we need linux phones ASAP
We had a few good Linux phones back in the day but Nokia / Microsoft killed them trying to compete with iPhone OS and Android: Maemo / Meego were great but did not get a proper chance.
Jolla continued the legacy and Sailfish OS is still something worth checking out if you can find suitable hardware, or idk how complex it is to port it.
Seems to be new Jolla phone coming up at some point too: https://forum.sailfishos.org/t/next-gen-jolla-phone/23882
The Jolla was probably my favorite phone, but it broke so easily. I really hope they make something more sturdy this time around.
They exist. People just don’t buy them. But there is a Ubuntu phone port you can install on your phone as an alternative to android.
But yeah it can get complicated like any Linux community project and isn’t at all mainstream.
People don’t buy them because they don’t fucking work.
I think Linux phones will gain some real traction within five years. Last I heard, KDE is putting great effort into making apps for Plasma Mobile
I’ll believe it when I see it.
Does anyone know if existing linux phones can run 2FA apps such as Duo or Google authenticator?
Or better apps like Aegis?
What is it with you people trying your best to get away from google but still using the most exchangeable app they have.Lots of jobs require BYOD today (like, most F500 companies) and they limit to non-rooted OSs. I use Aegis for personal apps but I cannot escape microsoft as long as I want to keep paying my mortgage.
Aegis has nothing to do with rooted OSs.
If you mean Push-2FA, than that’s another story entirely.I’m talking about MS Authenticator
Why do you need the google Authenticator? Proton has it too. Which (from searching) looks like it’s compatible for the Ubuntu systems. But that’s just from the search. I ‘m personally just using it with a android right now. I am currently eyeing up the fairphone Ubuntu as my next phone
Why do you need the google Authenticator?
Systems at work use google authenticator for 2FA. Prior jobs have used Duo.
Google Authenticator is merely a generic TOTP token storage app. The person you’re replying to was pointing out that Google Authenticator, specifically, isn’t necessary. There are alternatives, and unless you’re using a company-owned device that restricts the apps you can use there is no way for work to dictate which app you use for TOTP tokens.
Duo, Okta Verify, and other 2FA apps that use push notifications and such, are a different beast altogether.
they are interchangeable. you can export from google to use in proton. I’ve set all my google logins to proton too. I’ve not experienced this ‘locked in’ situation if you’re using your own phone to run the app.
My work has me using 3 different 2FA apps depending on what service I’m accessing. It’s great! Especially with the noticable battery consumption increase after setting up 2 more 2FA apps than I had before
Same reason collectivist people like social media censorship and gun control, to make them feel “safe” even though all it does is centralize power. Besides hi ow many people have the tech skills to even know what third party app repositories are?
They can run Keeppass, which does TOTP. It doesn’t do push notifs, like Duo does, though.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Right, because side-loading is called “installing” on Linux
“Google stands for free and open internet”
https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/public-policy/keep-internet-free-and-open/
Aged like milk.
Don’t be evilBe evil when it makes money.
And of course the motto should have been, “Don’t do evil.” That would have been a respectable goal. But it wasn’t, because even back then they only wanted to be slightly better than Microsoft.
aged like a corpse in a bathtub more like it.
Mmmm head cheese
Don’t be something or other, hey check out this week’s doodle!
I’m starting to think these for-profit companies only care about making money.
gulp You might be right
Let’s hope that the rest of the world, specifically Europe smash this ridiculous proposal apart for what it is. Europe has already sorted out USB-C etc. Its not perfect and they don’t get everything right, but certainly big enough to make stuff right.
They’re too busy forcing chat control and age gates through our collective throats.
Yep. The E.U. has allowed itself to be dominated for too long by the US megacorps. It has the talent, ideas, and manufacturing to tell US firms to bugger off … and the sooner, the better for us all.
Unless you want hillbilly outrage slop destabilising your continent, you better get control away from American tech companies.
they are also going hard on surveillance, private info too, backed by RU of course.i think russell vought is behind the anti-porn verifications in the EU
At this stage the EU probably pushed Google to do this. They’ve taken a sharp turn to authoritarianism.
