GrapheneOS

Open source privacy and security focused mobile OS with Android app compatibility.

Public Key

npub1235tem4hfn34edqh8hxfja9amty73998f0eagnuu4zm423s9e8ksdg0ht5

NIP-05 Address

Profile Code

nprofile1qqs9g69ua6m5ec6ukstnmnyewj7a4j0gjjn5hu75f7w23d64gczunmgpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerfw36x7tnsw43qz9thwden5te0v35hgar09ec82c30wfjkcctexqtuq6

Publishing to

Author Public Key

npub1235tem4hfn34edqh8hxfja9amty73998f0eagnuu4zm423s9e8ksdg0ht5

Show more details

Last Notes

2026-07-25 19:31:59 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 The 2nd link above was meant to be https://eattherich.club/@kiefac/116976545439189720.
This is a core GNOME project member:
https://mastodon.com.pl/@tragivictoria/116834713496471432
She has been posting attacks on us for at least a couple weeks including on Reddit repeatedly claiming we're insane and delusional along with false claims about us. That includes extraordinarily false claims that we're the ones engaging in harassment with no basis, spinning us saying we're being targeted into being doing it:
https://mastodon.com.pl/@tragivictoria/116837805200349592

2026-07-25 19:28:21 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 Those aren't nearly as bad as many of the things said about us in the past several weeks including from a couple GNOME project members. The norm is claiming we're insane, delusional and schizophrenic with those words. There's ongoing harassment from Kiwi Farms and a prominent influencer who uses it. Many people who are part of open source projects and communities engage in it. From our perspective what makes those 2 posts above awful is that they are nearly certainly aware of all this.

2026-07-25 19:21:51 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 Our community members aren't posting personal attacks and false claims about projects/people opposed to us in this thread. We aren't doing it either. It's only your projects and communities doing it towards us, as is nearly always the case. We're falsely accused of things we've never done and which our community never does but which are ongoing on a daily basis from your projects and communities towards us. If we hadn't blocked several people doing it they'd have done more of it here.

2026-07-25 19:20:27 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0
> Also, on the attacks thing. Every time I ever respond to anything to do with GrapheneOS, even if it isn't a debate, I get hit with that. Why? What have I done to deserve that?
This thread has a bunch of it. Here are 2 examples:
https://eattherich.club/@kiefac/116976391060397637
https://eattherich.club/@kiefac/116976
Multiple of the accounts doing it including that one moved on to making top-level posts attacking us with false claims about what we said and did.
It is ongoing and relevant to any discussion here.

2026-07-25 19:17:12 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 GrapheneOS was started as a mobile Linux hardening project. We've contributed to upstream Linux kernel privacy and security.
We stopped making substantial upstream contributions due to attacks on the project from people using our upstream code. Each of these threads where people claim we aren't working on what we are, making disingenuous arguments and false claims about our project/team including personal attacks further discourage going back to doing more of it again.

2026-07-25 19:14:16 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 Android is an operating systems rather than a Linux distribution. AOSP is the reference implementation of Android and the upstream open source project for the overall operating systems family.
GrapheneOS is a Linux distribution. It can be called an AOSP-based OS or an Android-based OS too. It's Android-based rather than Android itself because we do not follow the official Android definition. OEM forks of AOSP including Google Play supposedly follow the official Android definition.

2026-07-25 19:03:50 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 GrapheneOS is objectively a Linux distribution. It is your projects and communities attacking us with false claims and personal attacks for making an accurate statement. It isn't us claiming your projects aren't Linux and don't have a right to use the term.
The project and community you list yourself as being involved in has a long history of attacks on the GrapheneOS project including personal attacks visible throughout the other threads branching from the post mentioning us above.

2026-07-25 18:52:55 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 It is you who holds the fringe position despite trying to portray it the other way around. You shouldn't mistake the echo chamber you're posting in for a broad consensus beyond it.
Linus Torvalds, the Linux project and the Linux Foundation have been saying Android is Linux from early on. There's a broad consensus among people without vested interest in promoting certain products and projects that it's Linux. It was quite uncontroversial that it was Linux until more recently.

2026-07-25 18:47:20 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 In practice, every Linux distribution uses a fork of the Linux kernel in production. Android works with a mainline kernel similarly to Debian working with a mainline kernel. Neither uses a mainline kernel without patches in in production in practice, but neither requires those changes.
These companies, projects and their supporters do not speak for the Linux kernel project or the broader public. The consensus you and others claim exist does not exist. It is a marketing approach.

2026-07-25 18:45:57 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 Android was mobile Linux and broadly accepted as such long before those products existed.
Arbitrarily claiming Android isn't Linux is very convenient to them for marketing reasons because Linux phone sounds better than the alternatives. However, they do not own or define the term Linux.
Linus Torvalds has repeatedly clearly said Android is Linux long before it could work with mainline kernels as it can today. It's not up to Pine64 and their fans if it is.

