Captain Beyond

They’re probably asking because of GrapheneOS’s newly announced partnership with Motorola, but the first such devices are shipping in 2027, so it wouldn’t include this.

Been a while since I used microG but I remember the Google registration specifically being opt-in. Then again, I also remember reading that /e/OS automatically enables it, so…

I do not have a high opinion of /e/OS or Murena. It is LineageOS but “degoogled” which is a meaningless buzzword considering LineageOS already does not contain Google services/apps (you have to install those yourself). Instead it’s connected to its own “Murena cloud” which itself uses OpenAI for a speech to text service. But hey, it’s not google so it must be okay, right…?

https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using-open-ai/70509

It might be opt in (or opt out? dunno) but this sort of thing should not be a cloud thing, it should be a local service.

It also comes with at least one proprietary app built into the OS and their app store offers proprietary apps with some sort of “tracker detection” thing. I do not trust any “app store” that purports to tell me which proprietary apps are “good.”

LineageOS comes with no google apps, no cloud apps, no proprietary apps, etc. It’s just a perfectly usable AOSP system. It doesn’t even have an “app store” but you can install F-Droid on it. I think GrapheneOS is the same (it supports “sandboxed Google services” but it doesn’t include them by default)

As far as I know the only options that exist are LineageOS, GrapheneOS, and maybe non-Android Linuxes if you’re brave enough. There used to be DivestOS which although based on LineageOS brought several security, privacy, and freedom improvements, but that project has been discontinued. None of these “degoogled privacy OS” LineageOS reskins impress me.

It’s a funny story but it’s worth noting that copyright does not apply to typefaces in the US (although maybe it does in other jurisdictions)

It does seem like a bug. I actually have a UnifiedPush distributor but have never configured Fennec to use it (I didn’t even know it was an option) but now Fennec shows me this warning and there is no way to actually enable it in settings anymore.

What makes Sailfish OS unique over competitors like GrapheneOS and e/OS is that it’s not based on the Android Open Source Project, but Linux.

Not only are AOSP and its derivatives also based on Linux, they are actually free software unlike Sailfish OS which contains some amount of proprietary code (I know at least the Android compatibility layer - which I’m told isn’t simply the AOSP runtime (as Waydroid uses) but some proprietary thing).

s/Linux/systemd/g

They stole our brain? Wasn’t that a Star Trek episode?

Brain and brain, what is brain 🧠?

The devices will be available in 2027, according to GrapheneOS

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116092580774968482

GrapheneOS is partenered with a major OEM to release compatible devices in 2027. The OEM will publicly announce this partnership in March 2026.

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/116092580774968482

conspiracy theory time: “AI” is a psyop designed to manufacture consent for unpopular internet regulations such as this one. We used to take anonymity and privacy for granted and now every other website demands you to “prove you are human” (my instance is unfortunately no exception… its a necessary evil).

The thing is, there already is a flow to enable “unknown sources” with the appropriate scare messages. So whatever “advanced flow” they’re going to come up with is going to be more involved than that.

My guess would be something similar to the bootloader unlock flow, where it resets the device and sets it to some “unsafe” state similar to a rooted/unlocked device which banking apps etc. can detect and refuse to work with.

I would say there is a difference between constructive criticism and an “attack” and although the privsec article does bring up valid points* I would still regard it as the latter (despite their claims of objectivity), because they ultimately conclude that its premise is inherently flawed regardless of implementation details. They claim

This article aims to be purely technical. It is not an attack on F-Droid or their mission.

Yet while the authors claim to be “objective and technical” its not hard to notice all the “attacks on F-Droid’s mission” in this article, from the reference to F-Droid’s “ridiculous inclusion policy” to all the dismissive references to “ideology.” The message is clear, that F-Droid’s “mission” is Stupid and Ideological and the problems F-Droid aims to solve are not real. Thus, their suggested “alternatives” are just regular app stores that don’t enforce any of the guarantees that F-Droid does (namely, that the app corresponds to its source code and does not include proprietary components), because those guarantees aren’t worth anything** to the “Objective and Technical” people of privsec - you are Stupid and Ideological if you care about software freedom. In fact, Accrescent even says they allow proprietary software because free software “is not inherently more secure or private” - which is technically true, but very misleading, because free software never has claimed to be “more secure” - it has only ever offered the four freedoms, which as a user I feel entitled to on my own devices, so I only install apps that give me these four freedoms. Far from being “objective and non-ideological” the position of Privsec, Accrescent, and their advocates is that users neither deserve, need, or should want software freedom, as such I would characterize these organizations as hostile to the free software movement even if some of their points are factual.

I will add I am not entirely uncritical of F-Droid either, but my criticisms are more that they aren’t strict enough and should be building as much from source as possible instead of relying on prebuilt Maven dependencies as much as they do. I would also say although as a user I think F-Droid’s inclusion policy is a good thing and not “ridiculous” I agree it does put some amount of burden on developers who I imagine develop for the Google world first and the FOSS world second. It might be a good idea for F-Droid maintainers to take a more active role in, well, maintaining these apps instead of pushing the extra work onto the developers (this is typical in the GNU/Linux world, in which distro maintainers take up all the work to package upstreams, but F-Droid sometimes tries to cosplay as an “app store” despite it being a fundamentally different model).

* aside from a bizarre claim that F-Droid supporting multiple repositories is a Bad Thing because it interferes with, and I quote, “UserManager which can be used to prevent a user from installing third-party apps” - what does this have to do with privacy? I think this also speaks to a deeper conflict between security people and free software people, that being uncritical worship of “security models” even when they harm the user. Accrescent offers more or less the same justification for why it locks the user into their own store/repository, and I think it is subtly dangerous to suggest this is an “alternative” to F-Droid because it has very different values.

** According to one of the writers of that article,

Any better ideas for it are welcome.

Just allow devs to upload their own build with their own keys like Accrescent. It’s not like the whole “audit” system is meaningful anyways.

Of course, characterizing it as an “audit system” is missing the point entirely, but I imagine he knows that. Reducing the four freedoms down to “you can look at the source code and audit it” to then follow it up with “you can’t/aren’t going to audit every app you download so why bother with FOSS anyway” is a favorite rhetorical tactic.

You wouldn’t download a car

Anyone with an Android device is level 1 by default.

I guess being in this community puts me at least at level 3 by definition. I contributed a package to GNU Guix but I’m not quite a “maintainer” or even a regular contributor to it yet. Maybe I can claim level 5 just by virtue of having contributed to an “advanced” distro.

In “the real world” my mild-mannered alter ego would be level 4 because I use GNU/Linux at my day job.

CC non-commercial is not a free license. FSF lists it under documentation licenses because it doesn’t recommend any CC license for software but the concerns are still valid.

Note that selling copies of free software is explicitly encouraged; free refers to freedom (specifically the “four freedoms”) and not to price. Commercial usage restrictions conflict with freedom zero (although it’s unclear how this applies in the case of a game) and commercial distribution restrictions conflict with freedoms two and three.

Being proprietary is enough of a reason to refuse it. On top of that, being owned by Facebook is another good reason.

With proprietary software the developer is in control, and in this case the developer is known evil.

I would say not running Windows is itself a practical benefit. I would also say the four freedoms constitute a very practical benefit (even if the software you’re running on top of the OS is proprietary).

FOSS bros stay winning

This particular project is under the MIT license, so it is okay

https://github.com/futo-org/fcast/blob/master/LICENSE