@GrapheneOS @lumi @alexia well, to be fair, you wrote "it's a lot of work which is meant to be done by the OEM and their hardware partners" (referring to providing mainline branches of the kernel)
grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/โฆ
@stovis It's entirely possible to use a newer kernel branch whether it's an AOSP-based OS or not but it's a lot of work which is meant to be done by the OEM and their hardware partners to keep providing updates to the device for more than a year or so. Linux kernel LTS branches are back to only 2 years of support so there's an expectation that vendors are moving to a new kernel branch. Most OEMs and Linux distributions aren't doing it but it's what the Linux project expects.
@GrapheneOS @lumi @alexia
> Okay, but that's how we see it.
GrapheneOS is a great project, I don't understand why you have to see enemies everywhere.
> Android Open Source Project and GrapheneOS work fine with mainline kernels and drivers
Which is what I wrote in my last sentence.
Jetzt ist die Katze aus dem Sack! #GrapheneOS wird mit #Motorola zusammenarbeiten. Ich bin sehr gespannt!
RE: grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/โฆ
We're happy to announce a long-term partnership with Motorola. We're collaborating on future devices meeting our privacy and security standards with official GrapheneOS support.motorolanews.com/motorola-threโฆ
Motorola News | Motorola's new partnership with GrapheneOS
Motorola announces three new B2B solutions at MWC 2026, including GrapheneOS partnership, Moto Analytics and more.marreroc (Motorola's Official Global Blog)
lauseta likes this.
reshared this
We're happy to announce a long-term partnership with Motorola. We're collaborating on future devices meeting our privacy and security standards with official GrapheneOS support.
motorolanews.com/motorola-threโฆ
Motorola News | Motorola's new partnership with GrapheneOS
Motorola announces three new B2B solutions at MWC 2026, including GrapheneOS partnership, Moto Analytics and more.marreroc (Motorola's Official Global Blog)
like this
reshared this
Btw you can get ready for answering flood of questions about why Motorola smartphone department belongs to a Chinese company called Lenovo.
Honestly at this point the latter is probably more trustworthy โ
@publicvoit @lunareclipse @a53bdb Kind of depends on whether you count "cheap electronics that don't really need to call home or shouldn't but still do".
There's a whole lot of them and they routinely get compromised and added to botnets later in their lifecycle.
There's a *big* difference between "sloppy security that eventually gets pwned" and "deliberately backdoored by a nation-state for the purpose of domestic mass surveillance"
@GrapheneOS @publicvoit @a53bdb @lunareclipse
@JamesDBartlett3 @lispi314 @a53bdb @lunareclipse I agree.
I consider the USA as the premium example for the latter. ๐
@a53bdb To be fair, all phones are made there so that risk always exists anyway.
As long as GrapheneOS doesn't slack on their requirements including (but not limited to) being able to access low level stuff it shouldn't be much worse if you flash the phone yourself. And those kind of requirements are why Pixels where the only ones supported to begin with...
๐ค Can I buy phones with GrapheneOS installed?
Tell them to fix the misspelled "GrapehenOS" tag at the bottom of their article. ๐
...unless there actually are some grape hens in the pipeline. Hey, no kink shaming!
EDIT: Looks like it's fixed as of now.
Please try to get a mid-range phone also supported.
Pixel a series at least in Germany is basically thrown after people having a phone included in their mobile network contract, so you can get a current a series half a year after release for 300 โฌ in Germany. Considering the remaining 6.5 years of support by Google, this is an insanely good price for a long lasting and secure phone.
This is great news.
I hope there will be a Pixel 9 Pro form factor equivalent as well (the Signature is a bit larger than I like).
But primarily I hope this will secure funding and development for GrapheneOS.
Well done and congratulations!
@lumi GrapheneOS is based on the Android Open Source Project which doesn't have Google apps and doesn't use their regular services. It only uses Google as a provider for very basic standard services which we replaced in GrapheneOS.