I think the European leadership has changed and we need to watch our elected officials. However don’t think Google was pushed into anything. They’re now he company that does the opposite of their original manifesto. They’re evil don’t need that.
Isn’t this illegal in Europe? Was that the whole point of forcing apple to allow alternative app stores?
Technically, third party app stores are allowed. Developers “only” register with google to receive a developer certificate. Isn’t apple doing the same thing in response to the EU regulations and that has been allowed?
Seems like a weasel around the requirement to get rid of the actual benefit of 3rd party stores.
I can’t believe how useless the EU regulations are.
It’s because they regularly overstep their bounds and force overseas companies to do things they have no right to make them do, which actively hurt their business. Of course companies are going to do their very best to comply while making it have as little impact as possible!
If you have a Mac, have you ever tried installing an app and have it refuse because it’s not signed by Apple, and then you had to go into settings and click “allow anyway?”
This is that, except without the allow anyway feature, like iOS. It doesn’t matter if it comes from the play store or elsewhere, as this story originally had us believe.
No, Google is following Apple’s exmaple.
What pisses me off it that they say they do this for security. It changes absolutely anything.
They really think that malware developers will say “oh no! I need to submit a picture of an id card to sign my malware! It’s literally impossible to submit a jpg of a stolen id card, I’m ruined and out of a job!”
What does it change? Waste 20 minutes of some malware developer while they register under a stolen id? They already have a system that scans for known malware and automatically remove it.
It’s always security when someone wants to take our freedom away. Always security…
Not always. It can also be about the children.
About keeping the children safe
That’s also security.
Not really, it’s more about children not being exposed to things usually. Hence starting with age requirements for porn and they move forward to other things.
“Protecting the children from harmful content and predators”, “protecting people from terrorists and criminals”, “protecting users from hackers” are all forms of security, and are all used as arguments to erode freedoms.
It all boils down to: just give up this bit of freedom so we can keep everyone safe.
Thing is, Play Store is already filled with malware or near-malware from seemingly verified developers. I ran into several scam clone apps just today. It’s even snuck in through OEM apps.
Same on iOS, which supposedly verifies devs.
If ‘verification’ and curation is their idea of security, well… It appears their system is already overloaded, yet they want to expand it?
That was fundamentally F-Droid’s retort.
It’s absolutely insane that anyone pretends Google Play and the App Store are fine though.
Has anyone scrolled through any search and not seen a sea of heavily marketed scam apps?
Of course they know that. It’s about power and money. After all, they already have a security program that filters out malware. If we believe their stated reasoning (which we don’t), they’re tacitly admitting that their current security program is a complete failure, and also that they will not try to fix it.
Both things can be true. It definitely is better for security. It’s pretty much indisputably better for security.
But you know what would be even better for security? Not allowing any third-party code at all (i.e., no apps).
Obviously that’s too shitty and everyone would move off of that platform. There’s a balance that must be struck between user freedom and the general security of a worldwide network of sensitive devices.
Users should be allowed to do insecure things with their devices as long as they are (1) informed of the risks, (2) prevented from doing those things by accident if they are not informed, and (3) as long as their actions do not threaten the rest of the network.
Side-loading is perfectly reasonable under those conditions.
It’s pretty much indisputably better for security.
I dispute this. While adding extra layers of security looks good on paper, flawed security can be worse than no security at all.
Android packages already have to be signed to be valid and those keys already are very effective in practice. In effect these new measures are reinventing the wheel as to what a layperson would think this new system does.
Adding this extra layer in fact has no actual security benefit beyond posturing/“deterrence”. Catching a perpetrator is not the same thing as preventing a crime. Worse - catching a thief in meatspace has the potential to recover stolen goods, but not so in digital spaces - either the crime is damage or destruction of data for which no punishment undoes the damage or the crime is sharing private data which in practice would almost certainly have been immediately fenced to multiple data brokers.
