6 ms·

I am still waiting for Fairphone and Graphene OS collaboration. This is match made in heaven. Any Fairphone/GrapheneOS developer reading this? Just do it, docu

by stiray 1y ago

I am still waiting for Fairphone and Graphene OS collaboration. This is match made in heaven. Any Fairphone/GrapheneOS developer reading this? Just do it, document if something is not secure enough for you, but do it. Nothing to think about, you fit together like hand and a glove and any seconds thoughts are depriving the planet of THE PHONE! Pick the cash we will throw at you and make second generation with the cpu GrapheneOS wants, that will make the /r/GrapheneOS members eyes shine, drooling and crying of joy at the same time. +throw them in a few hardware switches for camera, mic, connectivity,... disabling. No need to wait to be perfect in first iteration (and due to that craziness and perfectionism will never happen), to gain the possibility to be perfect in second or third. I would love so much to stop buying Google Pixel phones just to install Graphene OS and protect myself from Google and its ecosystem, it seems so counterproductive.

tomgag 1y ago
I, for one, would buy one. Make it small and I would buy 3.
- teekert 1y ago
  Me 3. It looks like they really won't though: [0] It's such a shame, vision-wise the GrapheneOS crew must be much closer to the FairPhone team than they are to Google and Samsung, one would guess... But the GrapheneOS people find security tech (such as secure enclaves) and update cycle very important. After the bad Pixel news, they find Samsung to be the best fit: [1] I would (as many here) also hope that they could somehow make the FairPhone crew step up in their security practices, help them do it. They would be the golden combo, except perhaps for things like camera quality and raw speed/AI chips. And possible the niche is just to small to be profitable. But a man can dream... I'd pay 1.5 to 2x normal price for a FairPhone/GrapheneOS combi, it would align with my values in almost all dimensions. And then I'd buy a Pebble and just be happy. I really don't know what to do when my iPhone 12 mini dies. I do like the iPhone, but I also liked my OnePlus3 with LineageOS. I was originally planning on a Pixel/GrapheneOS after this phone, but that dream has shatter I think... [0] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721751616786103 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721751616786103 [1] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721967328643999 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721967328643999
  - IlikeKitties 1y ago
    > It's such a shame, vision-wise the GrapheneOS crew must be much closer to the FairPhone team than they are to Google and Samsung one would guess... But the GrapheneOS people find security tech such as secure enclaves etc very important. I seriously doubt that given fairphones track record in regards to updates and security. GrapheneOS Devs value timely updates and integration of security tech. Fairphone does neither.
    - teekert 1y ago
      FairPhone has such limited resources and needs to extract money from such a small niche, that they have hard choices to make. And it's sustainability above all. But if another party would help with the security aspects, that might change the equation for them. FairPhone may not be the most attractive partner security-wise but I think that the FairPhone team is much, much less likely to rug pull them like Google did (and Samsung may). Which has got to be worth something.
IlikeKitties 1y ago
Fairphones consistently doesn't support a quarter of what graphene os requires. See their FAQ: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices Unless Fairphone becomes significantly better in their security and update policy and integrate a whole lot of new features it's not gonna happen.
- stiray 1y ago
  This is the whole point, they should stop nitpicking and start to do it (GrapheneOS side), even if it is not going to be THE most secure phone, there is enough of features that are far more useful then just security (like privacy). I don't mind if they make it payable. With money they will get (I suspect there will be quite a bit less pixels sold) they can make a new phone that will have all the bells and whistles GrapheneOS wants and on the other side, Fairphone developers will figure out it is $$$ worthy to do it. GrapheneOS has bunch of requirements that are expensive while Fairphone has zero chance to figure out, if investing would make any economical sense, while their normal users dont really care about that security but might regarding privacy. This is a stale-mate position. Found info about GrapheneOS installations, 250k users(1). Lets say 25% are on old pixels. This is 60k sold pixels. All Fairphones sold by 2022 were 400k(2). 1. 2024, https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/12281-how-many-grapheneos-users-are-there https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/12281-how-many-grapheneos-u... 2. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone
  - IlikeKitties 1y ago
