GrapheneOS Overhauled Default Apps and Secure Clipboard
grapheneos.social
grapheneos.social
Hell yeah. Google Messages has worked reasonably well for RCS so far (after a long and frustrating period where it didn't on T-Mobile), but having a non-Google option will be huge.
My devices help me think, and my thoughts are my own. That is a fundamental condition of human-hood. Sure we can change that, if that's what we want, but do we? If we do, do we make it a conscious choice per person? Or do we let big tech/corporatocracy dictate what it is to be human?
Except... what carriers still remain using their own RCS carrier services and haven't been pressured by Google to adopt Jive?
The release seems to be only the SMS/RCS app, rest is future:
> We're also going to be overhauling or fully replacing the rest of the AOSP apps in the near future. AOSP Gallery is incredibly outdated and is being entirely replaced. AOSP Keyboard may be similar. We recently hired a bunch of new people and will be hiring more so our progress will be accelerating.
https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3muupuvlfbs2v
We posted it right after the Messaging app thread but they're separate topics.
One of the best solutions I've ever used for photos, backups, enrichment, etc
Featured prominently in the "Source Code" container on https://keyboard.futo.tech/
AFAIK everything FUTO makes is open source? I haven't seen a counter-example (I have not looked hard though!), and https://futo.tech/about claims the following:
>All FUTO-funded projects are expected to be open source or develop a plan to eventually become so. No effort will ever be taken to hide from the people what their computers are doing, to limit how they use them, or to modify their behavior through their software.
https://gitlab.futo.org/keyboard/latinime/-/blob/master/LICE...
>You may modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.
Violates clause 3 (Derived Works) and clause 6 (No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor) of the Open Source Definition [0].
>You may distribute the software or any part of its source code only if you do so free of charge for non-commercial purposes.
Violates clause 1 (Free Redistribution) and clause 6.
>Notwithstanding the above, you may not remove or obscure any functionality in the software related to payment to the Licensor in any copy you distribute to others.
Violates clause 3.
It is a "source available" license, not Open Source.
Thank you for the details! That lays it out nicely for anyone else passing through.
It is not open source. They use a custom source available license. There's no way any Android distribution would include it. A layman's reading is that FUTO could claim license violation on account of the distribution accepting donations (non-commercial use only) and there's a weird clause about not accusing FUTO of patent infringement.
It completely falls apart and starts injecting nonsense phrases made up of nonsense misspelled words moment you miss a space ('v' or 'b') or type a really long word it doesn't know.
It also stubbornly incorrects other things like 'a' into "and" if it thinks it knows a phrase fragment. It's always wrong. It just happened to me now twice. Above, "or type a" became "or type and". Also, "it's" became "IRS".
Heliboard would be perfect if it stuck to word-only spellcheck and never split words. Just now again, it tried correcting "heliboard" into "hellenized" and "he lib oars".
This is not a matter of just lowering how aggressive the spellcheck is. It will still generate slop every time. The only real option is to completely turn it off. Futo can have similar problems, but there are a lot more options to tweak and the defaults aren't so bad.
i ended up just using gboard on gos because every other one i tried fell short.
hopefully the stock gos one can be reworked into an actually decent keyboard.
If you mean it as a user installed app, please disregard.
Go read the GPLv3 license and/or ask yourself how Linux distributions are able to ship a mix of GPLv3, v2, MIT, BSD, etc licensed software all in the same image.
GrapheneOS may or may not have a policy against shipping GPLv3 software (I don't know), but if they do, it's a political or business decision, not a restriction imposed by GPLv3.
The GPLv3 only applies to a work and works derived from it, so either if you take an existing GPLv3 project and modify it or if you link against a GPLv3 project. In these cases, the other code needs to be under licenses that are compatible with the GPLv3.
This is clearly described in the GPLv3:
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an "aggregate" if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
So if you're using Graphene for privacy from Google specifically, it's not safe to install things like Gboard even with the network permission disabled. Even if they don't use IPC in this way today, there's no telling what the Google-of-tomorrow will do.
This is true and even vastly understated. Google is like the Walter White of companies. Starts out innocent, turned into a monster, everyone around him astonished at the dark, depraved change.
So if one thinks "nah, Google wouldn't do that", I have a bridge to sell you...
Refra Gallery is licensed as Apache 2.0, which is a permissive license GrapheneOS can bundle in the OS.
