TIL of RestlessOS, fork of GrapheneOS - GrapheneOS Discussion Forum
discuss.grapheneos.org
GrapheneOS discussion forum

I Installed a Graphene-Based OS on Non-Pixel Phones… Here’s the Catch

https://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.”

https://github.com/cawilliamson/treble_restlessos

I’m very hesitant to give money to Google pixel so I’m going to experiment on this one."

  • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
    2·
    2 days ago

    There are a few issues with there being… a single ideal privacy option line of devices (the Pixels):

    • the pixel isn’t available for sale in all regions
    • there are only so much Pixels out there… Meaning less options to choose from and potentially higher prices
    • people using them stand out… So much so some agencies treat Pixel users like criminals even if they don’t have Graphene on it
    • Google may choose to end the Pixel line, drastically limit production or remove some feature Graphene relies upon any time they feel like

    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.

    Why are a multitude of poor options better than a few good options?

    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.

    • trilobite@lemmy.ml
      2·
      2 days ago

      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?

      • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • unwarlikeExtortion@lemmy.ml
        1·
        2 days ago

        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.