FLflotzam·Nov 25, 2023
As usual, GrapheneOS disables this kind of anti-user restriction:
https://github.com/GrapheneOS/platform_frameworks_base/commi...
In Korean Smartphones Have Mandatory Shutter Sounds, 8 in 10 Want It MutedGrapheneOS
platform_frameworks_base
Java2023–2023
GrapheneOS / platform_frameworks_base
platform_frameworks_base
Discover this repository through its Hacker News conversations.
2Distinct people
2Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
31GitHub stars
What to know before exploring
What it is
A public description has not been verified.
Where it is used
No documented product use has been verified yet.
What people are saying
No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.
No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.
Also in these discussions
No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.
This week on Hacker News
Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 1:49:46 PM UTC.
No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.
Mentions over time
HN mentions by week2 dated mentions
Observed mentions: 2023-09-21 13:05:47 UTC to 2023-11-25 18:56:37 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.
Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.
View mention counts and date ranges
| Period | Start (UTC) | End (exclusive, UTC) | Mentions | Submissions | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 18 | 2023-09-18 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-09-25 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Sep 25 | 2023-09-25 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-10-02 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 2 | 2023-10-02 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-10-09 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 9 | 2023-10-09 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-10-16 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 16 | 2023-10-16 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-10-23 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 23 | 2023-10-23 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-10-30 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Oct 30 | 2023-10-30 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-11-06 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 6 | 2023-11-06 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-11-13 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 13 | 2023-11-13 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-11-20 00:00:00 UTC | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Nov 20 | 2023-11-20 00:00:00 UTC | 2023-11-27 00:00:00 UTC | 1 | 0 | 1 |
What Hacker News says
2 sourcesWith GrapheneOS targeting whatever Pixel as their only primary device (not going to go into whole GSI/DSU thing), there's a "lucky" coincidence of TWRP for all Pixel devices I had (3 to 7a) being broken (keymaster, userdata).
So, if you wanted to add GApps to pre-"Apps" Graphene, it involved either repacking system image, or building your own copy of OS with OpenGApps (had to do it once to get specific e-sim app working iirc). Can confirm that either way was fine, so it was possible to get GApps on Graphene back in 2021, nobody bothered with it though.. what happens next: someone decides that they want to make it nicer for users and goes there by making yet another appstore.
With CalyxOS, its possible to do the same thing:
- get the sources
- remove microg packages (pity. They really do maintain and test their own fork, meaning less log
Read the rest
in issues, etc)
- add OpenGApps (or Revanced's MicroG)
- run the build, wait 2 hours, flash it
Now.. there's no such thing as "GApps compatibility layer" in Calyx. Yet, there's no difference in user experience - none of my daily apps are/were broken on either Graphene+Play services from their store, stock CalyxOS+MicroG or on Calyx+GApps. (Except last time I've used Apps on multiple user profiles, there was a lot of trouble due to different versions being installed iirc)
Taking privacy concerns into account, there might be some difference.. but once more, going through gmscompat code, I see mainly hacks about letting this app pop up this activity this time, faking this permission that time, etc [1].
Yes there's a layer that isolates some calls, but I just cannot see how it's supposed to alter user experience. Now, spinning an isolated "sandbox" (which is likely impossible, as IPC/binder/shared data and services model is fundamentally broken anyway) with just a couple apps on a separate google account - all restricted from having access to sensors, etc, having device ID's spoofed and having separate network isolation - would be a real game changer, but its a niche need, with semi-available solutions (sandvxposed, vmos, waydroid on docker on android), and it would likely violate every line in Play Services' TOS meaning it won't happen on a public OS.
Calyx cares about their users in a kind of a quiet way, yet there's a ton of activity on their tracker.
GrapheneOS cares about giving privacy to more users I suppose, so that explains their marketing strategy and parts of their code being what they are (hardened libc? definitely cool. Yet I've not seen any public exploit that could bypass e.g. stock AOSP's libc with _FORTIFY_SOURCE since 2015).
End user experience though? No real difference, thus no superiority. And people in need of "hard" sandboxing would just buy a box of burner phones anyway.
1. https://github.com/GrapheneOS/platform_frameworks_base/commi...
P.S. What about that SafetyNet certification on either OS?