TIL that RestlessOS, fork of GrapheneOS, can run GOS on non-pixel phone - GrapheneOS Discussion Forum
(discuss.grapheneos.org)
from rocksolid@lemmy.ml to degoogle@lemmy.ml on 05 Jun 13:16
https://lemmy.ml/post/48327069
from rocksolid@lemmy.ml to degoogle@lemmy.ml on 05 Jun 13:16
https://lemmy.ml/post/48327069
I Installed a Graphene-Based OS on Non-Pixel Phones… Here’s the Catch
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RjGjqBAAgQ
“I was watching youtube(Invidious) and notied RestlessOS . Have you heard of this and are there people actually tried this on non-pixel phone?
“RestlessOS is an unofficial, unaffiliated fork of GrapheneOS packaged as a Generic System Image (GSI) for Project Treble devices. It is not endorsed by, sponsored by, or in any way connected to the GrapheneOS project or its developers.”
github.com/cawilliamson/treble_restlessos
I’m very hesitant to give money to Google pixel so I’m going to experiment on this one.”
threaded - newest
@rocksolid interesting! Looking forward to an update once you've tested it
I have it installed on my S23 Ultra and everything works well except that I have to re-register fingerprints once I switched profiles or restart the phone. So, I am using private profile for now as I read somewhere that it’s the GSI problem. The ROM itself is probably the best option to degoogle for general devices. Hardening & secure app spawn also works well.
Looks like they put in a ton of effort to make this compatible with generic devices, but I have to ask, with all the features removed, why choose this over any other ROM?
Sandboxed Google play I guess
Minimalism. Compared to AOSP, Google components and pings removed. Compared to other privacy GSI ROMs, no weird, quirky, or flashy functions or themes the author decided to bake in.
Still better than nothing? And more privacy centric options out there are better as it gives people a way to figure out how it can fit into their life vs the all private where nothing works and you need to know tech to get around or nothing private but at least things work, world people are in.
Why are a multitude of poor options better than a few good options?
There’s this weird mix of free market capitalism and FOSS philosophy that says more and shallower forks = better ecosystem.
Not commenting on this OS specifically, but just questioning your blase assertions that more options is better. Maybe it would be have been better to invest more time into an existing project.
Edit: Great arguments for this OS all around, I’m just saying please DO make an argument instead of just assuming that ANY diversity is good.
People make do with what they have.
It would be ideal if everyone had access to the “best” options, so a single approach makes sense, but we don’t live in an ideal world.
.
because you see it wrong. it is not poor just because it is not shiny polished perfect. it is still an improvement over the factory rom, and if the maintainer is trustworthy then it’s an improvement over lineage os too.
Re-read my comment?
How is one unknown maintainer of a project that adds nothing to the one it forked from, better than many well-known LineageOS maintainers?
it adds nothing? maybe it only adds wider compatibility to upstream, but it makes upstream’s unique features available to owners of other phones than upstream’s short device list
There are a few issues with there being… a single ideal privacy option line of devices (the Pixels):
Having more vendor choice drastically lowers these negatives. And I can’t really think of any negatives for the other side than increased dev time and operating costs.
Having the privacy features trickle down to other devices is great since some already landed in AOSP.
However, the trickle down is slow (and often a myth). And some protection is better than no protection.
Is anything other than a Pixel a poor option?
They may be suboptimal but… Some hardening is definitely better than no hardening any day of the week.
What actively blocking “okay” or even “good” options when “the perfect” one exists should be plainly obvious.
Privacy-consciousness will never spread. Which also has negative effects on the privacy-conscious. Namely point 3 of my little list.
Wasn’t GOS working with other company to have a second brand that could use GOS? These dudes are nkt stupid and i think they too realuse that relying only on pixels is risky business. I read somewhere that, its not about GOS, the phone or whatever but its about what you need to have so that you can call it a secure phone. The GOS folks have done their homework and concluded that only pixels have what is needed. Whay intreagues me is that the biggest surveilance machine out there built the most secure hardware. Why did they do it?
They are. It’s a step in the right direction and I absolutely welcome it.
However, it’s way overdue in my book, and the harm is im the waiting. It’s much better to strike while the iron’s still hot and avoid these issues. As is not waiting on improving accessibility.
I’m also intrigued by the fact Google makes such custom devices for the market. I think I came across some explanations lurking (and sometimes popping my head out and commenting) here on Lemmy (and on Reddit before the API apocalypse), but I don’t really have anywhere to point you in your search other than Libredirect+Reddit since searching Lemmy has always proven an uncatchable golden goose to me.
Yup. Motorola should be coming out with a GOS-compatible phone in a year or so. There was a bit of buzz because of local age verification requirements, which GOS dev said fuck you to, but I don’t think thatś enough to derail the project since I don’t think Motorola ever planned to ship GOS, just make it compatible for users and IT depts to install it—which so far does not violate any laws.
they don’t need to outright remove that. I know that at least some fairphone models are capable of that, because another ROM makes use of it. it seems it was more important to have a much broader compatibility quickly, without testing what features do really need to be removed for what devices. there are probably other removed features too where tbis applies
but this is not all that graphene gives, I believe this does not make it worthless. they have other unique features too like sandboxed google play and the possibility to manage sensor access for apps separately, and more.
I don’t understand the “giving money to Google” bit about pixels because you can get just about any pixel you want off eBay refurbished anger practically good as new. I would never consider buying a brand new phone because the prices are unreasonable no matter what company you’re buying from.