2026-07-25 18:41:54 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3wl0 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 Android does not require a fork of the Linux kernel. It has worked with regular mainline, stable and longterm kernels for many years. All of the Android kernel features required to run it have been included upstream. Android replaced the features which weren't included upstream with standard ones including reimplementation features with eBPF. It does not require a single Linux kernel change to function. What you're saying is a misconception since years ago.

2026-07-25 18:30:19 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…glgc @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Android is objectively Linux. Linus Torvalds, Greg KH and other core members of the Linux project regularly confirm Android is Linux.
Android is Linux and has been called Linux since long before the products you're claiming have exclusive rights to the term Linux Phone existed.
Linux doesn't mean systemd, GNU and XDG desktop standards. It doesn't mean using GNOME or KDE. Server and embedded Linux is Linux, as is another kind of desktop userspace.

2026-07-25 18:18:33 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3kzl You listed one privacy and security hardened OS with major privacy improvements on top of preserving the standard privacy and security.
LineageOS and iodéOS do not keep up with the standard privacy and security patches or protections. Those are greatly reducing privacy compared to AOSP which is the opposite direction from GrapheneOS.
https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm is an informative third party comparison and the author accepts corrections if you think anything there is inaccurate.

2026-07-25 18:14:22 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3kzl The claim that it's more focused on security rather than privacy is complete nonsense. It provides major privacy improvements completely unavailable in any of those other operating systems. None of those keeps up with standard privacy patches or improvements, let alone providing major improvements such as Contact Scopes. Privacy depends on security which is the sole reason we work on security too.
You aren't informed about GrapheneOS and don't know what it provides or prioritizes.

2026-07-25 18:12:58 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…3kzl The claim that it's more focused on security rather than privacy is complete nonsense. It provides major privacy improvements completely unavailable in any of those other operating systems. None of those keeps up with standard privacy patches or improvements, let alone providing major improvements such as Contact Scopes. Privacy depends on security which is the sole reason we work on security too.
You don't know what GrapheneOS provides regardless of whether you've tried it a bit.

2026-07-25 04:22:07 UTC

Vanadium version 151.0.7922.47.1 released:
https://github.com/GrapheneOS/Vanadium/releases/tag/151.0.7922.47.1
See the linked release notes for a summary of the improvements over the previous release and a link to the full changelog.
Forum discussion thread:
https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/40679-vanadium-version-15107922471-released
#GrapheneOS #privacy #security #browser

2026-07-25 04:10:09 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…fupw @nprofile…re8h Pixels are initially going to remain the budget option for countries where those are available. Pixel 'a' series devices get the regular 7 years of support from launch and end up being an extremely good deal as used devices after a couple years. It's not easy to compete with that, but Pixels aren't sold everywhere and they're very expensive in a lot of countries where they're not sold. The initial Motorola flagships will be expensive too but there will be more.

2026-07-25 04:08:18 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…fupw @nprofile…re8h It will only be future Motorola devices providing what we need. The initial ones will be flagships because those will be the first with the updates and security features we need. It will be able to expand to more devices from there. We need to carefully choose devices but we do want to include some more budget devices. It likely won't go below equivalents to the Pixel 'a' series range because it's unlikely low end devices will provide what we need any time soon.

2026-07-25 01:34:16 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…re8h The Motorola devices will be more internationally available especially once there are lower priced ones providing official GrapheneOS support. It 's starting with the flagships because Qualcomm rolls out security features to those first and it will likely be a while before even the high end non-flagship ones have what we need.

2026-07-25 00:27:16 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…re8h We have a non-exclusive partnership with Motorola Mobility (Lenovo) to bring GrapheneOS to future devices from them providing all of our hardware requirements and official GrapheneOS support.
They'll provide us with the driver and firmware support we need without us needing to reverse engineer stock OS code and extract firmware, configurations, driver libraries, etc. from factory images.
It will start with flagships since they'll be the first with what we need but will expand.

2026-07-25 00:25:37 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…re8h Most smartphones don't allow using another OS. Most of the ones permitting it cripple functionality including security if one is used.
Most computers including a large portion of smartphones lack of ongoing firmware security updates which we can't solve for those. It's quite important to have security updates for GPU, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, cellular, NFC and UWB radio firmware along with other components exposed to attacks.
Most smartphones lack features we use to protect users too.

2026-07-24 23:46:51 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z3n8
> If Google moves Android behind contracts, everybody will happily sign.
Many Android OEMs are already very unhappy with Google's oppressive behavior towards them. South Korea determined it was illegal and Samsung is now largely freed from the same constraints placed on other OEMs. Most Android OEMs clearly want to have the same freedom. Android OEMs do care about AOSP being open source and didn't sign up for how Google seized control and walked back promises to OEMs.

2026-07-24 23:45:42 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z3n8
> If Google moves Android behind contracts, everybody will happily sign.
Many Android OEMs are already very unhappy with Google's oppressive behavior towards them and several have filed lawsuits against them. South Korea determined it was illegal and Samsung is now largely freed from the same constraints placed on other OEMs. They want to have the same freedom. Android OEMs care about AOSP and didn't sign up for what Google gradually ended up doing with GMS, etc.

