong in the context of consumer products for a vendor to attempt to override the wishes of the owner of the product outside of a few narrow exceptions. I would absolutely apply that to iOS, and I think the DMA didn't go far enough; Apple should have no ability to enforce notarization or charge fees to app developers if the device owner chooses otherwise.
I feel less strongly about game consoles because they're not as important as smartphones; they don't touch most aspects of life in modern society, and there are viable alternatives for their primary function, such as gaming on PCs. I don't like their business model and I don't own one.
all of big tech doing it for 20+ years and suddenly google isnt allowed to do "industry standard", like what we talking about here????
I know its bad for pro-sumer which is minority but consumer would get more protection which is majority so I dismiss HN audience because they are biases vs normal people
What you're doing here is resigning from a game just because of the fact there is a game, and then being condescending to other people for trying to win the game instead, as if what you're doing is something superior. This would already be very odd behaviour if this were only Monopoly or Risk, but is downright dangerous propaganda when the game is capitalism and the future of free computing is at stake.
that is what AOSP are, android remain "free"
the ecosystem around android??? remain google rights and rightfully so since google fund and develop most of it
same like apple does, microsoft does, nintendo does. nothing wrong againts that
Could've fooled me. Maybe it was a thing a decade ago when android just launched, but none of the marketing pages for vaguely recent phones has that as a selling point. At best it's a meme that android proponents repeat on hn or reddit.
I've never met or talked to an android user that truly believes android is better technology or a better user experience. They all use it because of flexibility.
Installing an APK directly through your phone is in fact NOT sideloading.
"Side" being.. from your computer
You also know, what is commonly used for making profit? PR.
And they are all about changing the meaning of words, to achieve a certain effect in people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom
What exactly is ridiculous to the idea, that maybe there was a google meeting where the name was debated and the pro and cons of different names evaluated from their buisness perspective?
There should be terminology for installing from the source of your choice which doesn't carry the marginal or sinister connotations of "sideloading" though.
"Freeloading" would have been a good one but... yeah
'installing from beyond the walled garden' would be a nice fit here imo
(interestingly the keyboard app is not among these, so my sister has uninstalled it by mistake once)
(not really final, Google can uninstall your apps anytime if they are deemed undesirable)
it would
and it would show exactly why it is absurd
"Installing arbitrary packages"
vs
"Installing google-approved packages"
But once Android appeared, and there was one Google-approved way of installing applications (Google Store) and one way of installing directly from .apk after enabling "Unknown Sources", then the word started to be used for the second approach.
I don't remember if it was Google who started using "sideloading" or the community itself, but regardless, "installing" would be a more understandable word for anyone to use for the processing of installing an application on your phone, as (what I recall to be) the original meaning was just transferring.
Probably influenced by the original iPod, which really wanted you to sync your iPod with your iTunes library (conveniently directing you to purchase all of your music from Apple's platform). "Sideloading" referred to the few extra steps to get your computer to simply expose the iPod as a removable storage device and drag-and-drop your mp3s over that way.
It wouldn't have made sense in the context of other mp3 players, because for many of the ones I remember (like my Creative Zen Touch), that was the only way to add the mp3s. I don't think Creative even supplied a front-end media manager...or if they did, I never bothered installing it.
Steve Jobs himself said in his famous “Thoughts on Music” letter that was posted on the Apple home page that less than 10% of users music on iPods were bought from iTunes.
> Probably influenced by the original iPod, which really wanted you to sync your iPod with your iTunes library (conveniently directing you to purchase all of your music from Apple's platform).
iTunes (the software) came out before the iTunes (the music store) and iPods and Apple actually marketed the iMacs as “rip mix burn”.
1. "Import" your files into iTunes "library"
2. "Sync" that library with a device
My computer already has a filesystem. Why do I need to involve some application's "library"? I hate applications that insist on grafting its own "library" container on top of my already-working filesystem. My OS already allows me to copy files. Why do I need to rely on that application to copy files? Just expose the thing as a mass storage device and let me use my OS!
You couldn’t have that metadata with just file syncing. Later when iTunes was introduced, it had to support DRM.
Later it also had podcast syncing.
I used iTunes to burn CDs before I had an iPod.
And don’t forget that Jobs being able to negotiate users being able to buy music on iTunes with DRM [1] and letting users burn them to a DRM free CD was so revolutionary that even Bill Gates was impressed.
https://9to5mac.com/2021/07/09/unearthed-email-shows-bill-ga...
