Thread

GrapheneOS has fixed the Android 17 QPR1 kernel performance regression

142 points · 102 comments · Cider9986

mmooss · 1790974594 · focus · HN ↗
[dead]
1. Dezvous · 1790976821 · focus · HN ↗
  >Just zip it, be professional, focus on what you are doing and not on others.
  How do you propose they "focus on what [they're] doing and not on others" when their entire project is dependent on other's (Google's) work that directly impacts their own users? There's nothing about this blog post that is unprofessional. GrapheneOS released a patch for a rather severe performance bug, which is outside the scope of their normal work, so they provided context into why they made the decision to do so.
  1. andrewaylett · 1790978533 · focus · HN ↗
    Look to "HugOps" as inspiration: when someone else is having a bad day, offer them a hug rather than running them down.
    The article uses phrases like "completely broken", "awful", and "<delay> wouldn't be a surprise". Which might be true but it's not helping.
    grapheneos · 1791058090 · 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.
    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. More info at <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=49946698">https://news.ycombinator.com/edit?id=49946698.
    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.
    mmooss · 1791059530 · focus · HN ↗
    You're missing an essential point, it seems, about public communication (and behavior): It doesn't matter what the other guy does. Google's conduct is irrelevant here. I care about GOS, not Google. The question is, what is best for GrapheneOS? GOS may be competely justified in their criticisms of Google, but that doesn't matter at all:
    * If GOS is justified in their criticisms and tone, and expresses them, and it harms GOS's relationship with Google (problematic as it is), then it causes GOS harm.
    * If GOS is not justified in their criticisms and tone, and expresses them, and it harms GOS's relationship with Google (problematic as it is), then it causes GOS the exact same harm.
    So if you're thinking about justification, you are distracted - it doesn't matter. 'What is best for GOS' is the only question, and what is best is very likely to not antagonize the company and its employees when GOS is at their mercy entirely. What is best is to find a way to work with them and form as solid a bond as possible (and have a plan B if they screw you).
    We all have to work with people we don't like and who treat us poorly; that's life when you have higher priorities.
    grapheneos · 1791075418 · focus · HN ↗
    We no longer have any ongoing collaboration or communication with Google due to their hostility towards open source projects based on Android. We aren't completely at their mercy. Google are facing major regulatory and legal action around the world. The future of Android is as an independent company forcefully split away from Google. Once Google has to compete in the market on fair terms rather than exerting coercive control over Android OEMs through multiple monopolies, they'll want all of their apps and services to run on GrapheneOS. We look forward to once again working with the upstream Android engineers once they're no longer held hostage by bean counters laying off their coworkers and ruining the project they work on.
    The Android team is barely allowed to talk to us or the general public anymore, so what relationship is there to preserve? They'll very likely handle this whole issue with near complete silence towards the media and everyone else. A fix will eventually ship and they'll very likely never acknowledge it beyond a sentence in the release notes, will never explain what went wrong and won't commit to doing better in the future. They likely won't do better but rather worse since they keep doing more cost cutting including layoffs.
    mmooss · 1791078869 · focus · HN ↗
    > We no longer have any ongoing collaboration or communication with Google due to their hostility towards open source projects based on Android.
    Maybe that's partly due to GOS's behavior toward Google and its engineers. For example, maybe there would be more workarounds and back channels otherwise.
    > The future of Android is as an independent company forcefully split away from Google.
    You are putting a lot of eggs in that quite uncertain and unlikely basket (given how impossible it is to predict the future and also the very wide range of possibilities). Splitting Google hasn't happened yet, anywhere, despite many attempts.
    If they do split, there's no reason to think Android will be independent: It could be part of a larger subset of Google, even 'old' Google. It could be sold to another large company - many would love to control half the world's phones, if only to guarantee their applications are easiest to use and competitors can be disrupted (e.g., Meta or Microsoft could benefit enormously - and Microsoft could finally extend its OS business to phones).
    Even if independent, why would Android act the way you hope? Who will run it - who will its shareholders and managers be? Likely current many Google shareholders and managers would be part of the spin-off. There's no reason to think they - or even completely new people - will be more supportive of FOSS; they could go the other way.
    GOS is amazing. I don't know you so likely this is off-target to some degree - my apologies: Many engineers have learned, through defeat or success, that they need more than great engineering to get their passion into people's hands and change the world. Just as essential - more essential (lots of poor engineering is widely used!) - are great business skills. There's no shame in it: very few people can do it all (who is both a great engineer and great business manager?), and none have time to do both.
    I hope someday the world knows 'Graphene' and a billion use it. It's one of the most important projects around - how else can typical end users have a chance at privacy? Good luck!

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.