@GrapheneOS@grapheneos.social @elly
-
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei @ariadne
I'm glad you're talking to @ariadne about this. She's nice.
I hope both projects can collaborate on things one day, I think that would be very beneficial tech-wise, as you (GrapheneOS team) have a lot of insights on security and such for example, so we can share notes etc...
Take care of yourself!@GrapheneOS @ariadne @domi @elly @mei I hate drama and I'm sure you hate it too so if this can be solved well I'm all for it
-
@fun @domi @elly @mei @ariadne We removed some of our posts here to talk about it privately instead which we are doing and if you stop making accusations towards us then we'll stop posting about it here. We're entirely capable of finding and posting an archive of the deleted posts on Twitter if people are denying it happened, but as far as we know the person who did it is not denying that it happened. As a general rule we're not going to report a project itself due to bad experiences with it.
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei That's nice of you ^^
Yeah perhaps avoid fingerpointing in Twitter at this point in time, I want this solved peacefully and I'm sure you want this too. Fingerpointing may just make things worse. -
@fun @domi @elly @mei @ariadne Fedora addressed bullying/libel we reported by having 2 people remove posts. GNOME simply ignored our reports.
Here's Mozilla:
> The actions that are alleged to have violated the CPG are:
>
> Disruptive behaviour: calling that people “allow nazis to contribute to your project”
>
> Personal attacks: accusing other people of swatting you and other engineers.Those "other people" weren't their project members, just to clarify.
> should be addressed to the police
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei @ariadne If there's anything else you need from me, I accept PMs from irc/matrix (irc preferred but matrix also works), so you know where to find me -
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei That's nice of you ^^
Yeah perhaps avoid fingerpointing in Twitter at this point in time, I want this solved peacefully and I'm sure you want this too. Fingerpointing may just make things worse.@fun @domi @elly @mei We replied to this thread because the original post made inaccurate claims about AOSP and projects based on it including GrapheneOS. We then saw many more attacks on GrapheneOS claiming it's non-viable, a dead end, not doing any valuable work, etc. so we replied to a few of those. Since people felt like attacking our team to promote another project, we brought up an unresolved situation which is not just about several threads on Twitter in 2023 but more recent things too.
-
@fun @domi @elly @mei We replied to this thread because the original post made inaccurate claims about AOSP and projects based on it including GrapheneOS. We then saw many more attacks on GrapheneOS claiming it's non-viable, a dead end, not doing any valuable work, etc. so we replied to a few of those. Since people felt like attacking our team to promote another project, we brought up an unresolved situation which is not just about several threads on Twitter in 2023 but more recent things too.
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei It seems my message did not go through (technical difficulties heh)
I personally don't think your project is a dead end or not doing any valuable work, quite the opposite actually! I do work on postmarketOS because I'm sick and tired of the whole Android ecosystem but I'm glad projects like GrapheneOS still exist to this day. I know of a few people that use it and are overall happy with it. Personally I don't use it because it doesn't support my current phone and I don't really want to fund Google very much, but it's great that it remains an available option that is still actively maintained (which is sadly not the case for many other Android distros that died off circa 2018...) -
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei It seems my message did not go through (technical difficulties heh)
I personally don't think your project is a dead end or not doing any valuable work, quite the opposite actually! I do work on postmarketOS because I'm sick and tired of the whole Android ecosystem but I'm glad projects like GrapheneOS still exist to this day. I know of a few people that use it and are overall happy with it. Personally I don't use it because it doesn't support my current phone and I don't really want to fund Google very much, but it's great that it remains an available option that is still actively maintained (which is sadly not the case for many other Android distros that died off circa 2018...) -
-
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei It seems my message did not go through (technical difficulties heh)
I personally don't think your project is a dead end or not doing any valuable work, quite the opposite actually! I do work on postmarketOS because I'm sick and tired of the whole Android ecosystem but I'm glad projects like GrapheneOS still exist to this day. I know of a few people that use it and are overall happy with it. Personally I don't use it because it doesn't support my current phone and I don't really want to fund Google very much, but it's great that it remains an available option that is still actively maintained (which is sadly not the case for many other Android distros that died off circa 2018...)@fun @domi @elly @mei We're partnered with a major Android OEM and they're actively working on supporting GrapheneOS for devices in 2027 by meeting all of our update and security requirements. They weren't able to do it for the upcoming devices because Qualcomm didn't get hardware memory tagging working properly on every variant of their latest SoC generation that's in the process of launching. The upper level cache had to be changed to support MTE and they didn't do it for each SoC variant yet.
-
@fun @domi @elly @mei We're partnered with a major Android OEM and they're actively working on supporting GrapheneOS for devices in 2027 by meeting all of our update and security requirements. They weren't able to do it for the upcoming devices because Qualcomm didn't get hardware memory tagging working properly on every variant of their latest SoC generation that's in the process of launching. The upper level cache had to be changed to support MTE and they didn't do it for each SoC variant yet.
-
@fun @domi @elly @mei We're partnered with a major Android OEM and they're actively working on supporting GrapheneOS for devices in 2027 by meeting all of our update and security requirements. They weren't able to do it for the upcoming devices because Qualcomm didn't get hardware memory tagging working properly on every variant of their latest SoC generation that's in the process of launching. The upper level cache had to be changed to support MTE and they didn't do it for each SoC variant yet.