2026-07-24 23:26:29 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 The expectations for an ultra niche hobbyist project are completely different. Partially supporting hardware years after launch without ever getting it mostly working is not the same thing.
Android is mobile Linux, as is GrapheneOS. Linux has heavily benefited from upstream improvements from Android and even a decent amount of GrapheneOS. You gatekeep what it means to be Linux but have you contributed anything to it yourself?

2026-07-24 23:19:47 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 You brought up both userspace compatibility and the userspace HALs. The kernel's rule of not breaking userspace doesn't stop userspace code breaking unless the the userspace code it depends on maintains compatibility too. Desktop Linux doesn't preserve the compatibility that the Linux kernel provides with legacy code. You brought it up implying Android didn't preserve it when it does a far better job with it in reality.

2026-07-24 23:11:55 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Android also works fine with a mainline kernel.

2026-07-24 23:09:23 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Desktop Linux doesn't follow the don't break userspace rule. It's a kernel rule not followed in userspace by those.
Android keeps ancient apps working. It uses store policies to force updating to new API levels with major backwards incompatible improvements. That includes yearly backwards incompatible privacy and security changes. Desktop Linux can't force similar app ecosystem improvements AND lacks the backwards compatibility.

2026-07-24 23:08:38 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Desktop Linux doesn't follow the don't break userspace rule. It's a kernel rule not followed in userspace by those.
Android keeps ancient apps working. It uses store policies to force updating to new API levels with major backwards incompatible improvements. That includes yearly backwards incompatible privacy and security changes. Desktop Linux can't make the same kinds of improvements, but also lacks backwards compatibility.

2026-07-24 23:03:38 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 A standard Android kernel image (GKI) and userspace OS image with all of the non-device-support code (GSI) can be booted across all certified Android devices with all of the standard functionality working. The kernel image can be updated within a branch alone and the OS can be updated to new major versions. None of that is useful to GrapheneOS or Pixels. It's an annoyance for us rather than benefiting us. It's useful to others.

2026-07-24 23:01:27 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Linux breaks the userspace ABI all the time and the actual rule is it not being noticed in a way the upstream project cares about. That has nothing to do with Android's userspace HAL where the userspace part of the drivers are implemented.
Android provides a stable API/ABI for userspace applications and for the hardware abstraction layer (Treble) so your claim is completely backwards as desktop Linux doesn't do either of those.

2026-07-24 22:57:21 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 No common definition of Linux distribution implies not having a downstream LTS as Ubuntu does, not having out-of-tree patches as essentially every distribution does or not having out-of-tree drivers which most make available. A distribution using ZFS and hardware that's out-of-tree is not commonly claimed to not be Linux. You're working backwards from what you want to say and aren't applying what you come up with consistently.

2026-07-24 22:55:37 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 You aren't being pedantic. You're repeatedly making inaccurate claims and applying standards you come up with for what qualifies as Linux incredibly inconsistently. It's clear you are working backwards from claiming Android isn't Linux, and you're wrong. You'll just shift your definitions and standards around as needed. You started with the misconception that Android can't simply boot with a mainline or LTS kernel, but it can.

2026-07-24 22:53:32 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Android is a Linux distribution and works with mainline kernels. Every major distribution has out-of-tree kernel patches and has out-of-tree drivers available. Ubuntu entirely makes their own LTS kernels rather than using the upstream LTS branches as Android does, so is Ubuntu not Linux? You're arbitrarily defining Android as not Linux and are working backwards from there justifying it with inconsistent standards you create.

2026-07-24 22:51:35 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 If only the kernel.org releases with no out-of-tree drivers are Linux then it's not an OS with any significant usage in practice. Every mainstream distribution has various downstream patches to the kernel and many have out-of-tree drivers available. Most common laptop, desktop and server hardware can at least be partially used with in-tree drivers but that doesn't mean everything is often fully functional or working properly.

2026-07-24 22:35:42 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 The drivers are out-of-tree because the Linux kernel doesn't have a working system for getting drivers landed in time for the release of a product. It also doesn't have a system which can avoid an immense amount of wasted resources including arbitrary politics blocking changes. It took many years of Google navigating kernel politics and consensus before all features needed by Android were upstream which has been the case a while.

2026-07-24 22:32:03 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 The work done by GrapheneOS requires our own out-of-tree patches for memory corruption bugs and hardening features which are not easily upstreamed or even possible to upstream. Most Linux distributions have out-of-tree kernel changes including Debian and it doesn't make those not Linux distributions. Many have out-of-tree drivers in their repositories including Debian and it doesn't make it not a Linux distribution.

