6 ms·

Which one?

by russnes 1y ago

Which one?

Hackbraten 1y ago
It’s a Librem 5. I’m looking for a more powerful model that can also run mainline(-ish) Linux.
- russnes 1y ago
  Seeing as GrapheneOS appear to be recommended on the newest Pixel models, I wonder if it shouldn't be too difficult to get Arch Linux running on them with the AUR plasma-mobile?
  - nunobrito 1y ago
    Run away from Graphene, it is suspicious at best scenario and dangerous at worst. Just observe that the key factor is to be independent from Google and then the only recommended devices from their side are exactly google devices where nobody here can have an idea of what is modified inside them. You'd be better off supporting other distributions like Calyx, which have no problems in supporting other devices like the fairphone and so on.
    - duesabati 1y ago
      I was very interested in Graphene, do you have other grounds for your suspicions?
      - fsflover 1y ago
        I agree with the parent. GrapheneOS puts security above freedom, which is wrong. It forces you to give your money to Google and rely on Google hardware, which is questionable in the long term. They refuse to support different hardware "for your security". Their developers are constantly attacking GNU/Linux phones, which are the actual long-term solution for both freedom and security. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44680624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44680624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43675380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43675380
        scheeseman486 1y ago
        I don't think I've ever read any solid refutation of the technical choices of the project, mostly just character attacks, the basis of which are dodgy at best. They're completely up-front about the limitations and catches of their choices, too. Those links don't really help your case, to be frank. Nothing strcat says reads as incorrect or even particularly controversial, they have personal beef with CalyxOS but their criticisms of the choices of the project are largely on point. They're justifiably upset by the mental health accusations too, it's kind of a joke that one of those people in the thread tried to gaslight strcat about how these accusations are somehow not a recurring issue when I, as a third party observer, have seen it come up all the fucking time. Meanwhile, you're imagining "attacks" on GNU/Linux phones, when most of what I read from them regarding those was sober and reasonable, if not particularly positive, but they're allowed to do that. Their priorities are clearly security and none of those phones really have any.
        fsflover 1y ago
        This is another project that knows what you need better than yourself. People are constantly asking them to add support to other hardware, but the answer is "it's insecure". This is completely wrong and forces everybody without a(n expensive!) Pixel to abandon reasonable security. Even Qubes OS allows installing itself on hardware without VT-d, with respective warnings, and plans to enable GPU acceleration in VMs on demand. Their priority clearly isn't to make as many people as possible more secure but to force Google on you. Are you calling the above a "character attack"? I would love to use GrapheneOS on my Librem 5 and Pinephone. No proprietary drivers are required. Yes, some security features are lacking. Yet it would be a win for everybody. I didn't say anything about CalyxOS: I don't care about this.
        scheeseman486 1y ago
        > the answer is "it's insecure". Can you give me a quote where they outright say this? Because my hunch is that what they actually say is something along the lines of 'because it doesn't have the security requirements that we desire' which would be true. Whatever their reasons for those choices, it also makes sense to limit scope given the extreme constraints they're working under and that scope is best limited to phones with the widest security feature support for their security-focus Android OS. > Are you calling the above a "character attack"? Grow up.