The purpose of GrapheneOS isn't specifically avoiding Google apps and services but rather providing a high level of privacy and security in general. Using Pixels is not in any way counter to our goals. We want official OEM support, lower level hardening, etc. though.
yeah, ofc the end goal is using a proper linux phone, to get maximal freedom and security
but having a degoogled android device is a step along the way. though i have been stuck at that step since around 2014
Where's the application sandboxing, memory safe languages, modern exploit protections, deep integration of powerful hardware-based security features and everything else we focus on in GrapheneOS?
Aside from any of that, the concept that the Android Open Source Project isn't a Linux distribution is wrong. Linux isn't the userspace software that's largely portable to other operating systems. There was a Debian variant using the FreeBSD kernel which is clearly not Linux.
let me disagree here. Android is fork of Linux.
Fork with huge change-set - hard to review.
With drivers written to "get to market fast", not quality.
With other closed drivers in userspace to avoid open sourcing.
Naaaah, this ain't Linux I'm running on my laptop.
I won't argue โ security features of AOSP may be superior. But what runs beneath these features isn't!
> let me disagree here
Okay, but you're objectively wrong.
> Android is fork of Linux.
No, Android isn't a fork of Linux. Android works fine with mainline, stable and longterm Linux kernels from kernel.org. It doesn't have any required downstream patch set.
> Fork with huge change-set - hard to review.
It's not a fork and has no required changes to the kernel.
> With drivers written to "get to market fast", not quality.
Hardware vendor drivers aren't Android.
> With other closed drivers in userspace to avoid open sourcing.
That's not part of Android and is in no way required to use it. Desktop Linux distributions ported to the same hardware nearly entirely relying on the same drivers regardless.
> I won't argue
You're just making objectively inaccurate claims to promote massively rolling back privacy and security by moving to legacy desktop software. Replacing vendor drivers has nothing to do with that whatsoever.
> No, Android isn't a fork of Linux. Android works fine with mainline, stable and longterm Linux kernels from kernel.org. It doesn't have any required downstream patch set.
Show me one vendor of phone shipping clean kernel. One.
Hardware vendor drivers are part of Linux I use, are you implying Android != Linux? ๐
@lumi @alexia The current default software stack for desktop Linux is kind of terrible and the lack of coherent threat model or proper ecosystem of sandboxed applications are major issues with desktop right now. What I am still questioning is whether it is even possible to make a proper competitor to ChromeOS (if we ignore the hardware insecurity of basically all PCs).
So example software choices:
systemd -> dinit or s6
sudo -> s6-sudo (setuidless)
glibc -> muslc
glibc malloc or jemalloc -> hardened_malloc, malloc-ng, or mimalloc-secure (which supports more CPU architectures)
bubblewrap (sandbox used by Flatpak) -> #syd (it's written in Rust, has many important exploit protections, and can even be the user login: gitlab.exherbo.org/sydbox/sydbโฆ)
GNOME or KDE -> XFCE (when their new Rust Wayland native WM is finished)
gnutils -> *BSD or uutils
The issue of course with most of these alternatives is that they are separate projects and therefore dont have the same goals, methods, or threat models. Also most of these projects are written in C which does not help at all. Also there is of course the lack of a proper chain of trust from the hardware to loading the kernel and userspace.
It may just not be reasonably possible to provide a alternative without millions of dollars of funding and a decade of development. It would be nice for there to be an alternative to AOSP/ChromeOS or even MacOS for desktop computing which actually takes security seriously. It doesnt even need to have be completely on par when it comes to security, just do better than current Linux distros (not a very high bar).
What are your thoughts on what to do in case the day comes that Google kills AOSP?
> systemd -> dinit or s6
Lots of these are giving up even more security features.
> hardened_malloc, malloc-ng, or mimalloc-secure
These aren't the same classes of allocators at all. Neither the musl malloc or mimalloc is a hardened allocator. mimalloc is performance focused and musl's is focused on low memory usage.
> What are your thoughts on what to do in case the day comes that Google kills AOSP?
