Post

What GrapheneOS is doing around security and privacy is top notch, but it's no surprise that Google would pull the plug on AOSP as a useful base to build on. This is textbook enshitification.

The only viable path, even if it takes much longer, is to make @postmarketos.org as secure as GrapheneOS, and ideally run on open hardware. This will likely take another decade, given how hard it is to fund these projects.

Alas not very likely postmarketOS is dramatically less private/secure than either the Android Open Source Project or iOS. It greatly reduces privacy and security to below desktop levels, which is much worse, not better. It does the opposite of protecting against exploits or better sandboxing apps. 😩

And what makes you think that this can’t improve?

It can if they scrap the existing foundation and start again from the ground up. The preexisting underpinnings are geared up around the wrong architecture. Anything doing so going forward needs to start from the position of not using a monolithic kernel for starters.

their foundations are the same as yours (a linux kernel). Yes they should move more code out of the kernel, but that's very doable. Now stop disparaging other projects, you already have a bad enough reputation on social networks.

It's not disparaging what they are and what it is, it's staying objective, technical fact. We have even stated ourselves if taking a do over approach requires a far more secure microkernel instead of a massive monolithic one.

Using memory safe languages and heavily containing non-memory-safe code to small low-level building blocks to avoid nearly all the current remote code execution bugs. Far better approaches to access control, etc. Don't know why people get so emotive over it, this isn't sports ball.

It's not emotive, it's because you are off topic in this thread. I said that GrapheneOS is the gold standard and that pmOS won't be ready soon. Why do you have to pile on? In the meantime, you are very close to becoming useful idiots for "open source Android". Focus on that instead, thanks.

My friend it's a public platform, you expressed a position inviting people to engage on it. I did by saying it is unlikely & why. I only added a rebuttal to a dismissive statement providing further context. Ideally both would but only one party has publicly expressed the understanding/need to.