Ubuntu does not aim to be a permissively-licensed system. It can include copyleft (e.g. GPL) and permissive (e.g. MIT) without issue.
Permissively-licensed systems like FreeBSD and GrapheneOS cannot include GPL code if they want to remain permissive.
We do need to be careful with GPLv2 due to license incompatibilities. For example, GPLv2-only licensing such as the Linux kernel is incompatible with Apache 2 and GPLv3. GPLv3 is compatible with Apache 2 so GPLv2-or-later can be compatible but only by using it as GPLv3 with the extra restrictions too.
I guess it will make your life much easier if you wouldn't have to restrict yourself that much.
It's hard to take this seriously when the entire kernel is GPL.
In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
There are some cases where a separate work can be considered derivative and thus the GPL can apply. E.g. I think it is generally accepted that a program linked statically against a GPL library is considered a derivative work (and must thus must have a license compatible with the GPL). More controversial is whether dynamic linking creates a derivative work. To cover the latter case, a lot of copyleft libraries are licensed under the LGPL or the GPL with a dynamic linking exception.
At any rate, shipping a Linux distribution with GPLv2 code (e.g. the Linux kernel) and a GUI application that is under the Apache v2 license is not a problem at all (as long as the GUI application is not a derivative of a GPLv2 work).
(IANAL of course, so this is not legal advice.)
When it comes to AOSP/GOS, bundled apps are not aggregated together, they are built and signed under a singular OS binary.
We use GPLv2 and permissive licensing for GrapheneOS to avoid more restrictive licensing than the AOSP. We'll happily use GPLv3 and AGPLv3 for components outside of GrapheneOS if we think it's the best fit for specific projects. We aren't currently licensing anything as GPLv3/AGPLv3 but we aren't strictly opposed to it outside of the OS.
We'll use what we think are the best open source licenses for what we want to achieve. What we want to achieve is usually broad adoption of our code with painless usage of it. That means we usually choose permissive licenses. We use GPLv2 in certain cases such as Vanadium where we decided we wanted extensions to our code to be under a compatible open source license instead of a source available license or GPLv3.
A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
If you'd include a GPLv3 gallery app in, say, a mobile OS, it does not mean that the rest of the OS has to be under the GPLv3. It merely means that you cannot limit the user's right when it comes to the GPLv3-part (the gallery app). They would still be allowed to redistribute/modify it and you have to provide the source code on request.
You only have to make other code GPLv3 if you somehow create a derivative work (e.g. linking against a GPLv3 library).
(IANAL blah blah)
I hear it conflicts with GPLv2 and other permissive licensing. GPLv2 doesn't allow restrictions added by GPLv3, the two aren't compatible. iirc it would restrict how users or companies use GOS.
GOS is an open source software project, they know how licenses work in practice better than most of the rest of us.
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/2096677808424788256#m
https://nitter.click/GrapheneOS/status/2096677808424788256#m
https://bsky.app/profile/grapheneos.org/post/3muun5c4fdc2o
Secure paste:
https://xcancel.com/GrapheneOS/status/2096685327020933355#m
https://nitter.click/GrapheneOS/status/2096685327020933355#m
It doesn't apply to GrapheneOS users and it doesn't affect developers who have apps on the play store. You should do it! Many users on stock android who would install apps not from the play store will have gone through the 24 hours or used ADB.
I don't really get why so many Americans want RCS to succeed though. Do you guys not remember when carriers charged 10p/text? Why on earth would you want to give any power at all back to those people?
Many 3rd party platforms are still better though.
Malicious providers like kpn in the Netherlands even sought to charge extra for WhatsApp traffic because they lost so much revenue. However the EU shot that down hard under net neutrality.
But I remember it well and this is why I always disable RCS. I don't ever want to give my provider the chance to do that again. And I don't trust Google either. SMS is completely dead here too. It's been years since anyone sent me a personal message. It's just spam and poorly implemented 2FA shit.
It's not an issue here in Spain anyway. The only phone with iPhones are rich expats. Most of the people I know use cheap budget androids.
> RCS isn't an open platform in practice. It isn't even as open as SMS/MMS. It heavily depends on proprietary Google and carrier infrastructure in practice. We can start by replicating Google's approach and then we can work on only using carrier services for carriers where it's actually supported.
MMS bring broken since day 1 in my experience is probably the reason I jumped on internet chat and email, since those actually work as advertised (sure, they has some practical limits, but they tell you about those!). I probably would have sent my mum that image over MMS if MMS actually every worked. Since it never did, using a difference service was a must.
