5 ms·

From the /e/ Foundation website: "The easy-installer beta version supports 15 devices" This is the #1 problem, but it's not /e/ developers fault, as supportin

From the /e/ Foundation website: "The easy-installer beta version supports 15 devices" This is the #1 problem, but it's not /e/ developers fault, as supporting devices is a time consuming and costly activity, and the risk of bricking an expensive device is just too high for normal users to want to try. Manufacturers are to blame. It's not a technical problem but rather a political one; manufacturers should be forced by law to unlock boot loaders and publish at least the bare minimum documentation enough for porting software to devices that became obsolete either by the introduction of a newer version, or after support has ceased. Until that happens, I'm afraid we'll see more and more projects supporting only a very small part of the available devices.

commoner 4y ago
I'd expect the installer to support more devices over time, since /e/ officially supports 269 devices: https://support.e.foundation/devices https://support.e.foundation/devices It's promising that more and more alternative Android distributions are offering installers to make them more accessible to average phone users. On the Linux phone side, even Ubuntu Touch has an installer that supports 81 devices: https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/installer/ https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/installer/ But, device manufacturers need to make bootloaders unlockable for these installers to work, and I agree that regulation is a practical way to make this happen. I can see Europe taking the lead on this with the goal of reducing e-waste by encouraging the reuse of old devices.
- stkdump 4y ago
  That looks like a copy of the list of supported devices of lineage. I highly doubt that the e foundation can test their installer on so many devices. They (or their own developer community) would need to get access to these devices at least. I guess the only way to broaden support for the installer a lot would be to work on upstreaming it to the lineage project so that the broader community does the work for them.
  - commoner 4y ago
    LineageOS currently supports 179 models, so it's not a copy of the LineageOS device list.[1][2] These projects support different selections of devices. There are devices that are supported by /e/ and not by LineageOS, and vice versa. [1] https://www.lineageoslog.com/statistics https://www.lineageoslog.com/statistics [2] https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/ https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/
    - Semaphor 4y ago
      The lists look a lot closer if you tick "Show discontinued devices" on the LineageOS site
- chinabot 4y ago
  Not one iPhone on the list.. Shame I have a perfectly good older iphone that just became a paperweight due to lack of support
notyourday 4y ago
It suffers from the same problem as all other Android forks: no updates to binary blobs that actually make phone a phone.
userbinator 4y ago
The Mediatek platforms, at least in their early days, were relatively open. The flash utility, which ran off a ROM in the SoC, meant that you could backup and restore the complete state of the device, effectively making them unbrickable. They didn't even seem to have any form of secure boot. Plenty of documentation (only available as leaked, but they didn't care much about stopping that) available if you knew where to look. Huge numbers of devices made with the same platform/reference design, and a correspondingly large (but unfortunately Chinese only) community around them. They were probably the closest to being a "standard Android device" for a while; of course, in the Western world they were mainly shunned due to their low cost and performance, while the lack of (user-hostile) security features was used as a further means of discouraging others away from them.
- commoner 4y ago
  Unfortunately, the current situation is quite different. MediaTek does not release kernel sources to the public, while Qualcomm does. https://www.xda-developers.com/mediatek-source-code-release-no-plans/ https://www.xda-developers.com/mediatek-source-code-release-... Device manufacturers are obligated to release kernel sources to end users to comply with GPLv2, but many do not, and Qualcomm's source code releases make supporting Snapdragon-based devices a little bit easier for ROM developers. It's a shame, since the Dimensity 9000 performs better than the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1.
  - userbinator 4y ago
    MTK source code is(was?) available from the actual device manufacturer. I can't say for Qualcomm in particular but from what I've seen in the past, open-source releases are not at all a good substitute for the actual documentation, which tends to be heavily guarded.
rgmerk 4y ago
I'm a strong believer in the right of people to use their devices as they see fit...but there's a real-world problem here. You know who else loves unlocked bootloaders? Cyberstalkers and domestic violence perpetrators, who use them to install hidden stalkerware.
- denkmoon 4y ago
  I'm a strong believer in the right of people to cut their food as they see fit...but there's a real-world problem here. You know who else loves knives? Criminals and thugs, who use them to engage in larceny and assault.
  - rgmerk 4y ago
    And guess what? In some jurisdictions, including some US states, possession and sale of some types of knives is banned or controlled, because they are used by criminals and thugs for larceny and assault. You're also not permitted to upload whatever firmware you like to your car's engine if you want to run it on the street. Note also that I didn't argue that uploading alternate firmware to phones should be banned. I'm just pointing out that there are real-world safety reasons for restricting modifications, and if you want the freedom to do so you should at least try and engage on the downsides rather than just yelling FREEEDOM very loudly.
    - HidyBush 4y ago
      This could be easily solved if manufacturers simply allowed for using a unique password to unlock the bootloader. Want to install a custom ROM? Simple! Put the phone in recovery mode, insert the unique manufacturer-provided password, unlock the bootloader, flash the new ROM, go back to recovery, change the password to one of your choosing, lock the bootloader again, add the ROM's official private key to enable safe boot. This is entirely possible, and yet nobody wants to make it accessible.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        So if you forget your password, your expensive device is instantly and permanently bricked and becomes e-waste?

