GrapheneOS issues porting Android 16

Eirikr70

Delaney

ryrona What do you consider timely fashion?

ASAP

yore

Watermelon Would there be any configuration loss from running a GrapheneOS release without the preexisting features as in previous releases? I.e. would there be any leftover side-effect from upgrading to a release based on Android 16 lacking features and then to a release with the dropped features added back?

All user configurations will be kept according to the project's announcement:

For example, our 2-factor fingerprint unlock feature is going to be particularly hard to port due to massive changes to the lockscreen code in Android 16. We can drop it for the initial release and add it back later with user configuration being preserved so it works as before.

Scott

**** you Google.

I hope this is not the end for GrapheneOS. I really love this project

other8026

Scott I hope this is not the end for GrapheneOS. I really love this project

It's not. Please read other threads where this is discussed. There's also this thread on Mastodon by the official project account: https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721666000552094

Scott

Many companies and individuals are trying to mislead people about the future of GrapheneOS to promote their insecure products and services. GrapheneOS is not going anywhere. We've made it clear we're shipping Android 16 soon and that the supported devices will remain supported.

Very good.
But what if you can no longer unlock the bootloader on new Pixel devices? Then the project is dead :-(

other8026

Scott No, it's not. The previously supported devices will still be supported for as long as they were promised to be supported. Missing one year of new devices wouldn't mean the project is dead.

de0u

Scott But what if you can no longer unlock the bootloader on new Pixel devices?

That might happen!

But maybe Skynet will wipe out humanity before the Pixel 10 is released! Or maybe Skynet will wait to strike until one week after the Pixel 10 release, when people are distracted by trying to figure out what to do in the dystopian post-unlockable-bootloader future.

Personally I will do my best to defer worries about the Pixel 10 until after it's released. I think it might be more important to keep an eye out for Skynet (aka "agentic AI").

collector

One thing to remember is, the graphene team still have 5 ish years to make their own phone if the pixel 10 is completely locked down

other8026

collector

We're working with a major Android OEM towards future devices officially supporting GrapheneOS.

X | xcancel

yore

deathgaze2497 No one took anything personally here.

Your post and account age is consistent with occasional trolls against GrapheneOS. It appears to be a sockpuppet as the project has actively spoken against Fairphones due to their deceptive and weak security practices, and your post suggests something different entirely.

See some of the many responses by GrapheneOS:

Advertising products on our forum with marketing materials is inappropriate.

Fairphone has never previously provided full security patches for anywhere close to their promised support. The Fairphone 4 doesn't currently receive proper security support but rather receives the Android Security Bulletin patches consistently 1-2 months late and many of the recommended patches (Pixel Update Bulletin) years late.

Fairphone 4 does not include a secure element and does not provide many of the expected hardware security features. It also has a broken/incomplete implementation of verified boot and attestation.

https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/7208-8y-security-updates-on-fairphone-5-will-the-devs-consider-porting-grapheneos

Another:
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private

Here is a detailed explanation on Reddit by a lead developer:
https://www.reddit.com/r/GrapheneOS/comments/10b5x4n/comment/j67pbny/

Therefore, I don't think GrapheneOS would ever be interested in supporting Fairphone unless they correct their bad security practices.

de0u

deathgaze2497 From the information and research that was provided to me it seemed very clear that was the direction they are going.

Is it possible to share the "information and research"?

other8026

deathgaze2497 That's not going to happen. Why would GrapheneOS do a complete 180 and start supporting insecure devices? And GrapheneOS certainly won't be working with that other OS. I have hidden your two posts because they're very wrong and I wouldn't want other people to be misled by them.

Not sure where you're getting your information from, but I'd suggest not getting your information from them. GrapheneOS will share any relevant updates when possible.

« Previous Page