[1] later Jobs argued in the same “Thoughts on Music” letter that instead of Apple licensing its DRM the record label should license DRM free music to everyone since most music was already sold as DRM free CDs and then everyone’s music could work anywhere. Only one record label took them up on the offer from day one. It wasn’t until 2009 that all of the record labels agreed.
I had an Xperia for awhile. I liked it while it was new, but after a year the back started peeling off.
Pretty lousy for a phone that was supposed to be waterproof. At that point I realized that the Japanese change out their phones every 6-12 months, thus Sony didn't realize that the market demands much longer reliability in a smartphone.
Think mesh networking, resilient ad-hoc application clustering, non-Internet P2P, like Freifunk but everywhere. We shouldn't have to depend on Google or any of the big tech companies for anything except the hardware.
That would offer much more freedom. There are also contexts where this kind of thing could also enable life-saving applications. And unlike todays Internet where a database query in Cloudflare or a DNS bug in es-east-1 can disrupt half the services we use, this kind of technology really could withstand major attacks on infrastructure hubs, like the Internet was originally designed to do.
(if dumbed down) What's are the gaps in features and functionality between what you're describing and what might be achievable today (given enough software glue) with an SDR transceiver and something like Reticulum [1] on an Android?
SDR + something like Reticulum or Yggdrasil would definitely provide the infra or network fabric for the kind of thing I'm thinking of.
However, a normal Android, e.g. a Pixel 7, can't to my knowledge be turned into a web server or a podman host for containers. (I know of people hosting websites on old Androids that are flashed or hacked).
Given phones already have a WiFi/WLAN radio chip, it's a shame to need extra kit for connectivity.
It's something that's been on my mind a lot recently and so you provoked me into writing down a series of scenarios in story format that illustrates what SHOULD be possible using current hardware, were it not, as dlcarrier says, locked down like a games console.
Here you go:
If you said that they'd effectively all be running either a port of OS X or a Linux distribution with a non-GNU but open source userspace, I'd consider that a somewhat unexpected success of open-source software. I would not at all expect that it would be as locked down as video game console.
The more time passes, the less I use my phone for, and the more likely I am to whip out my laptop to accomplish something, like it's 2005.
For my use case it's beyond great, albeit the small screen and the aarch architecture I can develop small projects as if I was on my PC.
My current phone OP13r doesn't is supported yet by PmOS, when someone does it Im gonna try to install it on one of the slots.
Noteably OnePlus 13 and Pixel 9a, both 2025 phones, can be unlocked.
Imagine if every laptop manufacturer had not a couple of incompatible sensors, but a whole unique boot system only allowing you to boot a crippled version of Windows ME.
It’s really too bad that ARM had adopted ACPI as part of their SystemReady certification. It does work, and not reinventing the wheel is always a wise where feasible, but I think we could absolutely push something better.
The problem is... in the x86 world, even the most modern systems around still ship with decades of garbage. INT 10h and VBE, every x86 system still speaks it - either directly in the card, or emulated in BIOS/UEFI compatibility layers, so even a basic "hello world" can get video output, 09h/16h gives you keyboard input, 13h gives you disk I/O, 14h a serial port.
That means that at least the initial bringup for a second-stage bootloader is incredibly easy, less than 40 lines of assembler code [1]. And when you write a tiny operating system, as long as you're content with that basic foundation of 640x480 and text output, it will run on any x86 compatible PC or server.
On anything ARM, that's outright impossible to do and that is a large part of the problem. ARM is power efficient, but it comes at a serious cost. The low level bringup will be handled by the board's ROM, similar to PC BIOS/EFI, but after control is passed to the OS it gets different - all the OS gets is the devicetree stating "here's the memory addresses and interfaces of the hardware in the system", but you still need to write drivers for each and every individual thing from the bottom up, there is no framework for even most basic hardware interactions.
[1] https://gist.github.com/MyCatShoegazer/38dc3ee7db9627ff3a20e...
[1] http://www.techhelpmanual.com/106-int_09h__keyboard_interrup...
[2] http://www.techhelpmanual.com/228-int_16h__keyboard_services...
[3] http://www.techhelpmanual.com/58-keyboard_shift_status_flags...
If anyone wants the code for scraping and reformatting, let me know.