destiny and not depending on incredibly flawed OEMs with incompatible goals. You're treating the device being made with using open source drivers as a core goal as if that's the hardest and most important aspect. It's one of many aspects, and is far from the hardest thing to do.
Conversation
I am not saying purism/Librem5 should be the end goal but I think they are the current best case studies of small companies pulling off open-source-first hardware being very transparent about the process which is huge.
Gotta crawl before you can walk.
1
I don't see it that way at all. They're incredibly dishonest, not at all transparent, and do not really have the goal of making open hardware. They are explicitly anti-security and anti-privacy in many ways too. It's not a good hardware target and they won't ever make a good one.
2
1
They do not share the goals or concepts of GrapheneOS at all. It is a bad target, they will always make bad targets for it, and they are not a viable partner or collaborator with an actual privacy/security focused project. Been burned already, others have too. No thanks.
2
1
You're bringing it up at the same time as Pine64 which has similar technical issues but without nonsense from the company / leadership including lots of harm. It's also a bad target, with no sign of ever wanting to make a good one, but at least they don't lie and cause harm.
1
1
IMO Librem5 has better hardware but the marketing and misrepresentation of it is a black eye to be sure.
Still if forced to pick between them or Google right -now- while we spend a few years making long-term sustainable/secure hardware I take Purism.
2
You can't make a device with decent security based on it and it's far from being able to run a fully functional AOSP particularly with the security features supported (but far beyond that) so not sure what you plan on doing with it.
1
At least Pine64 doesn't have deliberate anti-security measures and anti-security policies / ideology. It's just not technically advanced in that regard so it's far behind the status quo / industry standards (applies to both) but the reasons are better (lack of resources).
2
Anyway, if you want to support charlatans it doesn't just mean definitely not having my support, but I'll actively oppose it.
Really not interested in building something offering trash tier security and robustness along with even worse usability.
Not a long-term path either.
2
Not interested in an even worse path that has no usefulness in the near future and no long term prospects either. It's even worse than what we have now. You trade problems for even bigger different problems, without any way to solve them either. I don't see the point at all.
1
Also, really not interested in working with or promoting charlatans and sociopaths. Experienced it quite a lot already. I have insider knowledge about the company you're talking about and it's not pretty. Maybe read some public blog posts from people who were there at least.