Conversation

Replying to

AOSP requires tons of dev get it to build/boot at all. Then you have to do tons of dev if you want to use boot security, or to remove even -some- of the proprietary bits. Combine that with keeping up with updates and it is a full time job. I tried.

github.com

GitHub - hashbang/aosp-build: A build system for AOSP based roms optimized for determinisim,...

A build system for AOSP based roms optimized for determinisim, customization, and automation. - GitHub - hashbang/aosp-build: A build system for AOSP based roms optimized for determinisim, customiz...

Replying to

oh I know. I'm just saying that "we open-source it" will be a Google mantra throughout the lengthy proceedings.

Lance R. Vick ( @lrvick@mastodon.social )

@lrvick

Oct 21, 2020

Replying to

@seanodiggity

Probably. Hopefully the opposition points out the countless hours people like

@DanielMicay

and others need to do to even partially de-google devices. Back in the G1 days it was easy. Back then Google paid people full time to make sure AOSP was solid and easy to build/use.

Replying to

and

That's not an accurate or fair assessment of our work. It is not what we do and what the project provides. GrapheneOS builds privacy and security technologies. AOSP is a solid base for us and we've never had problems building it. You continue to misrepresent the actual issues.

Lance R. Vick ( @lrvick@mastodon.social )

Replying to

and

I was not referring to end products like GrapheneOS (which is why I didn't name it) but was specifically referring to all the work you and others do to get each AOSP to work reliably without Google bits so additive work like GrapheneOS is even possible.

Replying to

and

AOSP already works reliably without Play services. We currently don't bother bundling assorted apps rather than letting users choose apps of their choice from F-Droid, Aurora Store (Play Store) and elsewhere. We intend to fill in functionality provided by Play services but we

Lance R. Vick ( @lrvick@mastodon.social )

Replying to

and

AOSP works reliably without Play services only after you provide and continually fix lots of tooling to even get it to build and even then one has to extract factory image bits. That, by itself, is a non trivial amount of work to maintain as I know all to well now.

Lance R. Vick ( @lrvick@mastodon.social )

Replying to

and

Anyway. Just take the compliment :)

Replying to

and

It's not a compliment, it's an attempt to use my name to peddle misinformation which we see as quite harmful towards GrapheneOS and getting the issues we have with hardware addressed. Inventing problems we don't have and distracting from those we do doesn't help us. It hurts us.

Lance R. Vick ( @lrvick@mastodon.social )

Replying to

and

I was just giving you credit for all the hard work you did on android-prepare-vendor and lots of research and time to work out secure boot and all the other things Google failed to provide in their tools and docs to get AOSP actually working for each hw/release combo.

Replying to

and

You're talking about support for Pixels, not issues with AOSP. If we didn't support Pixels, none of that would be relevant, and we don't intend to support Pixels in the long-term. We're using them until we have better options available, and ideally we'd have input into making it.

6:35 AM · Oct 21, 2020Twitter Web App

Replying to

and

is it fair to say that it's more difficult than it need be to get GrapheneOS to run on Google's Pixel product line? Or that there have been vendor-specific barriers that favor Google's own builds of Android? These are the questions from an anti-competitive practices standpoint.

Replying to

and

The anti-competitive practices are around requiring that Google services need to be built into the OS with privileges unavailable to third party apps. They encourage apps to depend on APIs provided by Play services. The problem is it's not just a set of libraries for apps to use.

Show replies

Lance R. Vick ( @lrvick@mastodon.social )

Replying to

and

All of my complaints with AOSP stem from the fact the primary creators of AOSP don't provide any reference devices that properly run AOSP. I spent countless weekends just trying to get AOSP working on new Pixels at all, when I could of been working on privacy/security concerns.

Lance R. Vick ( @lrvick@mastodon.social )

Replying to

and

If you guys confirm there is a device by a manufacturer that gives a damn about proper AOSP support so my time can be spent on privacy/security improvements instead of fighting a company that clearly doesn't want AOSP on their hardware, then maybe I'll jump back in.

Show replies