And were only getting started with this security theater:
- Nothing prevents an organization from hiring a developer for long enough to register before being flushed (or the same effect with a burner account on fiver)
- Nothing in this program does anything to get code libraries vetted - many of these developers may accidentally be publishing code from poisoned wells that they have no practical knowledge of.
- None of these measures make scams less profitable.
- None of this addresses greyware - software that could technically qualify as legal (because the user agreed to terms of service for a service of dubious value)
- All of this costs time and resources that will likely inevitably be shouldered on low paid engineers that could have put that effort to better uses.
- Metrics and statistics may likely be P-hacked to reflect that the new system as a success (because there’s internal pressure to make it look good) this turning-security-into-press-releases would have collateral of making accountability overall worse.
But you know what would be even better for security?
While we’re at it we could add the tropes of removing network connectivity, or switch to using clay tablets kept in a wooden box guarded by a vengeful god. Both of those would be more secure, too.
Users should be allowed to do insecure things with their devices
100% agree with you here - it’s fundamentally the principle of “Your liberty to swing your fist ends just where my nose begins”. Users should be given the tools and freedom to do as they want with their property - up until it affects another person or their property in an unwanted way.
I think we mostly agree. And I do agree that “flawed security can be worse than no security at all.” I think, though, that this doesn’t make security worse, just that it doesn’t make it that much better.
But even simple filters can make a significant difference: maybe you remember the early-ish Lemmy debacle of turning off captchas for signups by default, ostensibly because captchas are now completely defeated… which led to thousands and thousands of bot accounts being created pretty much immediately across a bunch of instances, and the feature being turned back on by default.
I’ll agree to that.
And I also think that there’s no way I trust Alphabet (holding company of Google) to be the sole arbiters of who gets to run code - neither in a philosophical sense nor as a gatekeeper to one top five compute platforms used by a substantial chunk of the world population.
It absolutely does not justify creating a policy that would wholesale obliterate F-Droid, arguably one of their larger competitors.
100% agree
deleted by creator
I don’t think it’s going to be as simple to verify as uploading a pic of an id
If it’s like the play store verification, it’s quite simple. The main problem is that once “verified”, Google publicly doxxes individual devs by publishing their residential address + private phone number + private Gmail on their dev page, and this is unacceptable for anyone except who used stolen identities
deleted by creator
For those in Europe, write your representatives.
Fro me f-droid’s post: https://f-droid.org/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html
What do we propose?
Regulatory and competition authorities should look carefully at Google’s proposed activities, and ensure that policies designed to improve security are not abused to consolidate monopoly control. We urge regulators to safeguard the ability of alternative app stores and open-source projects to operate freely, and to protect developers who cannot or will not comply with exclusionary registration schemes and demands for personal information.
If you are a developer or user who values digital freedom, you can help. Write to your Member of Parliament, Congressperson or other representative, sign petitions in defense of sideloading, and contact the European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) team to express why preserving open distribution matters. By making your voice heard, you help defend not only F-Droid, but the principle that software should remain a commons, accessible and free from unnecessary corporate gatekeeping.
https://f-droid.org/2025/09/04/twif.html [^antifeatures]: F-Droid Anti-Features overview: https://f-droid.org/docs/Anti-Features/ [^howmanyusers]: How many F-Droid users are there, exactly? We don’t know, because we don’t track users or have any registration. “No user accounts, by design”: https://f-droid.org/2022/02/28/no-user-accounts-by-design.html [^sideloading]: ‘“Sideload” is a weird euphemism that the mobile duopoly came up with; it means “installing software without our permission,” which we used to just call “installing software” (because you don’t need a manufacturer’s permission to install software on your computer).’ — Pluralistic: Darth Android: https://pluralistic.net/2025/09/01/fulu/ [^playprotect]: “Google Play Protect checks your apps and devices for harmful behavior”: https://support.google.com/googleplay/answer/2812853
do we have a contact tool like for chat control?
Ah, you mean https://fightchatcontrol.eu/.
I am not aware of anything yet, apart from what the article suggests. https://digital-markets-act.ec.europa.eu/contact-dma-team_en
I will literally go without a smartphone if Google does this, this is insane I would have bought an iphone if I wanted a junk device I don’t actually own.