2026-07-24 22:30:36 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Android and GrapheneOS do not require out-of-tree drivers. Pixels require out-of-tree drivers. It takes many years from launch just to get partially working support for a very incomplete subset of the hardware. Non-AOSP Linux distributions supporting the same hardware are using outdated versions of the same out-of-tree drivers as us. How are non-AOSP-based OSes using those drivers Linux but AOSP-based OSes using those aren't?

2026-07-24 22:26:56 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 You're arbitrarily and incorrectly defining AOSP as not being a Linux distribution. You're then trying to come up with arguments starting from that point. Claiming out-of-tree drivers not specific to Android make it not Linux isn't at all consistent. Ubuntu Touch and other non-AOSP operating systems use out-of-date versions of the same code to run on the hardware. You're supporting that being called Linux. Not a valid argument.

2026-07-24 22:19:31 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Microkernels have their drivers and filesystems in userspace. The kernel coordinates things between processes. It does not have to handle nearly as much as the Linux kernel. Linux kernel design is at odds with basic operating system security principles. The Linux kernel's approach of having every driver in-tree is increasingly failing and is not a workable approach. It takes too long to get drivers upstream and people break them.

2026-07-24 22:14:27 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…x48d GrapheneOS was started as an extension of Linux kernel and userspace hardening work to mobile via AOSP. It was initially developed alongside hardening work for desktop Linux and a lot of what we were doing initially was shared for both.
It's clearly a Linux distribution and saying so should not result in hate towards us. That should not make people angry or hostile towards us. A major part of what we work on and need to work more on is the Linux kernel.

2026-07-24 22:12:10 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…x48d There was a constructive discussion there and our posts were useful, factual information addressing misconceptions people have about GrapheneOS. We regularly boost things we put effort into writing because we don't want the effort going to waste buried in threads hardly anyone will see. What we said is plainly true and innocuous. It's not something which cause people to pile on with bad faith arguments and abuse towards us. It's totally uncalled for in response to what we said.

2026-07-24 21:52:20 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…x48d GrapheneOS and AOSP are Linux distributions and saying that doesn't justify abuse towards us. It's an innocuous factual statement. It shouldn't be offensive to anyone. It doesn't justify any abuse towards us. Linus Torvalds and Greg KH very openly have the same position, as do likely most other people working on Linux.
Saying GrapheneOS is a Linux distribution helps people understand what it is and what we need to work on. It's certainly accurate and is useful to know about it.

2026-07-24 21:42:18 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…x48d Their claims about GrapheneOS are objectively inaccurate, not logical and often harm our project. We were responding in a thread where we were explicitly mentioned with our handle to correct misconceptions. We didn't respond to the original post in the thread but rather we responded to a sub-thread where GrapheneOS was being discussed.
Multiple people were abusive towards us due to disagreeing with us about GrapheneOS being Linux, which it clearly is. We weren't the unkind ones.

2026-07-24 21:39:31 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 The Pixel drivers are in separate repositories using the GKI permitted subset of the kernel API. It would be straightforward to port them into the kernel tree and remove the GKI infrastructure but that exists to make porting them easier by reducing how tied they are to the kernel tree. Pixels always build the drivers with their latest kernel tree so GKI is pointless for them and we'd rather not have it. It wasn't made for Pixels.

2026-07-24 21:37:18 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Android can already be built with 6.18 or a mainline kernel. It doesn't require downstream changes to the kernel.
Hardware support is a separate thing not specific to Android. Pixels have public Linux 6.12 support in Beta.
Android has a GKI branch for 6.18 already and it wouldn't be a large amount of work to switch out 6.12 with 6.18 and adjust the Pixel drivers to work for it. They're not part of the kernel tree itself.

2026-07-24 21:31:55 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…29v2 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 We don't. PostmarketOS uses systemd with musl.

2026-07-24 21:31:16 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Using Linux to exclusively refer to an OS using glibc, systemd and XDG desktop software isn't something we've seen people doing or insisting on. It likely isn't how you use the term Linux yourself. You probably consider Alpine Linux to be Linux along with many server and embedded distributions. Those use various different init, libc, shells, CLI utilities and other software. What's the logic of those all being Linux but AOSP is arbitrarily not Linux?

2026-07-24 21:30:11 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Using Linux to exclusively refer to an OS using glibc, systemd and XDG desktop software isn't something we've seen people doing or insisting on. It likely isn't how you use the term Linux yourself. You probably consider Alpine Linux to be Linux along with many server and embedded distributions. Why do you consider those to all be Linux despite using different init, libc, shells, CLI utilities and other software but Android arbitrarily isn't?

2026-07-24 21:27:30 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 That's not how those are referred to in our community or most other spaces where we participate. GrapheneOS has never used the term ROM to refer to itself and it isn't commonly used. It's not read-only memory firmware or stored in read-only memory. ROM is a useful term which is correctly used for a bunch of actual ROMs used on the devices. It's relevant to what we work on and we wouldn't use it to refer to the OS which doesn't make any sense.

