GrapheneOS run UnifiedPush provider?

VEECCdYKYi

Since a discussion was closed here https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/10455-unifiedpushntfy-integration-in-the-os/3 I'll start a new.

Would you use GrapheneOS runned UnifiedPush service? The reliance of Googles FCM is a big problem for pusch notifications and the alternative UnifiedPush isn't widely adopted. But for those apps that support UnifiedPush I would rather trust a GrapheneOS run distributor then the options that are. Selfhosting isn't an option for many people.

UnifiedPush would possibly slightlty benefit from it, because then the awareness of the alternative of google FCM would increase and maybe more developers would integrate UnifiedPush into their apps. Atleast the ones that claims to value their users privacy.
That would benefit the privacy of GrapheneOS users.

Eirikr70

VEECCdYKYi I self-host my ntfy push server, but I think that the absence of native push system on GrapheneOS is a barrier to its adoption, or rather one of the motives why people might return to stock OS. Many people on the forums ask why they don't get their notifications in time. Thus I agree that GrapheneOS would benefit from an integration of UnifiedPush.

Datasapiens

of course everybody would use this. The further from google the better.

littlerack

Datasapiens of course everybody would use this

Of course everybody would avoid it! What's the weird desire to use single provider for everything as for security/privacy community!

Divby0

What keeps you from using Sunup? It's right there in the Acrescent store. You could host it yourself as well.

beammer335d

Is there a certain molly I need to download in order to use the unfipush?

MetropleX

GrapheneOS won't provide/host our UnifiedPush distributor, it isn't on the roadmap right now. I personally self host a ntfy server. The OS itself does the job of enabling use of all methods from UP to websocket and then FCM.

randomname

MetropleX how battery efficient they both are is compared to whatapps websockets? because for example signal websockets was a huge battery drain when i tried it a while ago, whatapps one is pretty negligable

MetropleX

Eirikr70 us hosting a UP distributor service is not the same as us hosting a network time server or operating proxies that we implement in the OS.

UP distribution from a non self hosted, centralised service would require identification to a server, this would be antithetical to our project.

Eirikr70

MetropleX this would be antithetical to our project

Right! I get the point. I don't have the solution but the problem remains that the absence of a "stock" push notification system on GrapheneOS is a barrier to its adoption. It gives the feeling of an unfinished OS, which is exactly what GrapheneOS is not. That is a pity!
Although the presence of SunUp in Accrescent is the start of a solution.

VEECCdYKYi

MetropleX Couldn't the identification be something similar as crypts wallets and some VPN uses. Just a seed phrase?

MetropleX

Eirikr70 only a minority of apps support UP, it wouldn't be the primary solution. We do provide the same ability as "stock" to use the primary app implemented push system of FCM simply by installing sandboxed Play Services. People see it as something frightening or somehow defeating GOS but it doesn't and isn't.

The real solution isn't an OS level one, it's an app developer one. I mean Molly implemented FCM push without play services. It is possible but as with the issues regards Play Integrity when most app devs just use the standard development kits it's easier for them to implement and forget the standard FCM.

VEECCdYKYi see above, it's all academic if app developers don't implement it.

MetropleX

Thread has run it's course and response has been provided.