If this effects de-googled android, I will probably start investing in Linux phones.
I would rather have a limited phone than has full freedom than one that makes everyone go through Google.
It won’t. This is for 99% of users with their Google enabled devices. It’s still shit and it will effect the 1% indirectly by the reduction of available software outside the play store.
The crazy part is this may make iOS the better alternative when considering the emergence of third-party app stores and Apple’s loosening grip on their ecosystem.
LineageOS is still a good option too, for anyone who would prefer to keep the phone they have
LineageOS is not really an alternative though, as it will still be hit by this. Please see the comment here: https://lemmy.world/post/36621884/19652276
Not really. They are converging onto the exact same thing. 3rd party stores are allowed, but needs [Google/Apple]'s approval.
If you are big and have teeth (like Epic Games), you will (probably) be allowed, if you are small like a single open source developer, the can shut you down city dubious “security”/“ToS” issue, and you probably don’t have the money to sue.
iOS would be the better alternative, if it wasn’t for the hardware they run on. After all, Apple is infamous for their blatant planned obsolescence on their iPhones since the iPhone 6. Unfortunately, Google seems to be following Apple in this way as well since they launched an update that made the Pixel 6a’s battery so much worse than before. Therefore, we must all have a dumb phone + Linux phone set up…or something
I can agree on Apple not really having a properly supported hardware repair ecosystem, and actively working against third party repair.
But the software? When Samsung and friends had 2-4 years of security updates, Apple had almost twice that. The iPhone XS still has support, 6 years after end-of-sale, 7 years from release. Normal people can’t be expected to flash their phones with LineageOS. The situation is slightly better nowadays, but Samsung still seems to be depreciating 3 year old devices: https://endoflife.date/samsung-mobile
To add, Apple has actually been making amends regarding repairability. It’s small steps, but leagues ahead of what’s offered for popular android manufacturers, while still maintaining their IP68 ratings on most devices.
I can’t speak to how they make their parts available to third parties (seems to be a grey area), but there has been a reasonable focus with the last couple generations of iPhones that ensures the device can be repaired from either side.
Overall, the tide seems to have shifted. If you’re going to be at the mercy of a corporate giant in order to keep up with modernity, then Apple is currently holding the dimly lit torch of consumer rights.
Apple is infamous for their blatant planned obsolescence on their iPhones since the iPhone 6
They learned from it. The phone toggles itself when the battery health is at 80% max capacity, but this is toggleable. Also, the iPhone 11 still runs smooth.
iOS would be the better alternative
- Already can’t “sideload”. iOS will be just as restrictive as Android in 2026-2027.
- Apps immediately gets killed in the background. Can’t even transfer data to a USB Drive without needing to downloading a separate app, and need the app in the foreground.
- iPhones cannot multitask
- Developer account costs $99 **per year. On Google its only a $25 one time fee (for the near future, at least, I can’t predict what they will do in like 2035)
Yeah, if Android effectively kills fdroid, then it essentially becomes like iOS. Whilst you can technically still sideload, apps must get certified by Google themselves and there’s no way they’ll allow 90% of fdroid unless its their Google Play versions.Tbf though, I didn’t know the background thing, which just goes to show that neither of them are ideal. Especially since Apple locks down their devices really hard which turns things like transferring files without a cloud service into a challenge. Therefore, in the future, I might just use a dumb phone for basic phone calls and text messages (meanly just for things like job applications or services like pharmacies) and a Linux phone for everything else. That’s assuming Linux phones have evolved just enough to be usable alongside a dumb phone for what it can’t do, which is SMS.
Apple, with the longest software support on the market, and planned obsolescence don’t go in the same sentence together. Sorry but they are literally the best in the industry in this regard.
Also I assume you’re talking about the “batterygate” thing with the iPhone 6 where they slowed the device down? That was a giant overreaction - the alternative was the phone crashes and reboots constantly.
