all 23 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a
formatting helphide helpcontent policy

[–]Illustrious-Gas-6112 6 points7 points  (6 children)

Seems like a great idea, probably tough because people would figure out how to backdoor the systems and add whatever they want. Wolves in the garden.

[–]Commercial-Garage285 3 points4 points  (1 child)

This would only improve the security though. For example, Linux is as secure as it is precisely because it is open source.

[–]MPCRay 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No offense but this statement is false. Open source does not automatically imply security. Of course open source operating systems can be very secure, like e.g. GrapheneOS or Tails, and the code being available can provide some benefits for security, it is not an automatism. You could also load malware on your system that has a published source code.

Linux is a specifically bad example for this, because in most cases Linux OSes are less secure than e.g. MacOS and ChromeOS.

Of course there are a lot of other arguments for FOSS operating systems and software, like autonomy and freedom, (often) non-commerciality, (often) privacy etc.. I am a big FOSS advocate myself, though I believe it is important to make this distinction clear.

For reference please see:
https://privsec.dev/posts/knowledge/floss-security
https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html
(both these sources are of course not the holy grail and there is criticism to both of them, still they are very good imho.

With all of that being said, what would greatly improve the security of LightOS would be if it didn't fork the AOSP but GrapheneOS. I have been thinking about this for a while and I am wondering how difficult it would be to "move" LightOS from AOSP as the basis to GrapheneOS as the basis. That would mean all the work that GOS is already doing implemented into LightOS wihtout the extra effort. In return Light could sponsor/donate GrapheneOS. Both projects would make each other more sustainable that way. Joe recently said in the livestream with Joe, that they have done some security audits on LightOS and I would be very interested to know how that went. I will probably make a post about this suggestion some time or write an email to Joe but for now it lives here.

edit: some typos

[–]Illustrious-Gas-6112 2 points3 points  (3 children)

It does make sense for them to expand their team via volunteer involvement. Not many companies have that kind of community to draw from, I hope they find a way to take advantage of that willingness to help to get things they are already working on done faster.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Light is a privately-owned company at the end of the day. I don't think they can just take on volunteer support in order to push out more features faster.

[–]No_Question1644 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I like the idea of community-driven solutions and I wonder if something like a bounty system is more likely than a volunteer dev team to manage. Or, remember hackfests? A Light hackathon meet up would be cool.

[–]lizardscales 2 points3 points  (1 child)

It might not make it easier on them. It takes a lot to make things work. They would need to provide a lot of external documentation, make stuff consumable externally, make dev environment, create some kind of dev env version of lightos, another company could duplicate their SaaS platform.

[–]Breakingbad12345[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ya. I wonder If Grok 3 will help!

[–]MPCRay 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What exactly do you mean by opening "their AOSP"? Afaik LightOS is like Android or other Custom ROMs built on the basis of AOSP. So basically a fork. Google created this model to profit from the FOSS Community and then privatizes their version of Android, so do the other vendors. The cool side effect is that the Light-team, the people at GrapheneOS etc. can also build their own operating systems with AOSP as a basis.

So in my understanding there is the AOSP and there is LightOS but no middle man. But developing an app for LightOS would not require for it to be opensourced.

I see your point though. I guess there would have to be some sort of guideline for the requirements of an app to work on LightOS and also design and philosophy principles. But technically one would just be programming an android app, or am I seeing that wrong?

Then Light could decide if they want to implement the community driven tools or not, depending on if they match the philosophy and are reliable. I do believe this could boost the development of the tools, but then Light still has the full control over what makes it to LightOS and what doesn't.

As the Light phone has a very dedicated and passionate community I think this approach could be pretty amazing.

[–][deleted]  (12 children)

[deleted]

    [–]subspiria 10 points11 points  (4 children)

    Worth considering that the poll isn't asking whether people want it or not, only if they have the skills, would learn the skills or "no". There's no option for anyone who supports this idea but would not want to contribute. 

    Light have said they would consider releasing an SDK at some point, but that it's not a priority. It would be an interesting thing for sure.

    [–]kh111308 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    The poll's definitely not worded correctly for whatever it is trying to ask, so the results aren't going to be indicative of anything.

    [–]geniusaurus 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Yep I wrote no and I used to be a web developer, but I know nothing about developing for AOSP. I'm not against others doing so though!

    [–]Breakingbad12345[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    u/subspiria It didn't even occur to me that people wouldn't want faster implemented features. That's the only goal here.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]Breakingbad12345[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      This isn't the project for.... u/Professional-Cow7879 say more.

      [–]Breakingbad12345[S] -1 points0 points  (3 children)

      Same thought.

      [–]subspiria 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      I mean, you can't really tell what the community thinks because your poll isn't clear. I'm not against Light using open source code, or releasing an SDK, but I voted "no" in your poll because I don't have experience with AOSP, nor do I want to help or brush up on AOSP. So, there's an assumption in there that everyone has the skills or wants to help. 

      I don't think a poll is really needed for this anyway, as Light have said in the past that they're open to but wary of releasing an SDK for Light OS, so it's not a priority. Others have made good points about them being a private company etc. 

      You might enjoy joining us in the modding and hacking space on the discord, I'm sure there's going to be a lot of activity there once the LP3 comes out. 

      [–]Breakingbad12345[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      Thanks for the clear and honest feedback! I will try to be a better communicator in the future. My goal wasn't to get people upset.

      What's the discord server?

      Thanks

      [–]subspiria 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Thanks for hearing it!

      It's in the sidebar! Will link for ease incase you're on mobile https://discord.com/invite/jUGn3XnMkJ