    > This is the whole point, they should stop nitpicking and start to do it (GrapheneOS side), even if it is not going to be THE most secure phone, there is enough of features that are far more useful then just security (like privacy). I don't mind if they make it payable. This feels super entitled to me. GrapheneOS Devs have a mission and they get to make that. You get it for free and if you like it you can give them money. If they don't support the hardware you like you are free to fork it and get it to run yourself. And if security isn't something you care about but privacy is and you feel like there's a difference here you can still install /e/os or lineageos and similar on the fairphone.
palata 1y ago
What about alternatives like CalyxOS or /e/OS? GrapheneOS is aiming at the best possible security, so they won't compromise. CalyxOS and /e/OS run on FairPhones (though it seems like /e/OS is more into privacy and less into security).
- stiray 1y ago
  There is no alternative. /e/ and others dont even come close. Security is one thing, the privacy they(GrapheneOS) provide is another. You can have privacy without every detail of security they require. While they refuse to provide privacy without security. Thats why I buy Pixels and feel more and more dirty each time I do it. Had sailfish in between but that is another set of problems, Jolla failing to realize, they need to have strong compatibility Android layer (to use everyday stuff like bluetooth - in my case for paying public transport) until there is enough software for Sailfish. In any case, Sailfish is my FAR prefered option, over GrapheneOS. But unfortunately the spin of the world and my wishes are not aligned.
  - palata 1y ago
    > There is no alternative. /e/ and others dont even come close. Can you elaborate on that? Say I install LineageOS without Google Services and without microG, would you say it's bad in terms of privacy? Or are you saying that microG is the issue?
    - stiray 1y ago
      In your given scenario (no Google Services, no microG), compatibility is the issue. I dont use Android because I like it. I use it because I am forced to use it, without it I cant connect to corporate VPN, cant even take public transport (actually I can use NFC card and take a lot of care never to lose money on it, to drive to first place where I can charge it). Banking software. Update firmware for my headset. Then there come the fishy practices of applications, full of advertising kits stealing information, where HelloWorld app is 90MB apk, as it has Facebook SDK included. You can partially protect yourself with https://netguard.me/ https://netguard.me/, but even I can avoid it (wont explain how, typical android developer doesnt know much beyond java and I dont want to shoot myself in a foot helping them).
WhyNotHugo 1y ago
I recently suggested that GrapheneOS support devices with average security on Mastodon. Much like yourself, I think "moderately okay security" is better than "just use Google's spyware infested OS". The GrapheneOS folks replied in disagreement, insisting that this is a terrible idea because security would be less than perfect. They then started making up stories about me and throwing around unfounded accusations. I don't trust them in the slightest, and strongly recommend staying away from them.
- mhitza 1y ago
  > They then started making up stories about me and throwing around unfounded accusations. That sounds oddly similar with Louis Rossmann's video when in disagreement with some (the?) project owner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4To-F6W1NT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4To-F6W1NT0
  - mbananasynergy 1y ago
    Hi there, I'm the community manager for the GrapheneOS project. To you, and perhaps others seeing your comment, I would just like to ask that if people are going to watch the video, they should watch it in context, and also read the material that Louis is linking to in the video description, as I'm getting the sense that he's relying on people to not read them. Our perspective is that Louis was upset with Daniel because we wouldn't do content with him, which resulted in a lot of jabs in his videos preceding that one, along with him expressing support for a video and a creator who has created what is essentially a hitpiece video on the project and its founder. The main context that seems to be missing is that a supporter of the creator of that hitpiece was raiding our community rooms not longer before Louis' video happened, which culminated in the GrapheneOS founder being swatted by that person 3 times in the span of a few days. Louis Rossmann expressing support (with his large following) for that creator lends credence to their claims and leads more people to attack us. That should hopefully explain why Daniel was upset at Louis (in private, which Louis decided to livestream and leak). If Louis really thinks Daniel is some mentally ill person, is broadcasting him like that really the compassionate thing to do? Even in his version of events, this seems cruel. Louis is a kiwifarms user, a website dedicated to harassing people (including Daniel). Daniel's thread what started by a self-admitted fan of Louis, shortly after his video, so it has directly led to a bunch more hatred. You can find all of that out yourself. So for you, and those reading this comment after the fact, I'd encourage you to do your own research, and also to not take what a YouTuber says at face value just because they said it.
trizuz 1y ago
[dead]

by stiray 1y ago

tomgag 1y ago

I, for one, would buy one. Make it small and I would buy 3.