What about when IBM decides to kill systemd, GCC and GNOME?
What about when IBM decides to kill systemd, GCC and GNOME?systemd
Between GNU Shepherd, supervise-daemon and runit? 
GCC
You'll have to explain why/how IBM owns GCC. Fairly sure it's an actual FSF project. 
GNOME?
RIP lol 
Other than the accessibility stuff most of it I don't care much about, and with the ensloppification going on & Red Hat apparently insisting on it, it might well die anyway.
What are your thoughts on what to do in case the day comes that Google kills AOSP?
This however has real chances of happening and already has a largely closed development process with no community.
Which means it doesn't even need a poison pill contributor agreement, all the necessary rights are probably already in Google's possession for malicious license changes.
Not to mention that the main useful part of Android, the drivers & their documentation, aren't even included anyway. Everything else could be replaced by something better with some work.
@King_of_Ooo @alexia @lumi You know, if you're just going to avoid the question you could simply not answer that post, like you did with my mobile modem isolation question.
The overwhelming majority of the BSD tooling that isn't systemd could be ported with a modest effort if systemd died. Note that I linked daemon supervisors earlier, because session managers and init systems are a lot easier to come by.
edit: Ah, my bad, I confused the subthread. You did ignore it and replied to the prior post.
@lispi314 @King_of_Ooo @alexia @lumi
> You know, if you're just going to avoid the question you could simply not answer that post, like you did with my mobile modem isolation question.
Don't know what you're talking about. You're one of hundreds of people.
> The overwhelming majority of the BSD tooling
It has little to do with the desktop software stack. That increasingly only has an incomplete port over to BSD with a growing amount of hacks. It would just roll it back even further.
Going to a shop, buy a Motorola with GOS pre-installed is a dream.
Although the installation process is super smooth and not an issue, but for some it is.
I wonder if you have the man power to support pixel (as stated below) and Motorola hw.
I also have no clue what it means to the limitations google tries to implement for developers in autumnโฆ.
How soon can I ad GrapheneOS to my current phone, or will I be able to afford a new one?
Now I have even more reasons to like you guys and to be interested in your work and products.
This deserves a "GOOD NEWS EVERYONE!"
Also, will it be possible to load Graphene on my own? In case Motorola pushes some bloatware I don't want ๐
finally no more 23W max charging speed and pixel errors (literally lol). Hoped for Nothing/CMF because of their awesome techy Designs and they are europe based but i guess Motorola was nice in the past atleast.
Oh and dont forget that overheating issues when charging or doing stuff, especially in summer.
Also if you have a protective case, stickers and privacy screen protector it heats up even more and charging speed drops to 3W or even less. Pixel 8 is not great except the camera
please comment on this
According to publications in Israeli media from December 2023, the Motorola smartphone devices have been used by the Israeli military in fighting inside the Gaza Strip.
very cool news!๐
i'm shopping for my next phone & looking for an OS OS - Open Source Operating System. The article doesn't mention when the GrapheneOS Motorola phones come out
When will they be on the market?
i have the incredible LG ThinQ Dual Screen (technically tri-screen) which is hands down the coolest phone EVER, but LG stopped making phones
i'd like to see the foldable #Motorola in #GrapheneOS
btw, anyone know how to abbreviate Open Source Operating System? ๐ค
You can't even abbreviate one bc then it looks like it's just the abbrev
Open Source OS
OS Operating System
o/s OS?
Ooohhh...that is promissing news!!!
My first phone ever was a Motorolla.
If they provide official Custom Rom options: i am so in!
@Brokar
It looks like motorola could show itself and sell "secure entrprise grade" cellphones.
Which deciders could enforce employee to use as their authenticator or a small computer that doesn't leak internal company data.
I see value there. It's the same customer target as thinkpad
Well, let's see how that turns out. I'd be a potential buyer for sure. I'd welcome the security but if it becomes a similar data sink like Google, just with a different endpoint, then nothing's gained.
It then just would be the same sh*t, different flies.