    - pferde 1y ago
      No, the "key factor" of GrapheneOS is to provide a secure OS on a secure hardware. If the "key factor" was to be independent from Google, they wouldn't support Google devices at all. But since the Pixel phones are the only ones with secure enough hardware, GrapheneOS supports them. They even tell you in their usage guide that it's more secure to use Google's app store than e.g. F-Droid (which neglects several good security practices for an app store), and that it's not a good idea to blindly aim for "degoogling" at all costs. Go away with your baseless FUD.
      - BlueTemplar 1y ago
        > it's not a good idea to blindly aim for "degoogling" at all costs Why not ? This seems to be exactly the push that was needed.
      - close04 1y ago
        > Pixel phones are the only ones with secure enough hardware The biggest thing that excludes most phones from supporting GrapheneOS is the lack of unlockable bootloader. Pixel phones also allow the developers to target a large but homogeneous hardware base.
        pferde 1y ago
        There is no single biggest thing. GrapheneOS has a rather strict demands for a device they're willing to support, see https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
        close04 1y ago
        GrapheneOS doesn't support Pixels with locked bootloader. It's where the game stops for all locked phones, a common practice now. You can already see how this is the single biggest thing. The second big thing is that the "non-exhaustive list of requirements" is basically "whatever new Pixels do". Your conclusion that Pixel phones are "the only ones with secure enough hardware" is overstretching what's happening here. The developers took the Pixel as a template because it's a well selling line, with good security, and generally with unlocked bootloader, and modelled the requirements based on it. It's a reasonable approach to the development of a niche security oriented OS because: "In order to support a device, the appropriate resources also need to be available and dedicated towards it". It has the downside that it makes it sound like no other phone has comparable security features. Are the fully supported Pixel 6/6a more secure than any other non-Pixel phone sold on the market today?
    - strcat 1y ago
      CalyxOS was not a hardened OS and is a much different space from GrapheneOS. It hasn't provided the 2025-06-05 or later Android security patches and updates for it have been discontinued. It's strange to recommend people use an insecure and non-private OS without updates. https://calyxos.org/news/2025/08/01/a-letter-to-our-community/ https://calyxos.org/news/2025/08/01/a-letter-to-our-communit... https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm has a high quality comparison of the privacy and security between different alternate AOSP-based operating systems.
- spookie 1y ago
  Fairphone and Sony Xperias - Fairphone 5 works with Ubuntu touch - Xperias that are from previous gen can run Sailfish OS I've looked into others, don't recommend
seviu 1y ago
Out of all the models I saw, SailfishOS is the only one that ticks all the boxes for me. Wish there were other alternatives. PinePhone Pro got discontinued. This is truly a duopoly.
- panny 1y ago
  >PinePhone Pro got discontinued. At the EXACT moment everyone is now looking for Google alternatives. This is truly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. https://liliputing.com/pinephone-pro-linux-smartphone-has-been-discontinued-but-the-original-pinephone-is-still-available/ https://liliputing.com/pinephone-pro-linux-smartphone-has-be...

