this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2026
268 points (99.3% liked)
Technology
87680 readers
3282 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
If GrapheneOS can't handle the maintenance burden, there is nothing to negotiate.
Presumably, maintaining software for a niche phone requires effort similar in magnitude to a larger, mainstream phone. Why, then, would a solely privacy-oriented org choose to cater to a smaller audience?
Can other organizations replicate GrapheneOS's principles in ways where THOSE organizations can maintain the burden?
Is GrapheneOS working towards industry wide standards on privacy-first operating systems from the hardware up?
Are they contributing to the field at large, or are they keeping to themselves out of self preservation (or selfishness)?
GrapheneOS is an open-source fork of AOSP. Anyone could fork it again and provide kernel modules/drivers for their hardware.
To my knowledge, GrapheneOS is not standards-based. They take one operating system, and tweak it. I don't know if there are relevant standards to contribute to, or even standards bodies to approve them.
Thanks for taking the time to educate someone that is STEM-studied but not necessarily in computer hardware/software.
Given that GrapheneOS picked AOSP to be their canvas with which to tighten down the hatches and improve the base AOSP platform's privacy characteristics, this to me indicates that nothing is stopping GOS from doing the same and contributing to other major platforms intended for mobile devices. Unless of course bandwidth is an issue for them, then they can't contribute to more than just their AOSP fork.
As someone who uses tech and doesn't really develop it, I would appreciate GrapheneOS expanding their vision to other software/hardware platforms like those being worked on by the Ubuntu Touch, SailfishOS, PostmarketOS, etc. teams.
I'm not advocating that GOS work on all of these, but I am advocate for GOS to branch off from corporate dependence in the event Motorola goes the way of Google.
If one thing capitalism has shown us over the last 100+ years, corporations that can enshittify will enshittify. It's only a matter of time, and it'd be better imo for GOS to start pivoting sooner rather than later.
Unless GOS are ok with ceasing their entire project once Motorola drops them. Maybe they're confident in that bet. I wouldn't be, being a FOSS advocate myself nowadays.