Let's wait until the first joint release comes out. I'm very hopeful and cautiously enthusiastic. GOS also has a reputation to uphold and i'm hopeful that they wouldn't just sell their soul because of corporate money.
Funny thing is, my very first mobile phone was a Motorola
Thanks, Graphene for the great work
Google's announced destruction of android except as completely controlled by google has shocked us, and reduced independent app makers, secure phone makers to writing begging letters to billionaires.
Lenovo, laptop king who also sells those laptops cheaper without Windows, using linux, is PARTNERING to sell a LINUX PHONE!
Lenovo sells phones under the Motorola brand name. (Lenovo brand phones sound more marketable)
This FANTASTIC news, express interest, build this. Buy one soon
Congrats on diversifying from Google phones! With Google tightening control of their ecosystem, it's good to have more options.
For geopolitical reasons, I'm also hoping that a European manufacturer will join your example.
reshared this
@ferricoxide @luana No, it's a much different feature than the incomplete implementation for desktops. The entirely of the firmware and operating system are cryptographically verified with downgrade protection. The secure element is used to store the version metadata for downgrade protection for the OS and efuses are used for the firmware portion of it. It's fully integrated with the A/B update system with automatic rollback until reaching the home screen successfully.
grapheneos.org/install/web#verโฆ
GrapheneOS web installer
Web-based installer for GrapheneOS, a security and privacy focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility.GrapheneOS
@dalias @luana Our hardware requirements include supporting using verified boot and other features with non-GrapheneOS operating systems too:
grapheneos.org/faq#future-deviโฆ
> Verified boot key fingerprint for yellow boot state displayed with a secure hash (non-truncated SHA-256 or better)
That applies even if the device has official GrapheneOS support with green verified boot state. Green verified boot state isn't mandatory of course but we'd like to have it. It could differentiate with a better UI.
GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to frequently asked questions about GrapheneOS.GrapheneOS
@luana Yes, that's part of our hardware requirements:
grapheneos.org/faq#future-deviโฆ
Whether they'll be sold at retail with GrapheneOS preinstalled as an option isn't a question we can answer yet. It mostly comes down to Google's requirements and the extent to which those can be worked around or pushed to be relaxed.
GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to frequently asked questions about GrapheneOS.GrapheneOS
It's not hardware that interacts with software that concerns me. I'm talking about hardware with it's own firmware that is capable of capturing data and sending it without the OS even being aware. I wish I could remember the model or find the article but a year or so ago I read that an android phone model was found to be communicating with networks even while the phone was powered off.
To be clear, it's not that I don't trust you. I just have a hard time trusting huge corporations who have no opposition to the current US administration especially when they are part of a specific industry that heavily tries to dictate what you can and can't do on your phone.
I'm not trying to downplay how huge of a deal this is and it is exciting but I an concerned as well and I think it's important to make that fear known.
@greenpete @joe9nf
: with all the split and sell-off, which motorola are we talking about?
The one sold to Google? The lenovo division? Another entity?
My inner skeptic, though, would like to know what compromises GrapheneOS was asked to make. And what expected bullying you can expect from Motorola once the ink on the agreement is dry.
I know I seem cynical, but I can't see a large corporation acting with complete good faith.
Though of course they may not be available for such a deal. @GrapheneOS @joe9nf
They say that they can't support Fairphone hardware unfortunately. I'm using a FP4 with Lineage now and I love it. User replaceable parts and a swappable battery.
I always hope Graphene and Fairphone would work something out because I've always thought they compliment each other well.
But also I'd rather give FP my money than Motorola
Man this post rubs me the wrong way. You ignore the main point I'm raising only to go on a rant telling me I'm using an extremely insecure device and actually attacking the manufacturer because of something someone else did (and to be clear you'll never hear me defend e/OS which is what I'm assuming you're referring to)
Let's be clear that you just tossed a company under the bus which is exactly what you were complaining about someone else doing to you. Is this about being right or doing what's right because those two things aren't always the same.
