Ultimately, I don't think there's really enough demand / support for what I want to build or what you want to build and what people will have as the only viable option down the road is an iPhone. I'm not optimistic about the future of this project or others like it.
Conversation
And it's really frustrating for me when I see you dismissing the value that we provide today while you don't really seem to have an alternative path that actually provides people with substantial value today. My long term vision isn't really GrapheneOS. It's something else.
1
2
I do not really believe that I'm in a good position to accomplish my long term goals especially with the weight of maintaining GrapheneOS as it exists today on my shoulders. I was once optimistic, but that was before being taken advantage of and screwed over repeatedly including
1
1
by one of the companies you seem to have been duped by in regards to their product. Based on my experience / knowledge, including personal/insider experience with that company and the experience of others, they are not how they portray themselves to be and neither is the product.
1
I don't really care about the marketing as much as I do tangible defects in the current hardware offerings you may be aware of. If you get time to share those I would love to hear them.
1
1
As far as ethics.... Every hardware bender is unethical at some level. I have to pick the hardware with the most flexibility and that seems like the Librem5 until I learn otherwise from you.
1
1
If they punch babies that is not ideal, but that is separate from specific concerns with the hardware and firmware they produce.
2
And there are serious issues with the hardware / firmware including them going out of the way to sabotage security. They are against being able to ship firmware updates in the first place, unless the firmware has no signature verification, otherwise they see it as mandatory to
1
at least block updating it from the OS and it's probably really required to block updating it at all to fit the requirements they have chosen. Couple that with deliberately not setting up the SoC / CPU in a secure way including on their laptops and other issues like badly chosen
1
components based on criteria for choosing it not aligned with privacy/security. I really think you're better off with the Pinephone which while using lower end, more outdated hardware has compatible goals (just different ones) and doesn't have active sabotage in these areas.
1
1
I don't really see how something designed to be locked down in a way that even a Pixel is not (i.e. going out of the way to sabotage firmware updates to remove that option from users and operating systems) is more flexible, or what advantage there is to sketchy component choices.
And you seem to be overlooking that you could be using a mainline kernel with the usual stack on top of that whether or not you use Android as long as you choose a popular device like a Pixel 2 or 3 where there's very good upstream support coming together for the SoC platform.
Can you elaborate on sabotaging firmware updates? This point has remained unclear.
2
They have a policy of blocking firmware upgrades and designing around making it impossible, including for peripheral components. Read up on it. It's one of the goals of the device to prevent updating firmware unless it's not signed so anything can be installed as an update.
2
Show replies