Lemdro.id

We've received the Pixel 10 we ordered and have confirmed it supports unlocking, flashing another verified boot key and locking again.

Our Pixel 10 support will likely only be possible to complete after we finish porting to Android 16 QPR1 which is being released in September.

A second Pixel 10 we ordered has arrived at a package forwarding service in the US to be shipped to a country without Pixels available.

We'll order a Pixel 10 Pro (XL) and Pixel 10 Pro Fold for our main device testing farm today too since we'll supporting all 4 variants of them.

Previously, we likely would have been able to implement support for the Pixel 10, Pixel 10 Pro and Pixel 10 Pro XL in the next 48 hours. However, we likely need to wait for Android 16 QPR1 and our port to it since we don't expect a Pixel 10 device branch will be pushed to AOSP.

We've received confirmation that Android is switching to having quarterly releases across devices. There will be 3 quarterly and 1 yearly release of Android and the Android Open Source Project. Monthly releases are Pixel exclusive and will have far fewer changes than before.

Previously, only Pixels shipped the quarterly releases in practice. Other OEMs will now be pushed to ship those, but not the monthly releases which are now officially Pixel exclusive. Please note monthly Android Security Bulletins are a different thing from the monthly releases.

Android Security Bulletins are backports of a subset of patches deemed High/Critical severity to older Android releases. That currently means the initial yearly releases of Android 13, 14, 15 and 16 without the monthly/quarterly updates for those. This will need to change now.

The changes are acceptable for us and we can deal with it. We're currently working with a major OEM towards future generations of their devices meeting our requirements and providing official GrapheneOS support. GrapheneOS on both Pixels and these future non-Pixels will be fine.

Pixels are still the most secure Android devices and the only ones combining a high level of security with proper support for an alternate OS. However, it's clear they don't value alternate OS support and won't remain the best devices for GrapheneOS once we have official ones.

We could continue supporting future Pixels such as the Pixel 11 and Pixel 12 after we have another option available but we won't depend on them continuing to provide alternate OS support. It's good that the Pixel 10 still provides it since our alternative is a year or two away.

!graphene_os@lemmy.sdf.org !

I'm not new to Android, but new to Lawnchair and was able to download and install Lawnchair 15 Beta 1 Google Play release.

So far, I really like it. Folders in the app drawer was great, though it requires a bit more work. I know it's a beta so I'm keeping my expectations in check.

I'm moving over from Smart Launcher, which I moved to from Nova Launcher. There are two main features that I don't know I'm just not seeing or if they don't exist:

• Access to Hidden Apps: I like to hide my NSFW apps for obvious reasons. It seems like the way to access hidden apps is to go to Settings, App Drawer, and then selectively unhide the app you want to use and then hide it again when you are done. Is that correct? This seems very round-about. Smart Launcher's hidden drawer feature is really useful and would like to see something similar in Lawnchair
• Gestures for home screen icons: I like to keep my home screen as minimalistic as possible. I use "swipe up" and "double-tap" gestures on icons on the home screen to toggle alternate apps. For example, I double-tap "Phone" to get to "Contacts", double-tap "Messages" to open "Google Voice". I don't see this feature at all for Lawnchair. Am I missing an option or does Lawnchair not have this feature.

Thanks!

I saw it on f-droid news and I'm surprised I haven't heard anything about it. Probably because it's new.

Most other browsers are Firefox forks, but if I understand this one only uses the engine. As such most other ones feel like just slightly different Firefox versions. But this one is very different, and I'm liking a lot! Many things on the UI are easier to use and many options I don't see in Firefox. I specially like the options it give before you first use (search engine, ublock, block or not AI).

It's also a lot faster, because I blocked many samsung services on my phone like face recognition and Firefox becomes super slow without it (Fennec keeps crashing).

The only thing I don't like so far is that I don't see how to hide the URL bar for fullscreen, and typing a URL is very weird in the middle of a bunch of options (very welcome options, but URL typing should be prioritized).

I highly recommend giving it a go. Specially the chromium browser people. I never experienced the complaints I see from them before blocking services on my phone, but those who had issues with Firefox clones might find that it's better.

One question I have is how trustworthy is the developer. But he seems to not be based in the US, which is a big plus to begin with.

Are there other communities I should post this on? I think this project would benefit from more exposure.

I don't see any donation option. And it's annoying that the only communication is through microsoft's github..

cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36316138

Comments

• Hackernews;
• Lobsters.

How is this going to be enforced if you are just downloading apks? It states they will enforce verification across sources outside of the play store. This doesn't sound possible unless they just make stock android unable to side load

cross-posted from: https://piefed.ca/post/173354

This annoys me, because the APK is out, everything is enabled server side, so why not just roll it out and let people use it?

cross-posted from: https://piefed.ca/post/164705

Hi all. Thanks for checking in. I've been looking at Routing Rules and Routes to try and solve a couple of problems but I keep screwing up and taking down my whole network (and I've never been more grateful for serial ports).

What I'm trying to do is use different WAN connections for different VLANs/subnets. To begin with, I would like to route my general-purpose subnet (VLAN104) WAN traffic over a Proton Wireguard VPN while leaving all my other subnets using my standard ISP connection. Afterwards, I'd like to additionally route a subnet I use to give my neighbour Internet access (VLAN102) over a different Proton Wireguard VPN. Annoyingly, both the Wireguard VPN connections use the same private IP addresses though I suspect that won't actually matter that much in practise.

I starting to suspect I'm barking up the wrong tree trying to use Routing Rules but I'd appreciate any advice.