The e/OS thing was quite a while ago... At some point you are going to have to move on.
@greenpete @joe9nf
I don't care! I care what you are doing.
The obsession with what someone else is saying about you quite literally frightens me about what you are doing. It's almost like a misdirection.
Also, archive.is has been caught DDoSing via their captcha and I believe there is at least some suspicion about ties to Russia. They've also been changing some text in their archives. arstechnica.com/tech-policy/20โฆ
Archive.today CAPTCHA page executes DDoS; Wikipedia considers banning site
DDoS hit blog that tried to uncover Archive.today founder's identity in 2023.Jon Brodkin (Ars Technica)
I didn't even bring e/OS up until you did. I hate e/OS... It's why my US bought FP uses Lineage now.
I've read all the stuff and e/OS.... You've literally blasted me with it again and still haven't set me at ease with what YOU are doing. I'm not looking for a fight... I'm looking for answers that have NOTHING to do with Fairphone or e/OS
Oh, my bad... You deleted your entire tirade so that others wouldn't see it
techhub.social/@bobkmertz/1161โฆ
It's not hardware that interacts with software that concerns me. I'm talking about hardware with it's own firmware that is capable of capturing data and sending it without the OS even being aware. I wish I could remember the model or find the article but a year or so ago I read that an android phone model was found to be communicating with networks even while the phone was powered off.To be clear, it's not that I don't trust you. I just have a hard time trusting huge corporations who have no opposition to the current US administration especially when they are part of a specific industry that heavily tries to dictate what you can and can't do on your phone.
I'm not trying to downplay how huge of a deal this is and it is exciting but I an concerned as well and I think it's important to make that fear known.
@greenpete @joe9nf
Where did I attack you? Someone else mentioned Fairphone and I said that you previously said you wouldn't support them.... Then you turned the hose on me complaining about Murena. I didn't even bring it up at all. And yes, I said you were being obsessive and that's apparently when you realized I was right and deleted all of your posts.
All I mentioned was my concern about *Motorola* potentially hiding a hardware device in the phone that the OS is unaware of.... Next thing I know you're yelling at me for using a Fairphone.
@greenpete @joe9nf
This has always been my fear. I don't doubt @GrapheneOS has the best of intentions but I had always been concerned that they could start manufacturing Pixel phones with hardware much like a BMC can monitor a system without the OS being aware of it and it's not like you can remove the battery from a Pixel. There's also the issue of not wanting to give Motorola/Google my money.
@joe9nf
@lumi @navi > It takes 50 minutes to make a completely clean build of the OS on a $500 Ryzen 9950X gaming CPU. It then takes seconds to do incremental builds for nearly all changes. What's the issue with that and how is it appaling?
That's not 3 days. There's a mismatch here and I'm not sure of its source. Does GrapheneOS simply do it better?
> It takes far longer to build a modern web browser
The web browser ecosystem is also considered a disaster we should probably give up on entirely and cease using.
Using split-up protocols with open standards/specifications and Free Software clients for those things that have unwisely been conflated and bundled into browsers haphazardly (making them subject to a large number of questionable development practices in the doing).
i did not have access to a $500 cpu, specially not back in late-2019 which is when i did this -- my system had a 7th gen i7, 16 gigabytes of ram, and was running on an SATA SSD, all of which is still a reasonable mid-to-high gaming system now a days
note that since then, the requirements got worst: source.android.com/docs/setup/โฆ
> At least 400 GB of free disk space to check out and build the code (250 GB to check out + 150 GB to build).
> A minimum of 64 GB of RAM. Google uses 72-core machines with 64 GB of RAM to build Android. With this hardware configuration, it takes approximately 40 minutes for a full build of Android and only a few minutes for incremental build of Android. By contrast, it takes approximately 6 hours for a full build with a 6-core machine with 64 GB of RAM.
like, ex-fucking-cuse me? 64 gigs of ram *minimum*?
google takes 40 minutes to build with a 72-core machine with 64 gigabytes of ram, now explain how are you hitting this perf on a 9950x
my current 6 core system with half as much ram (32 gigs) builds my whole gentoo system in about an hour (excluding web browsers and toolchains, since i doubt you're also building the whole NDK)
and at last, the point was about boostrapability, incremental builds do not help
> The GKI kernel doesn't contain SoC-specific or board-specific code.