Then again, this feels like an extension of the rest of the phone system. Anything beyond calls between two people, SMS and data that involves connecting to the phone system has always (in my experience) been either janky or broken. No wonder I try to use anything else given the opportunity.
I'm not sure which of the two is better tbh. Utterly dominated by a Facebook-owned system, or using something that's crappy enough that people spread out to a variety of systems?
But once it landed in Zuck's hands, I no longer trust it one bit. Abandon ship.
-US- iPhone users very often don't want to have SMS/MMS users in their group chats.
The rest of the world is using WhatsApp, WeChat, Telegram, Snapchat, LINE, etc. for group chats (for better or worse), even on iPhone.
If what you say about “the rest of the world” using other messaging apps is true, then yeah, it probably is North America–centric. So what? Are you agreeing with the OP who didn’t see any point and advocated that GrapheneOS “totally ignore RCS”?
GrapheneOS already supports WhatsApp, WeChat, Telegram, Snapchat, and LINE. What’s wrong with improving OS support for another widely used alternative, that for all its faults is mostly better than still another widely used alternative (SMS/MMS)?
There’s a thread on the GrapheneOS forum titled “Using RCS with Google Messages on GrapheneOS” with 2,192 posts in it. Clearly there’s a lot of interest in using RCS on GrapheneOS!
No. I think it is useful for GrapheneOS to work on this, the US is a substantial user base.
The comment I reacted to:
iPhone users very often don't want to have SMS/MMS users in their group chats.
I think it is useful to qualify that, because a lot of people from the US are under all kinds of false beliefs like: green bubble anxiety is universal, Pixel 10 and Pixel 10 Pro do not support physical SIMs (Pixels support physical SIM in other regions), etc. (I could go on for a while.)
These misunderstandings repeatedly show up over and over again and discussions, so I think it is worth being specific. In this case most iPhone users worldwide do not even think about SMS/MMS users in their chat, because they do not even rely on iMessage as their primary messaging app.
In theory carriers could increase the max resolution for MMS now that 3G is essentially dead, but I doubt they will now the slow move to RCS has started.
> In cases where RCS is able to operate over cellular networks without data, it supports messaging as well as file transfer, enriched calling, and more.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rich_Communication_Services
The whole saga with VoLTE was really quite entertaining: https://nickvsnetworking.com/background-to-the-volte-mess/
That's not a sustainable solution because 2G/3G are getting switched off. And it doesn't really have any bearing on LTe itself.
The real issue is that they didn't really standardise VoLTE enough. Leaving every carrier and manufacturer to have a mesh of different options and not every carrier and every phone supports the exact same subset of options, which causes the compatibility issue. Also sometimes providers don't bother checking phones they don't sell.
They really should have standardised it 100% so this couldn't happen.
RCS is technically superior (protocol, transport, security, all of it) but is captured from the start on the technical level by design by the big players. From the perspective of the vast majority of users who have very limited technical awareness, it was silently slipped in as an upgrade at one point or another. This means that those not adopting the proprietary BigTech solution are perceived as being difficult by insisting on using software that's now perceived as outdated or as otherwise mildly incompatible.
I understood from other comments that RCS is the default communication channel in N.America an I can sort of see why you want to give people a somewhat less worse option here than Google's Messenger. But RCS should not be the default imho, because lazy people gonna be lazy. So I hereby endorse you to gently push newcomers towards a safe and privacy friendly default by pre-installing Signal or whatever meets the bar and give it a prominent place.
Either you will have people content with SMS, or you will have people content with RCS. Which is better is obvious.
I am not on the GrapheneOS team but the community does push better options such as Molly/Signal and RCS is usually only advised as a fallback messenger.
To me, the only they’re trying to maintain control of is AppleOS-to-AppleOS text communication.
Yes, exactly. Apple and Google are both acting to maintain control and this has resulted in a standard that improves functionality but is effectively poisoned at the technical level. Left to their own devices I'm sure Apple would have preferred to stay with their original solution that is even more closed off.
But honestly, in a non-open ecosystem, can you really trust that the near-exclusive two major players are actually playing by the rules? Apple has been relatively protective of its users on privacy stuff, but I've lost all trust in Google at this point.
