If our goal is the empowerment and greater freedom of people, mobile Linux appears to be a more feasible route to achieve those goals in the long term than AOSP.
  • sakphul@discuss.tchncs.de
    9·
    14 hours ago

    Is there like a single Linux based OS that runs at least on one phone and supports basic smartphone stuff like:

    • Calling
    • Camera
    • GPS
    • Mobile Data
    • WiFi

    All flavors of Linux I tried did fail at one point or the other. Without getting at least the basic stuff working on at least one phone all the other advantages are worthless.

  • MrSoup@lemmy.zip
    27·
    2 days ago

    I still don’t get why doesn’t Linux Foundation and someone else come together to fork AOSP to strip out Google stuff and make it a real Linux distro.

  • Turret3857@infosec.pubEnglish
    443·
    2 days ago

    palata wrote on Hacker News: … – We’ll probably want the security model, with the nice sandboxing and I would argue the verified boot.

    Many of these commentators aren’t grasping the advantages to developing mobile Linux as an independent operating system that can’t be controlled by any single company. They aren’t seeing the advantages that mobile Linux offers over AOSP, nor are they accounting for the difficulties of modifying AOSP to respect its users, compared to developing mobile Linux.

    Off the jump, not responding to the concerns of security implementations is a bit disingenuous and I stopped reading there. For Linux to seriously compete in the phone ecosystem, security needs to be there.

    We’re just now getting there on desktop with things like Wayland, Flatpak, and some distros having tbe ability to enable measured boot via TPM (usually its a process that requires a lot of research even when its supported.)

    Theres no doubt in my mind that Linux phones couldn’t be great, and a lot of the work done for desktop can be copied over to mobile. Until the day where Linux mobile security is at the very least good enough for the everyday person though (Proper sandboxing, permissions, encryption and verified boot) I dont see it being viable, as much as I would like it to be.

    • fartographer@lemmy.world
      5·
      2 days ago

      Sorry to be pedantic, but seeking clarification:

      Theres no doubt in my mind that Linux phones couldn’t be great

      You meant that you have no doubt that they could be great, right? Your next few sentences make it sound like you’re saying that there’s still hope, but this first sentence essentially states, “even if all of my doubts were removed, Linux phones still couldn’t be great.”

      If I’m misunderstanding, then I’d really like to know why you doubt Linux mobile as a platform in general.

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      4·
      2 days ago

      1. Therr is no doubt in your mind that Linux couldn’t be great? I guess you meant it could?

      2. The way you’re talking sounds like younthink Linux is just starting with some basic security. Linux has pretty much been on the forefront security wise, I wouldn’t trust any other OS over it (BSD type, maybe)

      • Turret3857@infosec.pubEnglish
        3·
        2 days ago
        1. typo
        2. Can you tell me what exactly youre talking about that makes Linux more secure than say, an iPhone? than GrapheneOS?
  • James R Kirk@startrek.websiteEnglish
    10·
    2 days ago

    It’s hard enough getting some companies to develop Android apps (not to mention the Android watch OS has barely anything) as much as I’d like to see a Linux phone OS catch on, unless there is some kind of Proton-layer for Android thing I just don’t see any companies making apps for it.

    • MangoCats@feddit.it
      12·
      2 days ago

      I don’t make Android apps because the environment is a treadmill - constantly requiring app updates to run on the newer OSs. I have not (yet) experienced the same forced obsolescence in any of the Linux flavors - apps I wrote 20 years ago still compile and run without mods, just relink to the latest libraries and go.

    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de
      6·
      2 days ago

      Android is already routinely emulated on PCs for purposes of development. As it’s open source, it’s certainly easier to develop a compatibility layer for it than for Windows (if such a thing doesn’t already exist).

      We used to say the same thing about Windows. Then smartphones and tablets caught on and we saw: actually, we can port apps to new operating systems and develop new ones for them.

  • MangoCats@feddit.it
    101·
    2 days ago

    an AOSP (Android Open Source Project) phone already is a Linux phone

    Until it has ssh access and a command line package manager ala Debian APT, RedHat YUM, Arch Pacman, Alpine APK… it’s not “Linux” enough for me.

    No: PMS doesn’t count. Compared to ssh -> shell, ADB is a PITA. If ssh is too much attack surface for you, securely switch it off until you need it.

    • Manfredolin@feddit.org
      5·
      13 hours ago

      A Text-Based interface, such as Terminals, witch all their Keyboard shortcuts, seems like a nightmare on a pure touch interface like a phone.

  • Sina@beehaw.orgEnglish
    31·
    2 days ago

    Building an app in python reliant on pyqt is simplicity itself, vibecoding or not. If you have a Linux phone you can run these simple boiler plate apps. For Android you need a build chain & everything is just more complicated, including testing. (as far as I understand it anyway)

    Suddenly it occurred to me that perhaps my LineageOS phone needs some sort of a Linux runetime, Vm whatever to run my weather app…