๐ Are you making fun of me here or what's the goal here? Prove me you have right, even when obviously you don't have?
Linux kernel contains all SoC, board specific bits + drivers.
Let me translate for regular people: Google compiles minimal, itself not functional, Linux kernel core and then takes a glue (GKI) and put all the ugly stuff I mentioned in the first post it.....
> It takes over 32GB of memory to do a single production Linux kernel build for GrapheneOS because that's simply how much memory it takes to build the upstream kernel image with a very minimal configuration with LTO enabled
except not? i have built the linux kernel with less before, and it didn't take nearly as long -- not close to 3 days long as it took to attempt an aosp build on my old system back in 2019
and if 64 gigs takes 6 hours to build, any less would exponentially lengthen the build due to swapping and oom stalling, sure 64 gigs might not be the minimum but any less and you'd be spending days to build, which i did, which is unnacceptable
okay, sure, the help page is still about building for development though, so i assume, debug and without lto
meaning an actual optimized release build would be even worst than 6h on 64gb ram -- this does not help your point like you think it does
debug builds, with optimizations, is not only counter intuitive but also no your numbers don't add up
and even if they did, assuming a 9950X is a baseline is absurd and any normal system someone that isn't middle class from a first world country is going to be *far* from that metric
specially now
no, my family and friends growing up could not afford to think of "price over it's lifetime", what they could get were mid-range phones where anything with "pixel" on it were either not available in brasil, or prohibitively expensive for ~80% of the population
we could *not* afford to think in "years of support", we could not switch phones when support ended, 2 years of support? great, my friends would still be using their phones 5 years after that, and getting a new one only when that one broke
wake up to how people outside first world countries actually have to live, please
not to mention that a 8gb phone is plenty enough for basically anything except gaming
sure ignore the part where an 9950X or comparable, with enough ram, is not a baseline but a privilege
go on
@lumi @navi Yeah uh, have you heard of The Sam Vimes theory of socioeconomic unfairness, or Boots theory?
Because this is what's happening in reality. They can't pony up for the long-term more optimal economic choice in the first place.
again it does not, i do not require full LTO to have a functional "production" linux kernel, i can setup a new gentoo system from scratch on a way cheaper machine
honestly, i'm done -- you're so self centered that you attack those that like your work, because they have criticisms, you ignore what is convenient and pull unfair comparisons to have it look reasonable
other projects taking a shit load of resources to build, does not make aosp look better, it just makes the group as a whole look worse, two wrongs doesn't make a right
just, bye
1. Who holds the signing keys for the GrapheneOS variant?
2. Will I be able to buy a second hand Motorola-OS-edition and flash GrapheneOS? Will it then show a warning (I think it's called yellow boot state)?
3. Will this have any effect on safetynet? Probably not right, since it's not/can't be Android certified?
> What explains this need to put things down because it's not glibc, systemd and GNOME?
all of those 3 projects are *constantly* criticized and put under scrutiny for their design choices, so, i have no idea what you mean by that
Nobody has attacked you. Conveying technical details is not self centered. By that logic, teachers and experts can never discuss their field with anyone without being self centered.
You liking GOSs work does not grant you a pass for anything. Part of GOSs work is this, refuting misinformation or correcting inaccuracies. You being upset with what the details are does not mean it is acceptable to attack and insult others.
i did not get attacked, someone else in the thread did
i did however, get my technical and socio-economical points completely handwaved away, over and over again, which is why i'm done with this thread
no, i did it once, because i was fed up of being redirected and brushed away
so, i am sorry for that -- it was wrong of me, but also i see that nothing i say will lead anything anywhere, so please untag me from now on
because a) you completely ignore anything else i say, including the two times i said that third world countries don't get pixel phones, specially not cheap ones, and b) because you said it yourself:
> > firstly, donโt see this as an attack on GrapheneOS
> Okay, but that's how we see it.
