Neil BrownFeb 17

People should be able to write software for Android, and distribute it outside Google's Play store, without having to:

* pay Google
* give government ID to Google
* agree to Google terms and conditions

People should be able to install the software they want on their phone, from sources other than Google's Play store, without having to jump through Google-imposed hoops.

e.g. via F-Droid.

We've got until September this year to stop Google squeezing the open Android ecosystem.

https://keepandroidopen.org/

Keep Android Open

Advocating for Android as a free, open platform for everyone to build apps on.

Show threadÆrionFeb 19

@neil
Hopefully this will give #FOSS devs an incentive to shift app development to #mobilelinux if Google pushes ahead with this.

There ARE alternatives. I'm fully aware that they are, for the most part, not prime time ready, but they DO exist, and they've come a long way.

Maybe Google doing this will be a blessing in disguise, as it may just be what's needed to give #linuxphones a push.

I, for one, will switch to one form of mobile Linux or another, if Obtainium/F-Droid/IzzyOnDroid are killed off by this.

#obtainium #izzyondroid #postmarketos #ubuntutouch #ubports #sailfishos #phosh #gnomemobile #plasmamobile

Show threadDaniël de KokFeb 20

@aerion @neil Most Linux phone OSes have *far worse* security than Android.

Why not just use an AOSP-based OS like @GrapheneOS ? You get all of the upsides and very few to none of the downsides.

Even if you do not like Google's decisions, just ditching the engineering marvel that is AOSP does not make much sense at all.

Show threadGrapheneOSFeb 20
@danieldk Android is mobile Linux. Linux doesn't mean glibc, systemd and GNOME. The desktop Linux software stack has atrocious privacy and security compared to the Android Open Source Project. There's a large and far better open source mobile app ecosystem for AOSP alongside the rest of the Android app ecosystem. Google's announced changes don't have any direct impact on an AOSP-based OS that's not licensing Google Mobile Services. The changes only amount to added UI friction for a GMS OS.
Show threadDaniël de Kok

@GrapheneOS fair, but a lot of people mean SailfishOS, Plasma, Ubuntu Touch when they refer to 'mobile Linux', like (I assume) the person I was reacting to.

I completely agree with your criticism of the security and privacy of the desktop Linux stack. I have been trying to shout that off the rooftops for years, but it's an uphill battle.

Feb 20 at 5:02pmMastodon for Android
Show threadGrapheneOSFeb 20
@danieldk People mainly use the term that way because they're misinformed about Android. Many people wrongly believe Android requires a special variant of the Linux kernel with downstream patches when that hasn't been the case for years. It works with the kernel.org mainline and LTS kernels. Most distributions maintain their own LTS branches as Android does with the GKI branches. Unlike certain distributions such as Ubuntu, Android always bases downstream LTS branch on upstream LTS branches.