2026-07-24 21:24:01 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 You can run KDE Plasma on FreeBSD along with most of the same desktop software stack. Most of the software people are associating with Linux runs on FreeBSD or Hurd too.
Android does use many of the userspace libraries actually developed alongside the kernel including libselinux, f2fs/ext4 userspace utilities, iproute2 and various others.
The systemd project is developed specifically for Linux and the same goes for most of Android's userspace.

2026-07-24 21:18:58 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…gun3 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 KDE Plasma is built to run as part of a far different userspace. It's not relevant to whether GrapheneOS is a Linux distribution. Linux isn't glibc, systemd, Wayland, PipeWire and KDE. It isn't the XDG desktop standards. Linux is a kernel and Linux distributions are the operating systems using it as a kernel.
Android apps are Linux apps. You can't easily run those without using AOSP. It's the same thing the other way around. Both are still Linux.

2026-07-24 21:00:49 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…x48d You weren't blocked for your off topic hostile replies but that reply crossed the line.
Further context for it is that GrapheneOS has been targeted with relentless harassment and libel towards our team for years. It's common to target our team members baselessly claiming we're insane, delusional and schizophrenic. Your own replies make it clear you're aware of the years of attacks on our team and why we'd have an issue with your reply even without the direct context you made it in.

2026-07-24 20:58:42 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…x48d Your post was made in the context of supporting the person who made the posts linked above. All of this was done in the context of relentless harassment and libel towards our team for many years including from Kiwi Farms and their supporters. You showed up in the thread t derail it with completely non-sequitur reply not having any relation to it with disingenuous arguments. You doubled down on it. You did it in support of the attacks by the person who was making personal attacks.

2026-07-24 20:36:29 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…qfmh @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…yuhp @nprofile…dey5 Building and signing themselves is a massive issue due to the careless way many things are handled. If they did a very good job and took the great care it merits then it wouldn't be a huge liability.
They only use their reproducible builds system for a tiny subset of what they ship and it's still problematic. Disagreements between F-Droid and app developers result in indefinitely not receiving updates through it anymore with it.

2026-07-24 20:26:19 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt
> this is the wonder of natural language. imprecise as ever.
It's a deliberately misleading marketing approach for products and projects. Most of those companies and projects go out of the way to mislead people about GrapheneOS. Many have participated in personal attacks on our team including harassment too. You can portray them as people doing good and making the world a better place if you want, but we don't agree based on what we've experienced.

2026-07-24 20:22:06 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt
> "Linux phones" generally represent freedom from vendor lock-in
As long as you ignore the software people are increasingly locked into using including systemd.
> viable implementations of it currently use the Linux kernel (because there's no alternative worth a damn)
Not at all the case. If you're throwing out the privacy, security, usability, functionality and app compatibility of AOSP on mobile then you might as well be using a microkernel too...

2026-07-24 20:19:28 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt
> I'd love to be able to take my apps with me to any kernel and init system and compositor
You're talking about doing it across Unix-like operating systems failing to provide a modern privacy and security model or features. Those aren't portable elsewhere. They lock people into a legacy approach which increasingly fails to keep people safe. Android app model is increasingly close to what we want as the starting point and we can actually deal with it.

2026-07-24 20:17:20 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt
> an important part must be cross-platform applications and technologies that interoperate and can be granularly swapped out if one component fails or is unmaintained or whatever
Desktop Linux is not built that way and is increasingly moving away from it. The projects taking control of the direction including systemd and GNOME do not have anything close to aligned goals/approaches with us when it comes to privacy or security. Their software reflects that.

2026-07-24 20:13:27 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt
> it's not then desirable to have applications that are "largely written for specifically Linux" because then, if you want to replace Linux, you're screwed.
The software stack you're talking about for desktops is far worse because it's not designed to work in a sandboxed environment. It isn't built to interact with a proper permission model and especially obtaining access via case-by-case user consent. Bolting it on results in very poor usability.

2026-07-24 20:11:49 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt GrapheneOS has a massive software ecosystem of apps running across Android compatible operating systems. That includes a large ecosystem of open source apps.
> a lot of people want to not rely entirely on a single entity
Desktop Linux has many dependencies on projects from 1 company or developer. AOSP is open source and there are far more developers working on AOSP outside of Google than there are developers working on core projects for desktop Linux OSes.

2026-07-24 19:34:29 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…0qul @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 Our index page needs a major overhaul and isn't a good overview of what the project provides. Our features page is missing a lot of what we provide but is a far better overview of the project.
The index page gives the wrong impression that a major focus of the project is avoiding Google apps and services when it's really just the outcome of avoiding any third party apps or services along with not giving privileged access to those in general.

2026-07-24 19:33:14 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…ppje @nprofile…s997 @nprofile…rt5d @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 Android isn't the only non-GNU Linux distribution but for some reason people are arbitrarily accepting those being Linux while saying Android isn't.

2026-07-24 19:32:26 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…yuhp @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 For years, GrapheneOS and users of other AOSP-based OSes have run into confusing errors caused by F-Droid package name reuse. People will do something like installing the F-Droid build of Aurora Store in one profile, then try to install the official developer release in another profile. This triggers an error due to the package name reuse. Android expects each package name to be globally unique for each app variant including alternate signers.