I do! I have a old-ish but up-to-date and stock Pixel phone, and I see (what appears to be) full E2EE with several text contacts in Messages, with ability to verify keys (which admittedly I have not attempted to use yet). It only works if both devices / all of the devices in a group are fully compatible with the version that adds encryption or newer, but when they do, it just starts working automatically and transparently. AFAIK, that's primarily thanks to Google's work.
I think what we've learned from the rise and fate of current alternative messaging apps and services is that, if we actually want to get the majority of the world's population on modern-quality E2EE for all of their communication, it's going to have to be done gradually and transparently through the apps they already use. Getting everyone to switch to a different app is a pipe-dream that will never happen, at least not thanks to the work of any particular person or company.
Apple is pretty good at privacy and security for people playing within their ecosystem. They seem rather indifferent to any attempts to communicate or interact with anybody without an Apple device. Better than nothing, but not great IMO. Google has many faults in many areas, but I think they're doing awesome work at a difficult and thankless job as far as developing a standard for modern and fully encrypted communications that is actually possible for everyone to switch to transparently, and dragging everyone kicking and screaming into actually using it. Apple just rolled out support for it in beta 4 months ago. Very likely in the next year or so, we may see the majority of texts and group-chats between Android and iOS be actually E2EE without the users needing to do anything besides ordinary OS updates. That will be IMO 80% Google's doing, and 20% Apple's.
I am very glad to hear they're finally exposing some of those details though. Now they just need to open it up to third parties, like the original reference implementation did over a decade ago, so we don't need to blindly trust them as much.
I agree that I don't entirely trust Google with all of this power. The problem seems to me to be that every other relevant player in the industry has even less interest in setting up reliable universal secure messaging. Apple is mostly interested in keeping everybody inside their walled garden. The carriers are mostly interested in figuring out new revenue streams in an attempt to get themselves out of the "dumb commodity data pipes while also forced to spend big money on constantly updating nationwide infrastructure" role that the mobile tech world has forced them into. Mobile hardware providers are basically the same, except for hating the "dumb commodity hardware provider of the 13th black rectangle" role. Nobody else's opinion actually matters in this world.
I'd be happy to see them set up their own servers and an actual federated system, it just seems like none of the other players really want to do it.
Long story short somebody preferred to “ship it” instead of waiting to figure out how to make encryption compatible between iOS and Android. I guess there’s some differences in how the key rings work, but Signal can figure it out and /they’re/ open source so it sucks they ever supported unencrypted messages. They just wanted to say it technically worked for rich text messages and reactions.
Never seen RCS working on any carrier ever since. I don't understand why Google couldn't just continue doing what it was doing. Why require carriers?
Oof, so it was essentially destined to fail when the spec was being written.
Google-based RCS is Google coopting an existing standard to get the foot in the door for Apple Messages interoperability. By coopting a standard (rather than pushing yet another Google messenger), they could convince regulators to push Apple towards supporting it. Otherwise RCS is completely irrelevant and if it weren't for Google, it would've been mostly dead.
[1] Yeah, I realize that is was probably used in the US much longer, but that's when it started to dwindle in the rest of the world, where MMS also never really took off.
The early versions of RCS were barely implemented. Android and iOS didn't bother including clients, carriers didn't bother hosting servers because the spec was optional, and third party applications made by carriers were launched and then died because carriers couldn't explain to customers why their app was better than WhatsApp e.a. for those in the market for alternative messengers.
I think it's safe to say that RCS would've died a quiet death had Google not used it as a basis for their own Hangouts alternative built into their SMS client.
When RCS was first (soft) launched back in 2008, E2EE messaging practically didn't exist. Google slapped E2EE on top when they hosted their own iMessage alternative to bring it into the modern era but the base spec was still "what if MMS wasn't so outdated and restricted".
Agreed. Google used a standard that virtually nobody (except some carriers) cared about to get a foot in the door for better interoperability with iPhones, to try to solve an issue that is mostly US-only (green bubble anxiety),
In most of the rest of the world nobody gives a shit about RCS since we have adopted other messengers (than iMessage or SMS/MMS) ages ago, most of which are already end-to-end encrypted.
I understand why GrapheneOS has to spend time on this (the US is a large user base), but it's sad nonetheless.
GrapheneOS does recommend using superior platforms like Signal, but that is 3rd party, and thus has adoptability issues in convincing people to use it. Just because better platforms exist does not mean RCS should be ignored.
- Signal. high priority channel, checked daily
- $PrivacyHazardApp. low prio, checked with steadily increasing intervals.