teekert 1y ago
Me 3. It looks like they really won't though: [0] It's such a shame, vision-wise the GrapheneOS crew must be much closer to the FairPhone team than they are to Google and Samsung, one would guess... But the GrapheneOS people find security tech (such as secure enclaves) and update cycle very important. After the bad Pixel news, they find Samsung to be the best fit: [1] I would (as many here) also hope that they could somehow make the FairPhone crew step up in their security practices, help them do it. They would be the golden combo, except perhaps for things like camera quality and raw speed/AI chips. And possible the niche is just to small to be profitable. But a man can dream... I'd pay 1.5 to 2x normal price for a FairPhone/GrapheneOS combi, it would align with my values in almost all dimensions. And then I'd buy a Pebble and just be happy. I really don't know what to do when my iPhone 12 mini dies. I do like the iPhone, but I also liked my OnePlus3 with LineageOS. I was originally planning on a Pixel/GrapheneOS after this phone, but that dream has shatter I think... [0] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721751616786103 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721751616786103 [1] https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721967328643999 https://grapheneos.social/@GrapheneOS/114721967328643999
- IlikeKitties 1y ago
  > It's such a shame, vision-wise the GrapheneOS crew must be much closer to the FairPhone team than they are to Google and Samsung one would guess... But the GrapheneOS people find security tech such as secure enclaves etc very important. I seriously doubt that given fairphones track record in regards to updates and security. GrapheneOS Devs value timely updates and integration of security tech. Fairphone does neither.
  - teekert 1y ago
    FairPhone has such limited resources and needs to extract money from such a small niche, that they have hard choices to make. And it's sustainability above all. But if another party would help with the security aspects, that might change the equation for them. FairPhone may not be the most attractive partner security-wise but I think that the FairPhone team is much, much less likely to rug pull them like Google did (and Samsung may). Which has got to be worth something.

IlikeKitties 1y ago

Fairphones consistently doesn't support a quarter of what graphene os requires. See their FAQ: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices Unless Fairphone becomes significantly better in their security and update policy and integrate a whole lot of new features it's not gonna happen.

stiray 1y ago
This is the whole point, they should stop nitpicking and start to do it (GrapheneOS side), even if it is not going to be THE most secure phone, there is enough of features that are far more useful then just security (like privacy). I don't mind if they make it payable. With money they will get (I suspect there will be quite a bit less pixels sold) they can make a new phone that will have all the bells and whistles GrapheneOS wants and on the other side, Fairphone developers will figure out it is $$$ worthy to do it. GrapheneOS has bunch of requirements that are expensive while Fairphone has zero chance to figure out, if investing would make any economical sense, while their normal users dont really care about that security but might regarding privacy. This is a stale-mate position. Found info about GrapheneOS installations, 250k users(1). Lets say 25% are on old pixels. This is 60k sold pixels. All Fairphones sold by 2022 were 400k(2). 1. 2024, https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/12281-how-many-grapheneos-users-are-there https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/12281-how-many-grapheneos-u... 2. 2022, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairphone
- IlikeKitties 1y ago
  > This is the whole point, they should stop nitpicking and start to do it (GrapheneOS side), even if it is not going to be THE most secure phone, there is enough of features that are far more useful then just security (like privacy). I don't mind if they make it payable. This feels super entitled to me. GrapheneOS Devs have a mission and they get to make that. You get it for free and if you like it you can give them money. If they don't support the hardware you like you are free to fork it and get it to run yourself. And if security isn't something you care about but privacy is and you feel like there's a difference here you can still install /e/os or lineageos and similar on the fairphone.

