←back to thread

GrapheneOS is the only Android OS providing full security patches

(grapheneos.social)
751 points akyuu | 3 comments | 06 Dec 25 13:58 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
SubiculumCode ◴[06 Dec 25 17:09 UTC] No.46174850[source]▶
Why was it that in the early PC days, IBM was unable to keep a lid on 'IBM compatible', allowing for the PC interoperability explosion, yet today, almost every phone has closed drivers, closed and locked bootloaders, and almost complete corporate control over our devices? Why are there not yet a plethora of phones on the market that allow anyone to install their OS of choice?
replies(14): >>46174896 #>>46175070 #>>46175178 #>>46175179 #>>46175231 #>>46175239 #>>46175248 #>>46175271 #>>46175428 #>>46175683 #>>46176094 #>>46176142 #>>46180732 #>>46181041 #
flomo ◴[06 Dec 25 19:50 UTC] No.46176094[source]▶
Nobody gave you the actual answer. IBM was under an antitrust decree and had to openly license their technology for a nominal fee. (Supposedly about $5/PC.) So yes, they were in a hurry and used generic parts, but they still had tons of patents on it. When they got out from under this, they came up with Microchannel.
replies(2): >>46178089 #>>46180168 #
1. treyd ◴[07 Dec 25 00:34 UTC] No.46178089[source]▶
This and also cryptography technology was not nearly as sophisticated and easily accessible as it is today, and where it existed it was pretty slow on the hardware of the time.
replies(1): >>46180681 #
2. pona-a ◴[07 Dec 25 10:26 UTC] No.46180681[source]▶
How much of it is cryptography? The only notable cryptographic locks are just the TPM-backed Widevine and the infamous Play Integrity, both rarely required due to how many older devices that would lock out.

There's no crypto, as far as I know, in all the binary blobs in the kernel, yet we still can't re-implement enough of them to even have a true Linux phone without reusing the manufacturer's kernel.

replies(1): >>46183819 #
3. ◴[07 Dec 25 18:25 UTC] No.46183819[source]▶