Which one?

Hackbraten 1y ago

It’s a Librem 5. I’m looking for a more powerful model that can also run mainline(-ish) Linux.

russnes 1y ago
Seeing as GrapheneOS appear to be recommended on the newest Pixel models, I wonder if it shouldn't be too difficult to get Arch Linux running on them with the AUR plasma-mobile?
- nunobrito 1y ago
  Run away from Graphene, it is suspicious at best scenario and dangerous at worst. Just observe that the key factor is to be independent from Google and then the only recommended devices from their side are exactly google devices where nobody here can have an idea of what is modified inside them. You'd be better off supporting other distributions like Calyx, which have no problems in supporting other devices like the fairphone and so on.
  - duesabati 1y ago
    I was very interested in Graphene, do you have other grounds for your suspicions?
    - fsflover 1y ago
      I agree with the parent. GrapheneOS puts security above freedom, which is wrong. It forces you to give your money to Google and rely on Google hardware, which is questionable in the long term. They refuse to support different hardware "for your security". Their developers are constantly attacking GNU/Linux phones, which are the actual long-term solution for both freedom and security. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44680624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44680624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43675380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43675380
      - scheeseman486 1y ago
        I don't think I've ever read any solid refutation of the technical choices of the project, mostly just character attacks, the basis of which are dodgy at best. They're completely up-front about the limitations and catches of their choices, too. Those links don't really help your case, to be frank. Nothing strcat says reads as incorrect or even particularly controversial, they have personal beef with CalyxOS but their criticisms of the choices of the project are largely on point. They're justifiably upset by the mental health accusations too, it's kind of a joke that one of those people in the thread tried to gaslight strcat about how these accusations are somehow not a recurring issue when I, as a third party observer, have seen it come up all the fucking time. Meanwhile, you're imagining "attacks" on GNU/Linux phones, when most of what I read from them regarding those was sober and reasonable, if not particularly positive, but they're allowed to do that. Their priorities are clearly security and none of those phones really have any.
        fsflover 1y ago
        This is another project that knows what you need better than yourself. People are constantly asking them to add support to other hardware, but the answer is "it's insecure". This is completely wrong and forces everybody without a(n expensive!) Pixel to abandon reasonable security. Even Qubes OS allows installing itself on hardware without VT-d, with respective warnings, and plans to enable GPU acceleration in VMs on demand. Their priority clearly isn't to make as many people as possible more secure but to force Google on you. Are you calling the above a "character attack"? I would love to use GrapheneOS on my Librem 5 and Pinephone. No proprietary drivers are required. Yes, some security features are lacking. Yet it would be a win for everybody. I didn't say anything about CalyxOS: I don't care about this.
        scheeseman486 1y ago
        > the answer is "it's insecure". Can you give me a quote where they outright say this? Because my hunch is that what they actually say is something along the lines of 'because it doesn't have the security requirements that we desire' which would be true. Whatever their reasons for those choices, it also makes sense to limit scope given the extreme constraints they're working under and that scope is best limited to phones with the widest security feature support for their security-focus Android OS. > Are you calling the above a "character attack"? Grow up.
  - pferde 1y ago
    No, the "key factor" of GrapheneOS is to provide a secure OS on a secure hardware. If the "key factor" was to be independent from Google, they wouldn't support Google devices at all. But since the Pixel phones are the only ones with secure enough hardware, GrapheneOS supports them. They even tell you in their usage guide that it's more secure to use Google's app store than e.g. F-Droid (which neglects several good security practices for an app store), and that it's not a good idea to blindly aim for "degoogling" at all costs. Go away with your baseless FUD.
    - BlueTemplar 1y ago
      > it's not a good idea to blindly aim for "degoogling" at all costs Why not ? This seems to be exactly the push that was needed.
    - close04 1y ago
      > Pixel phones are the only ones with secure enough hardware The biggest thing that excludes most phones from supporting GrapheneOS is the lack of unlockable bootloader. Pixel phones also allow the developers to target a large but homogeneous hardware base.
      - pferde 1y ago
        There is no single biggest thing. GrapheneOS has a rather strict demands for a device they're willing to support, see https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
        close04 1y ago
        GrapheneOS doesn't support Pixels with locked bootloader. It's where the game stops for all locked phones, a common practice now. You can already see how this is the single biggest thing. The second big thing is that the "non-exhaustive list of requirements" is basically "whatever new Pixels do". Your conclusion that Pixel phones are "the only ones with secure enough hardware" is overstretching what's happening here. The developers took the Pixel as a template because it's a well selling line, with good security, and generally with unlocked bootloader, and modelled the requirements based on it. It's a reasonable approach to the development of a niche security oriented OS because: "In order to support a device, the appropriate resources also need to be available and dedicated towards it". It has the downside that it makes it sound like no other phone has comparable security features. Are the fully supported Pixel 6/6a more secure than any other non-Pixel phone sold on the market today?
  - strcat 1y ago
    CalyxOS was not a hardened OS and is a much different space from GrapheneOS. It hasn't provided the 2025-06-05 or later Android security patches and updates for it have been discontinued. It's strange to recommend people use an insecure and non-private OS without updates. https://calyxos.org/news/2025/08/01/a-letter-to-our-community/ https://calyxos.org/news/2025/08/01/a-letter-to-our-communit... https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm has a high quality comparison of the privacy and security between different alternate AOSP-based operating systems.
spookie 1y ago
Fairphone and Sony Xperias - Fairphone 5 works with Ubuntu touch - Xperias that are from previous gen can run Sailfish OS I've looked into others, don't recommend

seviu 1y ago

Out of all the models I saw, SailfishOS is the only one that ticks all the boxes for me. Wish there were other alternatives. PinePhone Pro got discontinued. This is truly a duopoly.

panny 1y ago
>PinePhone Pro got discontinued. At the EXACT moment everyone is now looking for Google alternatives. This is truly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. https://liliputing.com/pinephone-pro-linux-smartphone-has-been-discontinued-but-the-original-pinephone-is-still-available/ https://liliputing.com/pinephone-pro-linux-smartphone-has-be...