this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2025
56 points (100.0% liked)

technology

23822 readers
33 users here now

On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.

Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

More recent updates: https://www.androidauthority.com/google-not-killing-aosp-3566882/

https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114665423084970607

And updates from the Graphene chatroom:

it [porting] is not faster than expected. we finished most of what we thought we were going to need to do already. if they had not dropped a bunch of what we need, we could be doing experimental releases soon. instead, we do not know how long it's going to take to add back Pixel support to Android 16. Android Open Source Project no longer supports Pixels. we have to implement it ourselves in a new way, different than what we have done previously. we are missing our most talented and productive developer due to the conscription situation. the kernel port is a trivial part of it and they made that harder by no longer publishing kernel commit history and splitting the previously unified kernels into 3 separate groups.

Pixel 6, Pixel 6 Pro, Pixel 6a and Pixel 9a share a kernel branch. Pixel 7, Pixel 7 Pro, Pixel 7a, Pixel Tablet, Pixel Fold, Pixel 8, Pixel 8 Pro and Pixel 8a share a kernel branch. Pixel 9, Pixel 9 Pro, Pixel 9 Pro XL and Pixel 9 Pro Fold share a kernel branch

there is a 1 line difference between the first 2 groups. there are major differences between the first 2 and the 3rd group.

before Android 16 it was fully unified, they messed that up, and dropped source code history from AOSP for Pixel kernel modules. the Pixel device repositories and hardware repositories are gone so we'll need to fork the 15 QPR2 device support and remove all the code, getting it from adevtool for now instead. this kills our hardware-based USB-C port control feature. we'll need to reimplement it in a new way

top 11 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Pili@hexbear.net 17 points 3 days ago (3 children)

The are really accelerating the enshittification of Android, they are also experimenting with limiting side loading apps.

I wish Huawei decided to go open source and make HarmonyOS the new android.

[–] MarmiteLover123@hexbear.net 9 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (2 children)

Huawei will never go open source. They were already running a more locked down and "enshitifed" version of Android back in the day called EMUI. I had to fight to get the bootloader unlocked, and that was 9 years ago. The bootloader unlock programme was shut down afterwards, getting the unlock code was impossible unless you basically paid/bribed a Huawei employee to do it for you through a third party application called DC Unlocker or something like that.

There is no way the situation is any better on their own proprietary operating system. Phones are going to become more locked down in the future to maximize revenue from advertisements and subscriptions. The days of side loading APK files with OBB data are coming to an end, as you've pointed out.

[–] thirstyskyline@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago

OpenHarmony is FOSS but I'm unsure how much it works by itself never heard of it being standalone without Huawei's proprietary components

[–] Pili@hexbear.net 4 points 2 days ago

Yeah they won't, I just wish that they did.

If Android becomes completely locked down, there won't be any reason not to get a Huawei device then. I've heard that they implemented pretty solid workarounds to get PlayStore apps despite the ban (Aurora store, microg, etc...). You get a phone with solid hardware and that's already fully degooglised.

[–] thirstyskyline@hexbear.net 8 points 3 days ago

Yeah it's so dissapointing HarmonyOS NEXT isnt out globally. Just need a Chinese phone without Google..

[–] stupid_asshole69@hexbear.net 5 points 3 days ago

I don’t think huawei will open source. They aren’t stupid and are without a doubt seeing the amount of scrutiny applied to open source projects and maintainers by cops, private security consultants and just plain old criminals and deciding to not get in the pool.

[–] icegladiator@lemy.lol 8 points 3 days ago

Hopefully the developers will find a way to manage with this new challenge

[–] reallyzen@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I don't care about pixel phones. If any reason I haven't switched to gOS, is because I really hate the idea of carrying one. How do you fight google by carrying a google product around? (I know there are many reason to that, and that the point of gOS is security and privacy, not targeting a particular opponent).

They should turn the project towards Fairphone, it's the ethical thing to do.

[–] NewOldGuard@hexbear.net 6 points 2 days ago

GrapheneOS is a security focused project so they only publish for devices which meet their hardware security requirements. In the past this included a few non Google devices, but as of today only Pixels meet those requirements in the Android space. The Fairphone has poor hardware security

[–] RION@hexbear.net 6 points 3 days ago

I never seem to hear good news about Fairphone, especially as hardware quality goes

[–] MizuTama@hexbear.net 5 points 2 days ago

I don't get your last point. Fairphone doesn't have the hardware security measures that are needed to ensure gOS has its security needs. There are other OSs that are focused on de-googling like /e/OS (which you can have your Fairphone come with).

They shouldn't turn the project towards Fairphone as it defeats the project's purpose, if anything you could argue for them to maintain a separate fork but I believe when it was mentioned to them they pointed out that would split dev time and resources, reducing the security of the main project and that other OSs exist for those use cases.