2026-07-24 19:31:12 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…yuhp @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 It will remain possible to install apps from developers who don't register apps with their signing keys regardless.
We dealt with avoiding the upcoming warning for the apps we distribute for use outside of GrapheneOS. We're well aware of what the process involves.
F-Droid could easily avoid the warning for everything they build and sign themselves. Fixing the package names to be unique would also solve other issues they currently have.

2026-07-24 19:28:51 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…yuhp @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 F-Droid could make a Google Play organization for the project as a whole and add all the apps they package as the ones owned by them. That would avoid having any warnings show.
The warnings are entirely avoidable. The actual blocker is their reuse of package names not belonging to them. They can build and sign each app twice and have all new installs use the org.fdroid. package name prefix. This would avoid the warnings after registering each.

2026-07-24 19:24:44 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…yuhp @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 F-Droid builds and signs most apps they distribute themselves. They always should have prefixed the package names with org.fdroid. or another reverse domain they own to follow the best practices of all app variants being unique with a reverse domain owned by the signer. Their current approach has caused issues for years including F-Droid releases conflicting with developer releases across profiles which causes error messages for end users.

2026-07-24 19:23:03 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…yuhp @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 F-Droid already has registered developers and isn't unwilling to register, so they're perfectly capable of avoiding the warning (not block) for all of the apps they package. It's the fact that they reused package names belonging to other developers against the best practices for Android which is the real issue. They can't legitimately claim to own the package names for other developers and shouldn't do that even with permission from them.

2026-07-24 19:21:37 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…yuhp @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 That's not happening and you're proving our point about them misleading people about it. It will remain possible to install arbitrary apps signed by anyone on Google Mobile Services Android devices. Anyone telling you it won't be possible to install arbitrary apps on their devices anymore has misled you either intentionally or unintentionally. In this case, they know better and are making misleading posts because they think it helps oppose it.

2026-07-24 19:14:34 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…dwjp @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 Android also doesn't require any changes to the Linux kernel anymore. It's outdated information. Android fully moved to eBPF and other features they helped get into the kernel. It has no required downstream kernel changes anymore itself. The hardware vendors still typically write their drivers as out-of-tree code but that's not Android specific. 0 changes are needed to the core kernel for it to run with full functionality. It only has minor optional changes.

2026-07-24 19:11:32 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…0qul @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 Android was definitely heavily marketed as being Linux at the beginning and for years after launch. It wouldn't be marketed as that now when it has far more name recognition and awareness than the Linux kernel does itself.
You've linked to documentation for Android OS developers (source.android.com) not even aimed at Android app developers. The page you linked isn't about AOSP from a technical perspective. It's an organizational perspective.

2026-07-24 19:10:12 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…0qul @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 Android was definitely heavily marketed as being Linux at the beginning and for years after launch. It wouldn't be marketed as that now when it has far more name recognition and awareness than the Linux kernel does itself.
You've linked to documentation for Android OS developers (source.android.com) not even aimed at Android app developers. The page you linked explains what the Android Open Source Project from an organizational perspective.

2026-07-24 19:06:24 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…8kpe Misleading people with nonsensical arguments and misdirection didn't work so you've moved on to bullying. It's very typical for these projects and communities. The leadership and developers of most of those projects engage in the same tactics. They're going to continue losing and will ultimately fail.
Linux won on mobile. Mobile has a much higher barrier to entry for success than desktops at this point. People don't particularly want systemd and XDG on mobile, so you call it Linux.

2026-07-24 18:59:09 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z3n8 @nprofile…8kpe There are far more non-Google Android OS developers than there are desktop Linux developers. Android without Google is a vastly more viable project than desktop Linux on mobile. It has already lost and it will continue losing.
Copyleft software was already dying out to permissively licensed software including rewrites. Copyright is increasingly ineffective and there's strong consensus among the people who write the rules that AI can be used to completely bypass it.

2026-07-24 18:55:10 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z3n8 @nprofile…8kpe Google cannot take back AOSP being open source, that's not how it works. The existing versions will always be open source. It's still a far better starting point even without them. Your attempt at a statistic on how much they write is completely wrong, and you greatly underestimate how many non-Google Android OS developers there are. There are a massive number of very serious forks of AOSP including projects which heavily branched away from it already in the past.

2026-07-24 18:51:29 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…s997 @nprofile…rt5d @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Most people aware of Linux are aware that it's the defacto standard operating system for servers. Saying Linux but meaning XDG desktop standards and systemd is unusual. Those are much younger than Linux and most people do not mean that whole software stack used on most desktop Linux distributions when they say Linux.
They're being called Linux phones to market them as products. It's inaccurate and it's going to face a lot of pushback due to it.