Make sure you communicate those intervals in advance, have them in the footer of every message you sent on $PrivacyHazardApp. Average Joe needs lots of patience and lots of education.
If the protocol is properly e2ee, it does not matter who backs it or hosts it. GrapheneOS would be in control of the client which is what matters in an e2ee system.
Not really... You will be communicating with other people who don't use GrapheneOS and if you are e.g. communicating with iPhone users who have iCloud backups enabled (most iPhone users) and did not opt in to ADP (against most iPhone users), the chats are only encrypted at-rest in the iCloud backups and are accessible by Apple and law enforcement.
Signal is way better because it opts out iCloud backups (and Android backups) in favor of truly end-to-end encrypted backups.
I do miss keyboard symbols without shifting and icon packs.
We're changing very little about the overall layout and structure of the app in this initial phase of the overhaul. Over the past couple months, it was carefully ported to Compose with a lot of code review and added tests. It was a lot of work and is going to look a lot more modern. It's also now possible to greatly improve the user interface in much more substantial ways than making it look modern.
Our quality standards are too high for current frontier LLMs to generate much we could use directly. On the other hand, their code review output is extremely useful. It can find many issues we wouldn't catch even with multiple rounds of human review. It's helping us a lot with catching issues we've repeatedly overlooked.
As long as the code is being held to the same standards (which have been very high), it's only going to help the developers.
Btw, please save yourself some energy and mental peace by ignoring these people who haven't written a single line of serious code and are only there for bandwagoning and pushing their political agendas. Love the work that you guys do that's why I'd love for you guys to be able to focus on the mission and not get distracted by them. Thanks for all the hard work!
Maybe they'll work on the backup now, this *** seedvault is worse than nothing (consistently broken on both my GOS phones, never giving the same results with 2 backups, never giving out as much as the status I could trust)
It was always meant to be a walled garden. Exactly what an open system shouldn't be.
People can already install the messaging apps of their choice on GrapheneOS. It would go against our approach to choose specific messaging apps and protocols to bundle with the OS beyond SMS/MMS/RCS. We shouldn't be the ones choosing Signal vs. SimpleX vs. Element or other options but rather that's up to users to decide. We need a messaging app to handle carrier-based messaging in the OS including providing end-to-end encryption for it and the rest is up to other open source developers.
I disagree with this somewhat. Apple and Google make these sweeping decisions for their users and in effect promote one tech over another. Adopting RCS and integrating it natively, but shunning open protocols and leaving them for third party apps (with probably worse OS integration) means you are following, not leading.
I would at least consider shifting approaches somewhere down the line. Yes, there are a plethora of open messaging protocols out there, but adopting one for first party integration doesn't prevent the others from being used.
And the OS should come with a GrapheneOS Monero wallet to compete with Google Wallet/Apple Pay.
This makes no sense especially when you’re comparing it against Apple Pay and Google Wallet. They shouldn’t waste resources on something so pointless. The only exception is if they can actually make an NFC capable app that can handle cards.
Obviously it isn't a direct substitute for Apple pay but it would be more functionality than we have now.
RCS is what GMS Android and iOS provide so that's what people need to talk to non-GrapheneOS users.
Which non-carrier-based messaging app or protocol do you think we should include and why? What happens if we decide that's no longer the best one wand want to get rid of it? Apps included in the OS cannot be easily removed but rather only disabled by default for new installs and phased out for new devices. Otherwise, users would have their working setup break.
I think in the short term, you should take a look at e.g. Cheogram, Conversations, and Element and consider ways to enhance integration. Address book integration, automatically extending contact do not disturb exceptions, and maybe even dialer integration.
In the long term, it would be best to try to guage antitrust regulator attitudes wrt to protocols like XMPP and Matrix. In the end, they are the only ones who can really force mass adoption of an open protocol. But alternative OSs having native support and integration for such messaging protocols can tip the scales and be used as evidence of the protocol's viability and legitimacy.
I'd like to see them lay more ground work for web apps but it's a tough spot and the easiest choice at the moment is to continue with AOSP.
Until that changes, webapps aren't going to sell.
Even Google tried multiple things to "sell" the idea of webapps (e.g. Polymer project) in 2011-2015 and failed.
Funny enough, Wechat kinda succeeded at webapps in China because there's a strong user preference to stay inside one monolithic "everything app".
Of course there is. Sent from my daily driver Librem 5.
Disclaimer: It is less secure than GrapheneOS, according to the GrapheneOS threat model.
