Conversation

You're bringing it up at the same time as Pine64 which has similar technical issues but without nonsense from the company / leadership including lots of harm. It's also a bad target, with no sign of ever wanting to make a good one, but at least they don't lie and cause harm.
1
1
At least Pine64 doesn't have deliberate anti-security measures and anti-security policies / ideology. It's just not technically advanced in that regard so it's far behind the status quo / industry standards (applies to both) but the reasons are better (lack of resources).
2
Anyway, if you want to support charlatans it doesn't just mean definitely not having my support, but I'll actively oppose it. Really not interested in building something offering trash tier security and robustness along with even worse usability. Not a long-term path either.
2
What you're talking about is already dead on arrival: remotely exploitable over the air via known vulnerabilities without being able to provide over-the-air patches for the issues. What's not terrible about rolling back security so much + not having updates?
2
What's not a dead end about building on a product from an incredibly dishonest company that's actively against security? How are you going to make something usable out of AOSP on that? Not even sure how it overlaps with anything to do with security when it'll be so much worse.
2
You're really going to develop a whole proper Treble implementation, a bootloader with A/B updates, recovery and everything else that would have to be done, just to have a far from fully functional AOSP platform with far less security? I really can't understand. Way harder too.
1
Don't see how you think that's easier or how you plan on even providing full security updates at all when the product is deliberately designed to stop you from doing it... and they aren't fully available regardless. You talked about doing this before and make it sound so easy.
1