They both go for the least open option. If asking for all devs registration and validation from google is viable and legally sound, apple will do the same if that’s not already in the pipe.
Both “stores” are targeted for the same issues.
Where are the third party app stores on iOS. Apple is delaying and fighting every inch in the EU.
Owning a phone doesn’t give you control over what the operating system can do. You can so what the OS they give you allows you to do, or you can find a way to put a different os on it - but they don’t need to provide a way for you to do that easily.
Not really sure why this is a hard concept for some people to grasp?
I am perfectly ok with android apps being required to be signed by not just a certificate (they always were just it could be self signed and just needed to match to upgrade without removing data) but a list of trusted entities.
As long as:
- I can install my own key on my phone (I’d I am trusted)
- major distributors like fdroid and have a key installed without friction (like web CAs)
- Google let’s me mark their key as untrusted (I probably won’t but I should be able to refuse things they trust (at install time, not disabling preloaded apps like settings)
Without this it feels too much extending the monopoly despite being forced to allow 3rd party stores.
Open source community keeps trusting Google and they keep using the Embrace, Extend, Extinguish https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
What should anyone have done different? Not built for one of the largest platforms with the most users?
Android is so big because the community let them embrace it. Since the beginning the community should have worked in a true open solution. Now it’s really late to try to make a Linux phone
Luddite. I’ve let AI manage my finances and mortgage for about a month now. Hold on, there’s a knock at the door, some dudes with a big van or something
It doesn’t need to be Linux though - AOSP is still open source. Companies like graphebe using it just needed to not depend on Google to provide them the hardware and software to keep their OS viable. It’s entirely on them.
Google start with open source so they can use open source tools and get a lot of work for free.
But they use the famous Elbrace, E tende and Extinguish. See the things they are doing with the web with Chrome.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish
Linux would suck on a phone. Sorry it is barely usable on a laptop. We get worse battery life hardware less supported. Sure we put up with it but most people just want stuff to work.
This is because the community did not spent too much time optimizing for this goal. This is what I am saying, the open source community should invest more on Linux phone.
Anyone that builds their entire company and/or product around being reliant on a multi-billion/trillion dollar company providing them with their source code for free so you can use it to get around using their services is only setting themselves up for disaster.
If you rely on Google giving you their source code, you need to have a backup plan ready at all times for what to do when Google don’t give you their source code.
The justification is simple, I don’t see the confusion, they want absolute power and for all alternatives to wither and die ? What is there not to understand ?
Linux mobile
Yea… I’m really disappointed with the timing of FuriLabs new phone which is mostly a downgrade over the previous one. I’ve been window shopping phones for a couple of months and am at a loss for what to do. Even spent some time considering a dumb flip phone that can work as a wifi-hotspot and use a small linux tablet or something for the more involved stuff, but couldn’t find a good tablet option that wasn’t huge (would still want it to fit in my pocket) or come with the same problems.
Shift phone 8 from murena?
As far as I can tell, it’s just de-googled android… It is going to have the same eventual problems as any LineageOS, e/OS/, or GrapheneOS phone will have.
Unfortunately we need to come to terms with the fact that 1) Android is not Linux after all of the bastardizations Google has done to it and the control they maintain. 2) We need hardware mfrs on board for fully Open Source drivers for mobile hardware.
Basically all of the Linux phone options I’ve looked at have been disappointing. You’ve got people making open source OS like Sailfish or PostmarketOS or UbuntuTouch, but they only work for pretty narrow (and old) hardware and they don’t get 100% functionality on basically any of the hardware. FuriLabs was the first one I’d seen claiming you could use all of the features of the hardware, but even then it is using a bunch of (basically) compatibility layers to trick android apps into running, so I don’t even know if that will work after Google gets done with their plans.
deleted by creator
“Year of the Linux Phone” has a nice ring to it.
Not for me, no. I love the sandboxing and permissions of android (GrapheneOS). Honestly, desktop OSs should learn from it. Also, android is a lot easier to use, especially on small form factor devices.
Idk about GrapheneOS in particular but I find the sandboxing solutions for GNU/Linux like bubblewrap to be much more granular than standard Android.