Above that, not much would change for a few years anyway, because apps still target ancient Android versions.
Forking is all easy, keeping it up to date year after year as codebases diverge is a whole different story.
I could see Samsung doing it. But they won't, they're too good buddies with Google. But they have the resources. A Motorola no. The grapheneos team won't either, maintaining a disparate fork and introducing new features independently from aosp would just be beyond their scope. You're not just hardening at that point. You're basically doing everything.
Don't forget when Huawei didn't fork. Well they started with that but then replaced every component with their own design. It's easier because if you fork you're still bound by decisions made by the original party. Better to greenfield the whole thing then.
And look at how many people made a soft fork of chrome with some ui changes. There's tons of those. There's no hard fork that no longer follows Google. Even a large company like Microsoft didn't.
With every Android release you will build up more feature base to replicate. Unless you cut all ties and drive a separate ecosystem but good luck getting enough developers to buy into that.
> We recently hired a bunch of new people and will be hiring more so our progress will be accelerating.
Their resources are historically better spent hardening vs literally reinventing the wheel.
Multiple variables in that equation have changed - so it could be interesting where we end up.
Someone (else!) may yet arise chasing their stated model without Android, as well.
Apple isn't going to let them build on top of iOS, and anything except those two is dead in the water because it'll never have users because it is missing a bunch of critical apps, and will never have those apps because it doesn't have users.
Anything can and will go down. Nothing is forever.
Windows still has the vast majority share of desktop.
And yes we still have windows as the major desktop OS but don't forget, in the 90s/early 2000s windows was equivalent to computing.
These days the desktop OS is much less relevant than it was and many people don't even own a laptop or desktop anymore. They just do everything on their phone. And Microsoft totally and completely lost that race.
It's a completely different situation here.
There have been several projects like Ubuntu Touch to create an open Linux for smartphones.
That would be an open alternative.
Android is not open.
I would recommend it as tool for a Linux app designer to use with testing and user improvement. Helps find issue not present on a laptop or desktop. Highlights the difference in solution choices; Python vs Node.js vs Rust.
I'm getting away from Google as far and fast as possible. The sooner the bandaid is pulled the better and more freeing. Google's path with being able to reject those that they don't seem worthy to run on Android, that is a prison.
Personally, I should have root access to the device so that all content which must be archived can be or consumed with another tool; Category Theory. I should have direct access to copying or backing up SMS with ease. Watching the network traffic to know what is actually going through.
Security is also being able for one to learn about the actual operations and test and validate them.
So say you use a USB device to host the kernel boot image which then requires manual password authentication to decrypt physical device drives. Without the USB device, it boots into duress mode.
Duress mode provides a false shell into a working phone. Physical security system do this, by provide false statements of what is going on. Wipe the real stuff in the background if need be.
GraphneOS is using a Linux Kernel. I'm looking for something more Linux Distro style of implementation. Not choosing GraphneOS is pure objective to remove myself from Google and Apple as much as possible in a communication tool.
Android device has become phone and text only. Linux device has become my engagement. Going for a walk without primary communication is peaceful.
- No dependency on Google - Actually free and open OS (this means: root access to device, being able to customise any part of the distro/WM/DE, full, low-level access to external devices etc)
That duress pin idea is not good at all and would be bad for the users of GrapheneOS.
Not to want to give too much. Cell phone companies have no issue deactivating an account with a stated text message. Duress kernel can mimic it with other slight of hand displays that the _foot_ will accept as reality.
User lock down versus machine lock down moves to allowing the machine holes to be used for bypassing. User lock down allows for analyzing and patching the machine holes.
Waydroid has very poor privacy and security due to disabling most of the app sandbox. It's also based on an old version of LineageOS so it's missing many important privacy/security updates, but it's much more relevant that it doesn't have SELinux and exposes much more kernel attack surface to apps. SELinux is not an extra layer of security for Android but rather is used in a far more deeply integrated way than any typical desktop/server usage. It's a huge portion of the security model including the app sandbox and protecting the Linux kernel.
We greatly prefer virtual machines over a half-baked container approach disabling most of the privacy/security model. There's already hardware accelerated virtualization on all of the supported devices for GrapheneOS and we plan to make a lot more use of that in the future.
[1] thanks to Android (once you replace some of the worse default apps, but they are doing that as we can see)
There's quite a list of mobile operating systems on Wikipedia[1]. Most of them are long dead.