More than a decade after launching in Europe, the Netherlands company is now selling its repairable phones in the US, starting with the Fairphone (Gen 6+).
That is what turned me off choosing Graphene, other than having to buy Google hardware. They, but also some other Foss people, are investing way too much time attacking other alternatives fiercely, as if they were created by the devil, because they are not pure enough or because they are less secure than Graphene.
No not really. People keep asking them why they dont support certain hardware, and they need to keep explaining why they dont support the hardware. They don’t go out of their way to demonize those projects. Their project is aimed at providing the highest level of security and privacy. They can’t help that Fairphone’s hardware does not adhere to their hardware requirements in order to attain that security and privacy.
GrapheneOS’s goal is not to deliver the most broad amount of support for as many phones as possible, its goal is to obtain the highest levels of security. For broad support there is /e/os for instance. On the other hand, /e/os is not the most secure OS. Those are just the facts. Every OS has its own use cases.
Except that this is exactly what at least one of the leading developers is doing by harassing threads that are about other projects, with all sorts of loaded language, insinuations of nasty motives, Russian influence and what not.
All of that does nothing to achieve GrapheneOS’ goals.
I have no issue at all with GrapheneOS stating that FP6 is not an option because this hardware feature is missing or that firmware update routine being insufficient. That is not what I am talking about here.
There is no concrete timeline yet as far as I know. So your guess is as good as mine. Bottom line if you want to use GrapheneOS now or in the near future you have to buy Google hardware which is a nogo for me, even if you rip out the OS.
That is what turned me off choosing Graphene, other than having to buy Google hardware. They, but also some other Foss people, are investing way too much time attacking other alternatives fiercely, as if they were created by the devil, because they are not pure enough or because they are less secure than Graphene.
No not really. People keep asking them why they dont support certain hardware, and they need to keep explaining why they dont support the hardware. They don’t go out of their way to demonize those projects. Their project is aimed at providing the highest level of security and privacy. They can’t help that Fairphone’s hardware does not adhere to their hardware requirements in order to attain that security and privacy.
GrapheneOS’s goal is not to deliver the most broad amount of support for as many phones as possible, its goal is to obtain the highest levels of security. For broad support there is /e/os for instance. On the other hand, /e/os is not the most secure OS. Those are just the facts. Every OS has its own use cases.
Except that this is exactly what at least one of the leading developers is doing by harassing threads that are about other projects, with all sorts of loaded language, insinuations of nasty motives, Russian influence and what not.
All of that does nothing to achieve GrapheneOS’ goals.
I have no issue at all with GrapheneOS stating that FP6 is not an option because this hardware feature is missing or that firmware update routine being insufficient. That is not what I am talking about here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
@Jiral @DannyMac jasnt #grapheneos a partnership with #motorola ? When first devices?
There is no concrete timeline yet as far as I know. So your guess is as good as mine. Bottom line if you want to use GrapheneOS now or in the near future you have to buy Google hardware which is a nogo for me, even if you rip out the OS.
I only buy second hand hardware these days, but I get you