“give us access to manage phone calls or we won’t you me answer internet calls (which have nothing to do with actual SIM calls)”, “give us access to all your files or we wont let you share that file via the share function (which doesn’t need fs access to work)”.
On GNU/Linux I can only give a program exactly the resources it needs, I can disallow dbus, I can block it from accessing potentially troublesome things like /dev/dri, can overlay filesystems and pretend that’s my real home dir. Or can just mount the whole / to some other system.
I am not saying android is perfect, but too granular is also bad. I have better things to do then tweaking SELinux policies.
It seems to me that part of the problem is overreliance on phones as computing devices. A lot of things, like banking, are best done on an actual computer. We have become too dependent on phones.
Maybe we have this view because when we refer to computers we see a more open ecosystem that’s not found in the mobile phone era. I want that same liberty with my phone. When the word “sideloading” has disappeared, I think then we have known something has changed.
Your phone has likely much better security for your banking apps than your computer, unless you run really niche setup like QubesOS.
We as a society should be rethinking the term “security”, if it’s come to mean submitting to being jerked around however best suits some private company’s interests instead of our own. If there’s a central platform for its security benefit it should be democratically controlled instead of controlled by what are effectively feudal lords, or perhaps even an occupying force
The security I am talking about has nothing to do with being locked down. Linux could easily implement the same, but it probably never will, because it requires a bit of central management and vision. And Linux really struggles with that.
You’re responding downthread of QubesOS being mentioned
Sure it’s hard to get that kind of security onto mainstream distros. But it exists.
Yeah, I was the one mentioning QubesOS. Since I tried it and didn’t last a week because of how bad the user experience was. I am not a CIA spy, I am looking for a balance of security and usability and android is amazing at that. Sure, some things could be more secure. Sure, I can’t do some things because GrapheneOS can’t be rooted. But the balance is excellent. At least for me.
I’m not sure how it works the way where you live but where I live, the way the banking apps are implemented completely violate MFA. They rely on SMS verification which is absurd since if you’re phone is already compromised, no doubt your SMSes are too. There’s no true multi-device authentication in place and this has led to a huge number of victims being scammed after their devices get compromised by a phishing attack.
The desktop and phone are both insecure, proper security should not have all your eggs in one basket.
Well, yes. But then again, I would trust my GrapheneOS phone not getting compromised over 3 linux devices. MFA is not some ultimate solutions and it is a pain to use.
I mean sure, but that’s not the case for the majority of the user base of these banking apps. Is it the most secure? No but it’s way better than it is right now.
So what is the case for most users? Are normal android phones getting compromised (in a way true 2FA would help) often enough it is an issue? I honestly haven’t seen any statistic regarding this and anecdotally I don’t know anyone whose internet banking was compromised. Whether on phone or desktop.
Yeah, SIM swaps are a concern too.
The phone is not insecure because of all eggs on basket.
You say “security” I say “a bug that won’t let me log in”. Which is it?
There are no banking apps on my computer.
Which is the point. Why do we need this security when the most virus riden PC can access my banking website.
That’s a good point, time to ban banking websites and only allow people with locked-down phones to bank.
no it’s not. takes me 2 seconds to log in into my banking up in my phone. anything basic will take a few taps to do (eg transfer money).
Yeah but it’s “we” as in everyone not “we” as in “Lemmy commenters”.
So the network effect will keep the average person on a locked-down phone that can’t run anything anti-regime
Yep I absolutely refuse to put any banking apps on my phone. The only thing that has access to my bank is me physically going there or logging into their website via my own computer. Fuck any app that asks for access to my bank account including autopay services thorugh third parties.
The only third party serive I use for payments is paypal and that only goes to my credit card.
Yeah guess what happens when access starts to be app-only?
Contact your representative. And here’s F-droid’s article about it (including how to find your representative at the end of the article): https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html
deleted by creator
I’d be more worried about having to send gov ID docs - more creepy control by Google.
You can send them your info for free, but for them to verify your app you need to pay $25