Literally. The double standard is ridiculous.
It's been years of GrapheneOS publicity/social media activity making the maintainers look self-centered and ignorant. I have to tell anyone I recommend GrapheneOS to not look at your social media activity. If you can't take criticism, how are you going to ensure security through peer reviews? How will users be able to trust your ability to work together to make secure software when this is how you treat people who disagree with you?
Stubborn, self-centered people are a risk factor in InfoSec because these attributes indicate closed-mindedness. You have to work on this if you want people to (continue to) trust you with this project.
โ A concerned long-time GrapheneOS user
@linux_is_best Motorola Signature (2026) is one rank ahead of the Pixel 10 Pro XL in dxomark.com/smartphones/ and has far better CPU and GPU performance via the 1 step from highest end Qualcomm SoC. The future devices we end up supporting have a high chance of using the highest end Qualcomm SoC.
It's not their ultra low-end budget devices which are being worked on. Their high end flagships for 2026 are close to meeting our requirements but not quite there yet so the next gen is what's relevant.
Smartphone Ranking | DXOMARK
The DXOMARK scores in the rankings below reflect the deviceโs performance and the quality of the user experience.DXOMARK
When Motorola tells us they will provide X years of updates โ letโs say, for argumentโs sake, seven years โ we will likely receive seven updates. We will lag behind on security updates for months. Bugs will be discovered, reported, and well documented, but never addressed. Most of their battery drain will come from their own bloated Motorola apps, and there will be many.
I wish you had chosen any other provider. Really โ any.
@izzy Snapdragon 8 Elite Gen 5 is currently the only SoC meeting our security requirements on paper and would need a LOT of work to meet them in practice. It has MTE support on paper but that's different from it being properly integrated and all the issues with it for broad usage in the kernel and userspace resolved.
MediaTek doesn't have everything we need and also has a very poor track record on security compared to Qualcomm. It wouldn't really be usable any time soon for GrapheneOS devices.
@izzy
It was your point that Motorola is the partner because they want to make money. If the people are only able to buy their phones after some others already did and now resell them, I don't See how they profit. People buying the high Ende devices for Graphene may exist AS well but in WhatsApo rate
@GOKUSHRM Our partnership is Motorola is not exclusive and we're fully allowed to partner with other OEMs. However, we don't currently have the resources to partner with additional OEMs and it will likely be a while before we do.
Partnerning to make smartphones with a company which recently discontinued their smartphones doesn't sound workable. The point is also mainly getting an OEM to raise their security to meet our requirements rather than getting an OEM to sell devices with GrapheneOS.
doing PGO on a development build (considering the guide is meant for developers) is insane IMO
that's something one would do on their final fully optimized build, not for development, and specially not if the need to debug anything in native code is there...
from what i recall in my encounters with googlers: it's pgo.
from my own experience on gentoo lto adds around 30% memory pressure and pgo adds around 50%, compile time is mostly unaffected with lto but pgo quadruples it.
parallel builds and LTO stuff, i assume
meaning you could run with less memory, by reducing the amount of parallel builds, except that would make the already long 6 hour build time increase close to exponentially
so 64 gb for 72 build processes doesn't seem super unnatural but 64 for 6 is weird.
it's probably fine with 8 to 16 on 6 core.
Ideally more than one if it's on the budget end.
A budget Moto G at the 150โฌ mark with GrapheneOS would be the ultimate "if i'm under risk this is becoming a foldable".
GrapheneOS Frequently Asked Questions
Answers to frequently asked questions about GrapheneOS.GrapheneOS
@bobkmertz @greenpete @joe9nf That was most likely the modem and in some early mobiles there was zero isolation preventing the modem from simply reading all the memory bus.
(The modem should be understood as a blackbox device at the mercy of hostile infrastructure providers & "authorities", it is attack surface.)
