[5 of 5]
> People often argue that using AOSP will provide access to more software, but that is not necessarily true if the goal is to only use free/open source software (FOSS). Google deliberately obscures the licensing of an app’s code from users by labeling both freeware and FOSS as “free” in its Play Store. There may be more total FOSS among those two million apps in the Play Store than in the Linux repositories, but selecting out the FOSS apps, vetting their code and organizing those apps into a separate repository will not be an easy task.
Vetting apps is an ongoing and imperfect task on desktop Linux as well. The Accrescent app store which is currently in development for Android will in the future offer a filter option to filter actual FOSS apps from proprietary apps. Labelling apps properly really isn't impossible.
> In contrast, Google is constantly changing the standards for its apps and forcing app creators to constantly update their code to keep their apps in the Play Store.
This is also due to the introduction of new privacy and security features that are part of newer SDK levels. That's part of the user empowerment you wanted to see. If Linux would add user-friendly security and privacy features that are mandatory, a lot of apps would also need updating.
> None of this is to suggest that AOSP is necessarily bad or that people currently using AOSP phones should abandon them. AOSP derivatives like LineageOS, crDroid, Evolution X, /e/OS and GrapheneOS provide an invaluable service to people seeking privacy and greater software freedom, plus the ability to extend the lifespan of their phones.
I don't know anything about crDroid and Evolution X, but LineageOS and /e/OS in particular really don't offer people privacy. See the great blog posts from Mike Kuketz which you can translate to your own language about custom OSes and their privacy and security: https://www.kuketz-blog.de/android-grapheneos-calyxos-und-co... . Also, see the comparison of Android OSes by Eylenberg for notable security and privacy differences: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm .
The claim that custom OSes expand the lifespan of phones is often misleading. They need manufacturer support to ship driver and firmware updates and those are necessary to have a properly secured phone. You can't un-EOL a phone by putting a custom OS on it.
> If our goal is the empowerment and greater freedom of people, mobile Linux appears to be a more feasible route to achieve those goals in the long term than AOSP.
There is little empowerment if you can't really decide what you give apps access to.
> People often argue that using AOSP will provide access to more software, but that is not necessarily true if the goal is to only use free/open source software (FOSS). Google deliberately obscures the licensing of an app’s code from users by labeling both freeware and FOSS as “free” in its Play Store. There may be more total FOSS among those two million apps in the Play Store than in the Linux repositories, but selecting out the FOSS apps, vetting their code and organizing those apps into a separate repository will not be an easy task.
Vetting apps is an ongoing and imperfect task on desktop Linux as well. The Accrescent app store which is currently in development for Android will in the future offer a filter option to filter actual FOSS apps from proprietary apps. Labelling apps properly really isn't impossible.
> In contrast, Google is constantly changing the standards for its apps and forcing app creators to constantly update their code to keep their apps in the Play Store.
This is also due to the introduction of new privacy and security features that are part of newer SDK levels. That's part of the user empowerment you wanted to see. If Linux would add user-friendly security and privacy features that are mandatory, a lot of apps would also need updating.
> None of this is to suggest that AOSP is necessarily bad or that people currently using AOSP phones should abandon them. AOSP derivatives like LineageOS, crDroid, Evolution X, /e/OS and GrapheneOS provide an invaluable service to people seeking privacy and greater software freedom, plus the ability to extend the lifespan of their phones.
I don't know anything about crDroid and Evolution X, but LineageOS and /e/OS in particular really don't offer people privacy. See the great blog posts from Mike Kuketz which you can translate to your own language about custom OSes and their privacy and security: https://www.kuketz-blog.de/android-grapheneos-calyxos-und-co... . Also, see the comparison of Android OSes by Eylenberg for notable security and privacy differences: https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm .
The claim that custom OSes expand the lifespan of phones is often misleading. They need manufacturer support to ship driver and firmware updates and those are necessary to have a properly secured phone. You can't un-EOL a phone by putting a custom OS on it.
> If our goal is the empowerment and greater freedom of people, mobile Linux appears to be a more feasible route to achieve those goals in the long term than AOSP.
There is little empowerment if you can't really decide what you give apps access to.