@fun @domi @elly @mei Fairphone 5 doesn't have the updates and hardware-based security features we require so we can't use it. They use the end-of-life Linux 5.4 kernel branch and weren't providing LTS updates prior to end of life. It's missing a hardware memory tagging, pointer authentication and branch target identification at the CPU level and a bunch of other things. It has no secure element. The updates for firmware/drivers are problematic too, not just the Linux kernel branch they use.
-
@fun @domi @elly @mei Fairphone 5 doesn't have the updates and hardware-based security features we require so we can't use it. They use the end-of-life Linux 5.4 kernel branch and weren't providing LTS updates prior to end of life. It's missing a hardware memory tagging, pointer authentication and branch target identification at the CPU level and a bunch of other things. It has no secure element. The updates for firmware/drivers are problematic too, not just the Linux kernel branch they use.
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei I'm well aware of the EOL 5.4 kernel issue, that's why I'm all for using mainline (maybe with patches to harden security).
Anyway, if said OEM produces phones with the major benefits of my FP5 (good repairability and perhaps good mainline support) I can consider it as my next phone ^^ -
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei I'm well aware of the EOL 5.4 kernel issue, that's why I'm all for using mainline (maybe with patches to harden security).
Anyway, if said OEM produces phones with the major benefits of my FP5 (good repairability and perhaps good mainline support) I can consider it as my next phone ^^@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei I do know I got LTS updates on mine though, but I don't run the stock OS (wiped it as soon as I got it to install LineageOS instead, yes, I know, not all that great but gets the job done for now) -
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei I do know I got LTS updates on mine though, but I don't run the stock OS (wiped it as soon as I got it to install LineageOS instead, yes, I know, not all that great but gets the job done for now)
@fun @domi @elly @mei The issue is that Linux 5.4 is end-of-life since December 3rd:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1049060/
Fairphone 4 (the previous device) and Pixel 6 both launched in October 2021, the Fairphone 4 with the 4.19 LTS branch and Pixel 6 with 5.10. Pixel 6 and 7 later moved from 5.10 to 6.1 while the Pixel 8 moved from 5.15 to 6.1. They'll likely move to 6.6 soon. Android usually uses 1 LTS branch ahead for microdroid and other virtual machines which is moving from 6.6 to 6.12 right now.
-
@fun @domi @elly @mei The issue is that Linux 5.4 is end-of-life since December 3rd:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1049060/
Fairphone 4 (the previous device) and Pixel 6 both launched in October 2021, the Fairphone 4 with the 4.19 LTS branch and Pixel 6 with 5.10. Pixel 6 and 7 later moved from 5.10 to 6.1 while the Pixel 8 moved from 5.15 to 6.1. They'll likely move to 6.6 soon. Android usually uses 1 LTS branch ahead for microdroid and other virtual machines which is moving from 6.6 to 6.12 right now.
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei yep! I'm aware of that, actually used that as an argument in some discussion over on IRC
-
@fun @domi @elly @mei The issue is that Linux 5.4 is end-of-life since December 3rd:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1049060/
Fairphone 4 (the previous device) and Pixel 6 both launched in October 2021, the Fairphone 4 with the 4.19 LTS branch and Pixel 6 with 5.10. Pixel 6 and 7 later moved from 5.10 to 6.1 while the Pixel 8 moved from 5.15 to 6.1. They'll likely move to 6.6 soon. Android usually uses 1 LTS branch ahead for microdroid and other virtual machines which is moving from 6.6 to 6.12 right now.
@fun @domi @elly @mei For the devices we're working on with our OEM partner, we plan to move to new LTS branches similar to Pixels but perhaps faster than they do.
Android officially supports 6.12 for devices launched with or upgraded to Android 16 but Pixels are cautious due to how many regressions there are in new kernel versions. Pixel 10 launched at the end of 2025 using 6.6 and that indicates they're going to move older devices to 6.6 soon. It's essentially mandatory to move yearly now.
-
@fun @domi @elly @mei For the devices we're working on with our OEM partner, we plan to move to new LTS branches similar to Pixels but perhaps faster than they do.
Android officially supports 6.12 for devices launched with or upgraded to Android 16 but Pixels are cautious due to how many regressions there are in new kernel versions. Pixel 10 launched at the end of 2025 using 6.6 and that indicates they're going to move older devices to 6.6 soon. It's essentially mandatory to move yearly now.
@fun @domi @elly @mei Greg KH is the main one maintaining the kernel.org LTS branches and also the Android GKI LTS branches based on those which have additional backported features and the driver ABI stability approach we don't think makes much sense. Pixels use the same latest kernel source tree to build the drivers and update them together anyway. They split it with ABI stability so vendors can update kernel image / base modules separately but no OEM is actually doing that as far as we know.
-
@fun @domi @elly @mei Greg KH is the main one maintaining the kernel.org LTS branches and also the Android GKI LTS branches based on those which have additional backported features and the driver ABI stability approach we don't think makes much sense. Pixels use the same latest kernel source tree to build the drivers and update them together anyway. They split it with ABI stability so vendors can update kernel image / base modules separately but no OEM is actually doing that as far as we know.
@GrapheneOS @domi @elly @mei I think trying to mainline things as much as possible could greatly help you in this, then you have only few patches to carry downstream and rebasing becomes easier
