Thread

GrapheneOS has fixed the Android 17 QPR1 kernel performance regression

142 points · 102 comments · Cider9986

mmooss · 1790974594 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
1. palata · 1790980773 · focus · HN ↗
  > But they often choose to denigrate others, which is destructive, damages relationships
  It used to be like that (and to be fair, all the similar communities were contributing to the drama, not just GOS), I agree, but I genuinely feel like it has become a lot more professional lately. Like I haven't seen drama in... at least 6 months?
  Now I almost exclusively see them explain their technical decisions, which is very interesting.
  1. mmooss · 1790981167 · focus · HN ↗
    The OP denigrates Google.
    palata · 1790981925 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh sorry, I thought you were talking about something else. Well... yeah IMO Google deserves it as it (as a company) is predatory.
    Don't get me wrong, there are brilliant engineers at Google and I'm glad they are paid to contribute to open source projects like Android. But it doesn't make Google less evil.
    And criticising a company is very different from "denigrating people". I don't think that the Google entity has feelings, does it?
    mmooss · 1790989624 · focus · HN ↗
    If you have a relationship with a business, try publicly denigrating them and see what the response is. Google the entity has a reputation, and that affects their revenue and reflects strongly on the people who work there - 'Google' means something on a resume.
    palata · 1790990361 · focus · HN ↗
    What relationship does GrapheneOS have with Google? My understanding is that they fork the open source stuff made by Google, and as a response Google (the entity) does everything they can to screw GrapheneOS.
    > Google the entity has a reputation
    Yep: "EvilCorp"
    microtonal · 1791008620 · focus · HN ↗
    Google’s relation with GrapheneOS is: make their lives harder by moving kernel trees from Git to Google Drive with a form that sometimes doesn’t get processed in weeks; block tap-to-pay and a bunch of apps with Play Integrity; closing the AOSP trees and only do major release and QPR2 drops; remove Pixel device trees etc. from AOSP even though they were sold as reference devices.
    HybridStatAnim8 · 1791051642 · focus · HN ↗
    GrapheneOS has no relationship with Google.
    grapheneos · 1791058118 · focus · HN ↗
    Google has been increasingly hostile towards GrapheneOS over the past several years despite our substantial contributions upstream. We've spent years helping Google with vulnerability reports, improvements submitted upstream and multiple proposals for security protections which were implemented for both Android and Pixels. We've been treated incredibly poorly by Google despite our contributions.
    They're trying to limit how many devices can be sold with GrapheneOS by Android OEMs, reduced the number of AOSP releases from 12 to 2 per year with 10 of those now being Pixel exclusive, removed Pixel support from AOSP, unsuccessfully tried to cut us off from early access to security patches which are now allowed to be shipped early by OEMs while under embargo (which we do), are trying to convince app developers to ban using GrapheneOS via the Play Integrity API and even recently funded an AI slop paper with misinformation about GrapheneOS falsely claiming it missed security patches that it did not based on an entirely false premise that it has diverged from AOSP in a way that it hasn't and has to port patches to a diverged fork of the OS which isn't how it works.
    Many of the things Google has done to hinder open source projects based on Android are illegal and they continue doubling down on it despite a lot of regulatory and legal actions already taken against them.
    More info at <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=49946698">https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=49946698.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.