2026-07-24 18:47:56 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…s997 @nprofile…rt5d @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 GrapheneOS is a Linux distribution and has always been described as one. It started as largely being a mobile Linux kernel hardening project branched off from doing that work for a desktop distribution (Arch Linux).
GrapheneOS phones are Linux phones, as are the vast majority of phones people use. We aren't going to accept the gatekeeping around what is or isn't Linux on mobile.
Bringing systemd and XDG to mobile isn't bringing Linux to it.

2026-07-24 18:43:18 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt GrapheneOS has hardware accelerated virtualization able to run other operating systems. It includes Android's standard Debian-based image for the virtualization app. It has graphics with GPU acceleration based on gfxstream, audio input/output, file sharing and more. It's called Terminal and presents itself as a terminal emulator but it's based on virtualization rather than being another native Android terminal emulators and isn't limited to terminal usage.

2026-07-24 18:41:12 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt A cross-platform project which runs on FreeBSD is not specifically Linux software. Using cross-platform software that's not Linux specific clearly isn't what makes something into a Linux distribution. None of glibc, bash, GNU coreutils, Wayland, etc. is specific to Linux. Android, like systemd, is written specifically for Linux. Android apps are also largely written specifically for Android and the Linux kernel. If anything, the claims are backwards.

2026-07-24 18:39:38 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt If people mean systemd and XDG desktop standards then they should say that rather than gatekeeping what it means to be a Linux distribution.
Android apps are by far the most popular form of Linux applications. Android apps are largely written specifically to run on Android including the Linux kernel. Desktop Linux applications are largely cross-platform code with only a tiny amount of Linux-specific code for portability. It largely runs outside Linux too.

2026-07-24 18:36:45 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…z4st @nprofile…dey5 @nprofile…c8pt This attempt at retroactively creating a rationale for it isn't valid. It's not consistent to accept that desktop, server, mobile and embedded distributions with a vastly different userspace not using those things are Linux while arbitrarily excluding Android. Linux also predates Wayland and XDG as a whole. It predates Flatpak. A distribute without Wayland and Flatpak isn't somehow not Linux. It's also inconsistent with what's listed and claimed elsewhere.

2026-07-24 18:29:48 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…uxdr @nprofile…rt5d @nprofile…s997 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Both AOSP and traditional desktop Linux distributions only follow POSIX standards up the point that it makes sense for their goals and no further.
AOSP design is largely based around having mandatory sandboxing for apps and a well-defined base OS developed together with a security focus. Most of the differences leading to people claiming it's not Linux are due to this, but they make a special case for Android and not other projects.

2026-07-24 18:07:14 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…7ula Google Mobile Services Android will still support installing arbitrary apps. They're adding a warning for installing apps signed by developers without a verified Google account. They're not disallowing installing those. There won't be a warning for installing our App Store or apps from it on Google Mobile Services Android because we added the signing keys to our Google account. F-Droid's main problem is that they reused package names not belonging to them against best practices.

2026-07-24 18:04:34 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…8kpe AOSP does have an open userspace. AOSP is fully open source.
It's unclear what criteria you're using to define Linux phone when SailfishOS with their own user interface and application layer that's largely closed source is Linux but AOSP is not.
There's also a much larger open source mobile app ecosystem for AOSP-based operating systems. A lot of our userbase solely uses open source apps.
Android brought Linux to the masses on personal computers. You simply want to gatekeep it.

2026-07-24 17:50:07 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…8kpe It doesn't make any sense to claim GrapheneOS isn't Linux while acknowledging Alpine Linux, embedded Linux, ChromeOS and many other distributions substantially different from traditional desktop distributions are Linux.
Linus Torvalds considers all of these to be Linux including Android. It's the Linux kernel he created which makes it Linux, not GNU or systemd. It's not using a particular userspace which makes it Linux and it's strange to accept that for everything but AOSP-based OSes.

2026-07-24 17:42:54 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…s997 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 GrapheneOS was created as an offshoot of working on desktop Linux hardening with PaX, grsecurity, allocator and compiler-based hardening. We have always considered it a Linux distribution and have always described it as such.
We did not ask for GrapheneOS to be included in their list and didn't reply to that post. This is a discussion platform and we participated in a discussion where we were explicitly mentioned.
We're not the ones being disingenuous.

2026-07-24 17:39:04 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…8kpe Android phones are Linux phones. It's factual and it's how the founder of Linux who still leads the project talks about it. Linus Torvalds considers Android to be Linux and Android users to be users of his project.
Due to the Android OS family, Linux distributions are the most widely used family of operating systems on personal computers.
We develop a Linux distribution and regularly contribute to upstream Linux.
What makes any of you gatekeepers for what is or isn't a Linux distro?

2026-07-24 17:29:46 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…s997 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 People gatekeeping the term Linux when it comes to Android are somehow fine with referring to vastly different desktop, server and embedded Linux distributions with a different libc, init, shell, core utilities and now even compilers as being Linux. It's not a consistent position. It's strange to claim we're the ones being disingenuous. Most people are running a Linux distribution are their phones. Linux is not only for technical people aware of it.