commoner 4y ago

I'd expect the installer to support more devices over time, since /e/ officially supports 269 devices: https://support.e.foundation/devices https://support.e.foundation/devices It's promising that more and more alternative Android distributions are offering installers to make them more accessible to average phone users. On the Linux phone side, even Ubuntu Touch has an installer that supports 81 devices: https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/installer/ https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/installer/ But, device manufacturers need to make bootloaders unlockable for these installers to work, and I agree that regulation is a practical way to make this happen. I can see Europe taking the lead on this with the goal of reducing e-waste by encouraging the reuse of old devices.

stkdump 4y ago
That looks like a copy of the list of supported devices of lineage. I highly doubt that the e foundation can test their installer on so many devices. They (or their own developer community) would need to get access to these devices at least. I guess the only way to broaden support for the installer a lot would be to work on upstreaming it to the lineage project so that the broader community does the work for them.
- commoner 4y ago
  LineageOS currently supports 179 models, so it's not a copy of the LineageOS device list.[1][2] These projects support different selections of devices. There are devices that are supported by /e/ and not by LineageOS, and vice versa. [1] https://www.lineageoslog.com/statistics https://www.lineageoslog.com/statistics [2] https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/ https://wiki.lineageos.org/devices/
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    The lists look a lot closer if you tick "Show discontinued devices" on the LineageOS site
chinabot 4y ago
Not one iPhone on the list.. Shame I have a perfectly good older iphone that just became a paperweight due to lack of support

notyourday 4y ago

It suffers from the same problem as all other Android forks: no updates to binary blobs that actually make phone a phone.

userbinator 4y ago

The Mediatek platforms, at least in their early days, were relatively open. The flash utility, which ran off a ROM in the SoC, meant that you could backup and restore the complete state of the device, effectively making them unbrickable. They didn't even seem to have any form of secure boot. Plenty of documentation (only available as leaked, but they didn't care much about stopping that) available if you knew where to look. Huge numbers of devices made with the same platform/reference design, and a correspondingly large (but unfortunately Chinese only) community around them. They were probably the closest to being a "standard Android device" for a while; of course, in the Western world they were mainly shunned due to their low cost and performance, while the lack of (user-hostile) security features was used as a further means of discouraging others away from them.

commoner 4y ago
Unfortunately, the current situation is quite different. MediaTek does not release kernel sources to the public, while Qualcomm does. https://www.xda-developers.com/mediatek-source-code-release-no-plans/ https://www.xda-developers.com/mediatek-source-code-release-... Device manufacturers are obligated to release kernel sources to end users to comply with GPLv2, but many do not, and Qualcomm's source code releases make supporting Snapdragon-based devices a little bit easier for ROM developers. It's a shame, since the Dimensity 9000 performs better than the Snapdragon 8 Gen 1.
- userbinator 4y ago
  MTK source code is(was?) available from the actual device manufacturer. I can't say for Qualcomm in particular but from what I've seen in the past, open-source releases are not at all a good substitute for the actual documentation, which tends to be heavily guarded.

rgmerk 4y ago

I'm a strong believer in the right of people to use their devices as they see fit...but there's a real-world problem here. You know who else loves unlocked bootloaders? Cyberstalkers and domestic violence perpetrators, who use them to install hidden stalkerware.

denkmoon 4y ago
I'm a strong believer in the right of people to cut their food as they see fit...but there's a real-world problem here. You know who else loves knives? Criminals and thugs, who use them to engage in larceny and assault.
- rgmerk 4y ago
  And guess what? In some jurisdictions, including some US states, possession and sale of some types of knives is banned or controlled, because they are used by criminals and thugs for larceny and assault. You're also not permitted to upload whatever firmware you like to your car's engine if you want to run it on the street. Note also that I didn't argue that uploading alternate firmware to phones should be banned. I'm just pointing out that there are real-world safety reasons for restricting modifications, and if you want the freedom to do so you should at least try and engage on the downsides rather than just yelling FREEEDOM very loudly.
  - HidyBush 4y ago
    This could be easily solved if manufacturers simply allowed for using a unique password to unlock the bootloader. Want to install a custom ROM? Simple! Put the phone in recovery mode, insert the unique manufacturer-provided password, unlock the bootloader, flash the new ROM, go back to recovery, change the password to one of your choosing, lock the bootloader again, add the ROM's official private key to enable safe boot. This is entirely possible, and yet nobody wants to make it accessible.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      So if you forget your password, your expensive device is instantly and permanently bricked and becomes e-waste?