I would hope that such isolation is part of the GrapheneOS safety requirements.
I think flip times were fun, but are over. I also think we have so few resources and so much technical knowledge, that we should do the basic extremely well...
Apple [sic] does something like that when launching new ideas, and even with old ideas.
Minimalism means focus, means that fewer force results in greater pressure.
Lefa just make the best smartphone that most people use. Win the race. And then winner takes it all and can create stuff that nobody buys.
@GrapheneOS Go for it. You will succeed when there are, let's say, three phones from affordable to high range.
The future: When you are supporting a lot of Motos, integrate another brand (Asus?) and finally get rid of the Pixels. ๐
If they #Motorola could add #LoRa or something similar that could be a game changer.
They would offer something that other companies don't, while there is demand from users.
It also brings privacy advantages as it makes it easier to communicate undetected from cell towers. People are starting to roll out networks covering wide areas.
In addition to that, it adds an element of resilience where people could continue to communicate even when cell towers are shut down. This is especially important during national disasters and governments overreach shutting down internet access.
This is a premature joke for the 1. April, right? ๐ณ๐ค๐๐คฃ
Choosing a company like Motorola with it's owner Lenovo behind it for the reasons of privacy and security isn't beyond a good idea but pure hypocrisy and a punch in the guts for all of the supporters of GrapheneOS in my opinion. ๐
Greed ate brain, happened again it seems. ๐คฎ
#GrapheneOS #Motorola #Lenovo #Privacy #Security #Hypocrisy #Joke
The point isnโt whether GrapheneOS receives money from Motorola.
The point is the consistency of the security and trust model you advocate! ๐
GrapheneOS often emphasizes minimizing trust in large corporations, opaque supply chains, and potential state influence.
Yet Motorola is owned by Lenovo, a Chinese company operating under a legal environment where state access to companies can be mandated.
If the argument is that users should minimize trust and maximize verifiable security, partnering with an OEM embedded in that jurisdiction raises legitimate questions.
This isnโt about โgreedโ but about coherence of principles.
If Chinese OEM ownership is usually framed as a risk in privacy discussions, it seems inconsistent to dismiss those concerns when it becomes convenient for hardware support.
Criticism here isnโt hostilityโitโs asking whether the same standards are being applied consistently. ๐
@kranzkrone It's quite apparent you're using an LLM to generate concern troll replies. It's incoherent and lacks actual substance. We're not going to be interacting with a text generator someone has directed to waste our time and energy.
If you don't want us banning your instance and making a public post asking everyone else to do the same then remove both of these AI generated replies and stop bothering us.
Here's our policy on AI generated content for discussions:
It's indeed quite apparent that you acting out in the same way like you did in the past when the founder of GrapheneOS had a personal dispute with another somewhat prominent personality of the tech world.
If you don't want me to further investigate your toxic behavior of communication and try to framing me as the bad one, you should definitely thread lightly.
Threatening me with whatever action won't result in deleting my previous posts but instead will strengthen my personal investment in further interactions and maybe legal actions.
Louis Rossmann may would find this interesting to read too.
I'm fine to end it here by agreeing to disagree.
@kranzkrone You've moved on from posting low quality concern trolling which appears to be at least partially generated by an LLM to blatant libel and support for harassment. We haven't framed you for anything. Your replies to our thread make it clear what you're doing.
Louis Rossmann orchestrated harassment towards our founder by making many extraordinarily dishonest claims in a video where he engaged in blatant bullying. Rossmann is openly a Kiwi Farms user and is the one who involved them.
any chance that we'll have Google wallet support?
since the bootloader will trust the grapheneos keys I can't imagine why would safetynet and the other play protect mechanisms won't pass attestation (for all intents and purposes graphene would be indistinguishable from the stock Motorola image)
if that's the case I'll buy the device the moment it comes out...
GrapheneOS
in reply to Georg Weissenbacher • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •GrapheneOS
in reply to GrapheneOS • • •