2026-07-24 17:18:00 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…s997 @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Linux doesn't mean glibc, systemd, X11/Wayland, PulseAudio/PipeWire and GNOME/KDE. Android apps are Linux apps.
There are very few major apps specific to desktop Linux. The commercial ones are mostly also on macOS and Windows. Open ones often run on FreeBSD, etc. too even if they don't run on macOS and Windows. GIMP and Krita are cross-platform apps, not Linux specific apps. A huge portion of Android apps are Linux specific without a compatibility layer.

2026-07-24 17:12:27 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Most people in the world are using Linux on at least one of their personal computers. Android phones are Linux phones. Linux doesn't mean glibc, systemd and GNOME. It never has and it's not how the project itself uses the term. Linus Torvalds considers Android to be Linux, as do Greg KH and other maintainers. Linux distributions are the most widely used operating system family for personal computers. There's no point in gatekeeping it.

2026-07-24 17:07:49 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…75s8 @nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 No, that's completely untrue. Android moved away from requiring downstream changes to the Linux kernel years ago. Modern Android works with mainline, stable and LTS kernels.
Android has branches of the upstream LTS kernels with additional backports but also works directly with the upstream LTS kernels. The minimum kernel version for a major Android release is higher when using an upstream kernel since they backport and depend on features.

2026-07-24 16:50:33 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Android's open source app ecosystem is far larger than what's in F-Droid and has been successful despite the many ways F-Droid has held it back and kept it from being taken as seriously as it should be.
F-Droid is now effectively trying to sabotage it because they don't want to deal with overhauling their packaging to use unique package names as it always should have done.
Google isn't doing anything which kills F-Droid, it's F-Droid which is doing that...

2026-07-24 16:35:06 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Moving to a microkernel from Linux would be a great way to make enormous progress on privacy, security and stability.
Moving away from POSIX / Linux APIs for the OS to more modern ones designed around privacy and security would be nice too but is far harder and impractical since app compatibility is important for success.
Moving to a microkernel with a compatibility layer is realistic. It would also be even bigger progress if it was largely memory safe too.

2026-07-24 16:33:36 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Android Open Source Project has far better privacy and security than traditional desktop distribution. It has a massive app ecosystem for mobile devices including a very good open source app ecosystem. It's highly usable and functional.
Android's primary privacy and security weakness is being based on the Linux kernel. Linux uses a horrible architecture and programming language from a privacy, security and robustness perspective. It's becoming a bigger issue.

2026-07-24 16:27:47 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Mainstream smartphones other than iPhones are Linux phones and can run be used to run non-Android Linux distributions too.
PinePhones are extremely low end hardware sold at extremely high prices for the components which are used. The hardware/firmware has atrocious security. Non-Android Linux distributions do not require different hardware from Android. Special hardware isn't needed to run non-Android Linux and Android can run on that hardware too anyway.

2026-07-24 16:19:46 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…f4ec @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Android apps are Linux apps. In fact, many are much more Linux specific apps than desktop distribution software which runs on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Windows and other operating systems.
Apps built for glibc-based desktop distributions can be run on GrapheneOS via the hardware accelerated virtual machine management app. That's a way to run other kinds of Linux apps made for the traditional desktop software stack and in the future other OSes too.

2026-07-24 16:17:51 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…ppje @nprofile…dey5 Android is Linux and Android apps are Linux apps. Linux doesn't mean glibc, systemd and GNOME. Your posts about this are based on a false premise. You're using a definition of Linux which arbitrarily excludes the most widely used family of Linux for personal computers. It's on you to justify why you're excluding Android as being Linux but including any other Linux-based OS with vastly different userspaces. You've arbitrarily excluded anything based on AOSP.

2026-07-24 16:11:20 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…ppje @nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 You should say systemd on mobile if that's what you mean. What else puts an OS using their own closed source UI and application layer (SailfishOS) in the same category as the others while excluding Android? If you're simply including anything that's not based on AOSP while still being based on Linux then you should say non-Android.

2026-07-24 15:01:40 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…c8pt @nprofile…dey5 GrapheneOS is a Linux distribution. It's incorrect to say otherwise. Linux is a kernel and doesn't mean systemd. You don't say Linux when you mean GNU hurd or FreeBSD. Bringing glibc and systemd to mobile is not bringing Linux to mobile.
Based on the fact that one of the operating systems you've listed uses musl rather than glibc, the correct terminology to use would be systemd phones. Bringing systemd to mobile is not the same as bringing Linux to mobile.

2026-07-24 01:36:06 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…dwjp @nprofile…hpz0 You can wipe the device via recovery without this though, but not quickly since you have to reboot into fastboot mode and then go to recovery or use another method.

2026-07-23 19:51:12 UTC

- reply

@nprofile…trls It's very likely caused by your apps and/or networks. You should follow the advice in https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/35721-grapheneos-power-usage-recommendations.