Seriously this drives me bananas
Well thats a somewhat shortsighted take. Obviously by creating a market demand for used pixels you finance the people that constantly buy the newest pixel… Any phone brand would thrive under conditions like that.
But either way, they are just dogshit phones and thats enough of a reason imo.
I’m not sure about that. By buying used, I’d say you’re at minimum repurposing what would otherwise become e-waste. I don’t think you can say 100% of people selling their used phone are upgrading to the same manufacturer, either. Perhaps they agree your point in them being “dogshit phones” and want to recoup their loss as they side- or up-grade.
I’d agree if this was a massive market. However, we are the minority by far, so I expect it won’t actually drive any new purchases. More likely to save hardware from landfills imo
To give you some idea how little impact buying or not buying a pixel has: if you were comparing it to buying new, keeping it for six years and every dollar of your purchase went directly to google as profit, the $800 phone would be 1/322million-th of the revenue generated by that segment of the company during the time you use the phone. You’d be granting google 0.0000003% of their revenue in that segment over that period.
Because the phone isn’t actually all profit, and has to be designed, manufactured, marketed, warehoused, transported to market etc. the actual impact of buying or not buying a pixel phone on googles bottom line is even lower.
This is such a wrong train of thought. I usually buy the latest pixel, and have never sold the old ones. Those end up as inheritance to a family member or friend that wants to get on the GOS train but can’t afford it.
I’m hellbent on using grapheneOS for as long as it’s available, and can’t wait for the first Moto flagship to support GOS to be available.
Having said that, sounds like the only person financing my ‘greatest and newest’ Pixel addiction is myself.
In any case, if it takes paying Google to degoogle, I’ll gladly pay Google. We’ll see what happens once the Moto is added to the GOS list of supported devices.
You think that customers will buy the latest Pixel only if they are sure someone will buy it when they resell it 5 years later?
Besides, if shitting on Google was a sport I’d be a high-profile athlete, but I recognise that Pixels are not «dogshit phones». I am replying to you from a Pixel 4a (2020).
Totally agree although the demand for pixels has increase i think due to GOS. I think a pixel 6 or 7 are pretty pricey for their age
Lmao they use telegram.
There’s a really good chance that a person running this would incorrectly assume they have some level of security and safety approaching graphene.
It uses vendor kernels and relies on the user to monitor update channels and perform patches.
If you need security and will not buy a pixel, you are most likely best served by switching to ios.
That’s not because I feel that a person who will not buy a pixel is somehow less-than or stupid, but because ios is very secure when hardened and kept up to date.
I don’t see how using a fully proprietary OS is more swcuee than using a hardened derivitive of a FOSS OS even when stuck with using a vendored kernel
I would not ever trust iOS with any of my data or to be reliable
I am basing my statement on leaks from companies that sell phone hacking equipment to law enforcement, military, intelligence and government contractors.
It’s worth looking into those leaks because they give you insight into what can and cannot be trusted without placing the burden of understanding how on your shoulders.
Avoiding the necessity of deep understanding of hardware and software security details is important because the simpler and more straightforward security is, the more likely to achieve consistent process compliance you are.
If you would like to understand, there’s a ton of resources out there. One recommendation to preserve mental health: never go down the arm derivative design process rabbit hole.
I believe that the mit license is trash and only gpl and other viral licenses are worthwhile, but in case of safety or security the type of software or license isn’t the most important thing.
Direct quote from GOS
> GrapheneOS is an open source project and that means people can make forks of it. There aren’t any ports of GrapheneOS to other devices providing the same set of privacy and security features it provides. There are only highly incomplete ports losing many of the core features. > Many accounts across platforms have recently started falsely claiming there’s a port of GrapheneOS to other devices and that it somehow disproves that it depends on hardware-based security features unavailable elsewhere. The person who made it says that isn’t what they did. > It omits large portions of the GrapheneOS changes including not having any of the kernel changes. Many parts don’t work. > Since they don’t have our kernel changes and haven’t done the substantial work needed to port GrapheneOS to a specific devices, many core features including hardened_malloc, hardware memory tagging, USB protection, dynamic code loading restrictions and much more are missing. > It’s missing many core GrapheneOS security features and also privacy features. It doesn’t provide updates to the kernel, firmware, drivers and HALs. It’s missing standard Android protections including but not limited to verified boot. They haven’t ported GrapheneOS elsewhere. > It’s missing a lot more than what they list as not being included and that’s likely partly because they don’t realize how much isn’t working. It’s only one part of an OS and is using the stock OS kernel, drivers and HALs. It also doesn’t provide updates for those or the firmware. > The author of this project is likely more than willing to list many additional features which are missing are not functional. They’re also likely willing to make it clear it can’t provide people with proper updates. They don’t want people to be misled or to attack GrapheneOS
Tldr no this isn’t GOS and isn’t even anything close to it, the entire point of GOS is the hardened utilities, kernel, extra security features, and bootloader locking, of which this project supports none them
(Also the video you linked is poorly made AI slop and straight up inaccurate, considering no real YouTube videos exist on the OS its pretty safe to assume this is just another GSI with very little to offer)
Finally, a smartphone operating system for me!
RISC-V phone with open bootloader and vanilla kernel when?
It invalidates the point of GrapheneOS. The latter supports only Google Pixel for a reason, which is security.
On unsupported devices, you should stick to LineageOS.
.