this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2025
1087 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

75606 readers
2238 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Johnny101@lemmy.world 5 points 2 hours ago (3 children)

Google’s developer verification will only run on mainstream Android with play services. It’s not supposed won’t be running in standard AOSP so the easiest solution would be to switch to a custom ROM like GrapheneOS.

[–] Crozekiel@lemmy.zip 3 points 5 minutes ago

They are also working to similarly kill custom ROMs. Just recently the GrapheneOS team mentioned that Google is no longer making their hardware drivers Open Source, and so compatibility with new phones means reverse engineering their own drivers - which is a big reason that custom ROMs support such narrow hardware options already and very often come with limitations and/or features that just don't work. At best, they figure out how to make it work, but it takes time and updates can lag significantly behind.

We have a lot of options on the software side for avoiding google (or android), but very limited options on hardware. We need open source mobile hardware support ASAP.

[–] Tattorack@lemmy.world 1 points 21 minutes ago (1 children)

I don't have that choice in Denmark due to NemID.

[–] bay400@thelemmy.club 1 points 8 minutes ago

At this point the solution seems to just be having a second phone for that kinda shit

[–] cosmo@lemmy.world 5 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

While true, the pool of unlockable devices are dwindling fast.

[–] Johnny101@lemmy.world 1 points 44 minutes ago (1 children)

True…. I heard GrapheneOS is having trouble porting to the Pixel 10

[–] hietsu@sopuli.xyz 3 points 36 minutes ago (1 children)

Also, aren’t some critical apps like banking apps starting to ban unlocked / non-stock systems? Heard someone complaining about this a while ago.

[–] Johnny101@lemmy.world 2 points 30 minutes ago

Yes, banking apps, streaming apps, even some shopping apps. This has been a problem for a long time. Sometimes its for “security” reasons and sometimes its simply because the app uses Play Service APIs. Another issue on de-googled systems is push notifications, though that is often fixed through alternates like Unified Push

[–] Paddy66@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 hours ago

Contact your representative. And here's F-droid's article about it (including how to find your representative at the end of the article): https://f-droid.org/en/2025/09/29/google-developer-registration-decree.html

[–] seraphine@lemmy.blahaj.zone 28 points 4 hours ago (3 children)
[–] Johnny101@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago

I think Linux phones will gain some real traction within five years. Last I heard, KDE is putting great effort into making apps for Plasma Mobile

[–] hietsu@sopuli.xyz 1 points 32 minutes ago

We had a few good Linux phones back in the day but Nokia / Microsoft killed them trying to compete with iPhone OS and Android: Maemo / Meego were great but did not get a proper chance.

Jolla continued the legacy and Sailfish OS is still something worth checking out if you can find suitable hardware, or idk how complex it is to port it.

[–] FE80@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

Does anyone know if existing linux phones can run 2FA apps such as Duo or Google authenticator?

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 1 points 7 minutes ago

They can run Keeppass, which does TOTP. It doesn't do push notifs, like Duo does, though.

[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Why do you need the google Authenticator? Proton has it too. Which (from searching) looks like it’s compatible for the Ubuntu systems. But that’s just from the search. I ‘m personally just using it with a android right now. I am currently eyeing up the fairphone Ubuntu as my next phone

[–] FE80@lemmy.world 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Why do you need the google Authenticator?

Systems at work use google authenticator for 2FA. Prior jobs have used Duo.

[–] punchmesan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 2 hours ago

Google Authenticator is merely a generic TOTP token storage app. The person you're replying to was pointing out that Google Authenticator, specifically, isn't necessary. There are alternatives, and unless you're using a company-owned device that restricts the apps you can use there is no way for work to dictate which app you use for TOTP tokens.

Duo, Okta Verify, and other 2FA apps that use push notifications and such, are a different beast altogether.

[–] General_Effort@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago

European devs: Our laws will protect us!

Meanwhile, our laws:

Article 30

Traceability of traders

  1. Providers of online platforms allowing consumers to conclude distance contracts with traders shall ensure that traders can only use those online platforms to promote messages on or to offer products or services to consumers located in the Union if, prior to the use of their services for those purposes, they have obtained the following information, where applicable to the trader:

(a) the name, address, telephone number and email address of the trader;

(b) a copy of the identification document of the trader or any other electronic identification as defined by Article 3 of Regulation (EU) No 910/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council (40);

Article 30, DSA

[–] MrSulu@lemmy.ml 55 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Let's hope that the rest of the world, specifically Europe smash this ridiculous proposal apart for what it is. Europe has already sorted out USB-C etc. Its not perfect and they don't get everything right, but certainly big enough to make stuff right.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 26 points 7 hours ago

They're too busy forcing chat control and age gates through our collective throats.

[–] kalkulat@lemmy.world 18 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

Yep. The E.U. has allowed itself to be dominated for too long by the US megacorps. It has the talent, ideas, and manufacturing to tell US firms to bugger off ... and the sooner, the better for us all.

[–] ghosthacked@lemmy.wtf 3 points 7 hours ago

Unless you want hillbilly outrage slop destabilising your continent, you better get control away from American tech companies.

[–] art@lemmy.world 57 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

I'm starting to think these for-profit companies only care about making money.

[–] edgyspazkid@lemmy.wtf 15 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

gulp You might be right

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 48 points 12 hours ago (3 children)

What pisses me off it that they say they do this for security. It changes absolutely anything.

They really think that malware developers will say "oh no! I need to submit a picture of an id card to sign my malware! It's literally impossible to submit a jpg of a stolen id card, I'm ruined and out of a job!"

What does it change? Waste 20 minutes of some malware developer while they register under a stolen id? They already have a system that scans for known malware and automatically remove it.

[–] keegomatic@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Both things can be true. It definitely is better for security. It’s pretty much indisputably better for security.

But you know what would be even better for security? Not allowing any third-party code at all (i.e., no apps).

Obviously that’s too shitty and everyone would move off of that platform. There’s a balance that must be struck between user freedom and the general security of a worldwide network of sensitive devices.

Users should be allowed to do insecure things with their devices as long as they are (1) informed of the risks, (2) prevented from doing those things by accident if they are not informed, and (3) as long as their actions do not threaten the rest of the network.

Side-loading is perfectly reasonable under those conditions.

[–] fading_person@lemmy.zip 43 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

It's always security when someone wants to take our freedom away. Always security...

[–] boonhet@sopuli.xyz 24 points 11 hours ago (2 children)

Not always. It can also be about the children.

[–] SpaceCadet@sopuli.xyz 4 points 7 hours ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] fading_person@lemmy.zip 12 points 11 hours ago

About keeping the children safe

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 34 points 12 hours ago

The justification is simple, I don't see the confusion, they want absolute power and for all alternatives to wither and die ? What is there not to understand ?

[–] ezterry@lemmy.zip 40 points 14 hours ago

I am perfectly ok with android apps being required to be signed by not just a certificate (they always were just it could be self signed and just needed to match to upgrade without removing data) but a list of trusted entities.

As long as:

  • I can install my own key on my phone (I'd I am trusted)
  • major distributors like fdroid and have a key installed without friction (like web CAs)
  • Google let's me mark their key as untrusted (I probably won't but I should be able to refuse things they trust (at install time, not disabling preloaded apps like settings)

Without this it feels too much extending the monopoly despite being forced to allow 3rd party stores.

load more comments
view more: next ›