palata 1y ago

What about alternatives like CalyxOS or /e/OS? GrapheneOS is aiming at the best possible security, so they won't compromise. CalyxOS and /e/OS run on FairPhones (though it seems like /e/OS is more into privacy and less into security).

stiray 1y ago
There is no alternative. /e/ and others dont even come close. Security is one thing, the privacy they(GrapheneOS) provide is another. You can have privacy without every detail of security they require. While they refuse to provide privacy without security. Thats why I buy Pixels and feel more and more dirty each time I do it. Had sailfish in between but that is another set of problems, Jolla failing to realize, they need to have strong compatibility Android layer (to use everyday stuff like bluetooth - in my case for paying public transport) until there is enough software for Sailfish. In any case, Sailfish is my FAR prefered option, over GrapheneOS. But unfortunately the spin of the world and my wishes are not aligned.
- palata 1y ago
  > There is no alternative. /e/ and others dont even come close. Can you elaborate on that? Say I install LineageOS without Google Services and without microG, would you say it's bad in terms of privacy? Or are you saying that microG is the issue?
  - stiray 1y ago
    In your given scenario (no Google Services, no microG), compatibility is the issue. I dont use Android because I like it. I use it because I am forced to use it, without it I cant connect to corporate VPN, cant even take public transport (actually I can use NFC card and take a lot of care never to lose money on it, to drive to first place where I can charge it). Banking software. Update firmware for my headset. Then there come the fishy practices of applications, full of advertising kits stealing information, where HelloWorld app is 90MB apk, as it has Facebook SDK included. You can partially protect yourself with https://netguard.me/ https://netguard.me/, but even I can avoid it (wont explain how, typical android developer doesnt know much beyond java and I dont want to shoot myself in a foot helping them).

WhyNotHugo 1y ago

I recently suggested that GrapheneOS support devices with average security on Mastodon. Much like yourself, I think "moderately okay security" is better than "just use Google's spyware infested OS". The GrapheneOS folks replied in disagreement, insisting that this is a terrible idea because security would be less than perfect. They then started making up stories about me and throwing around unfounded accusations. I don't trust them in the slightest, and strongly recommend staying away from them.

mhitza 1y ago
> They then started making up stories about me and throwing around unfounded accusations. That sounds oddly similar with Louis Rossmann's video when in disagreement with some (the?) project owner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4To-F6W1NT0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4To-F6W1NT0
- mbananasynergy 1y ago
  Hi there, I'm the community manager for the GrapheneOS project. To you, and perhaps others seeing your comment, I would just like to ask that if people are going to watch the video, they should watch it in context, and also read the material that Louis is linking to in the video description, as I'm getting the sense that he's relying on people to not read them. Our perspective is that Louis was upset with Daniel because we wouldn't do content with him, which resulted in a lot of jabs in his videos preceding that one, along with him expressing support for a video and a creator who has created what is essentially a hitpiece video on the project and its founder. The main context that seems to be missing is that a supporter of the creator of that hitpiece was raiding our community rooms not longer before Louis' video happened, which culminated in the GrapheneOS founder being swatted by that person 3 times in the span of a few days. Louis Rossmann expressing support (with his large following) for that creator lends credence to their claims and leads more people to attack us. That should hopefully explain why Daniel was upset at Louis (in private, which Louis decided to livestream and leak). If Louis really thinks Daniel is some mentally ill person, is broadcasting him like that really the compassionate thing to do? Even in his version of events, this seems cruel. Louis is a kiwifarms user, a website dedicated to harassing people (including Daniel). Daniel's thread what started by a self-admitted fan of Louis, shortly after his video, so it has directly led to a bunch more hatred. You can find all of that out yourself. So for you, and those reading this comment after the fact, I'd encourage you to do your own research, and also to not take what a YouTuber says at face value just because they said it.

trizuz 1y ago

[dead]