9 ms·

Why can't they just partner with postmarketOS here? Why do we have to have /e/OS instead of a better supported LineageOS, because /e/ is a 1:1 copy anyways? W

Why can't they just partner with postmarketOS here? Why do we have to have /e/OS instead of a better supported LineageOS, because /e/ is a 1:1 copy anyways? Why do we have to have a Librephone project now instead of partnering with say, Fairphone and the Pine64 people? Open source loses this war because proprietary devices are streamlined. The only thing that comes close to this is GrapheneOS, LineageOS, and postmarketOS. LineageOS has huge problems since the mandatory eBPF requirements of late Android versions, which postmarketOS and its upstreamed kernel drivers could fix. GrapheneOS has huge problems because of Pixel devices, which LineageOS could help with. We need a unification of this ecosystem because each on their own is hardly surviving on their own against the megacorporations.

realusername 1y ago
I agree about postmarketOS but eOS isn't the same as Lineageos, I used both and they are pretty different. eOS wants to have its own non-Google ecosystem which is a non-goal for Lineageos
rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago
Why is eBPF a problem?
- cookiengineer 1y ago
  A lot of functionality of newer Android releases (Android/AOSP 13 and later) rely on eBPF [1] for both interception of process insights and sandboxing of processes. eBPF in a nutshell is a way to build kernel hooks, so that you can also disallow or intercept syscalls or kernel API calls that the Apps are executing behind the scenes. eBPF was introduced with Kernel 4.14 officially (but partly long before that). Most LineageOS supported devices still rely on older kernels, the most range being around the Kernel 4.4 or 4.9 branches, which lack that eBPF functionality. The LineageOS maintainers were backporting a lot of things already, but that's the "hardcut of now unsupported legacy devices" that people are experiencing with their old phones. The issue here is that upstream vendors (e.g. Fairphone, actually meaning upstream Qualcomm IoT) only maintain their outdated kernel versions, and never maintain them in the sense of updating their driver code into newer kernel releases. The drivers are always stuck in an outdated state of a feature frozen kernel. I'm just making this specific example with the Fairphone because "5 to 8 years support" isn't what most people would think it is. It means "only the really critical security patches of old stuff gets backported" and does not mean "hey we migrated our old code to a new kernel and Android version". For example, Fairphone 1, 2, 3, 3+ are all stuck in old kernels right now (4.9 being the latest backport for the FP3+) and are essentially not updatable because of this. I don't try to blame Fairphone here, because other manufacturers are much much worse in this regard. Fairphone and Pixel are already the "as good as it can get" for third-party ROMs case. I mentioned postmarketOS specifically, because they're trying to fix that by upstreaming the kernel drivers, so that Linux support of those devices will stay updated with newer kernel releases (hopefully). [1] https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/kernel/bpf https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/kernel/bpf
  - saagarjha 1y ago
    I don't think Android is really using eBPF for much. Last I remember they were loath to adding more things and they've definitely locked away the ability to load arbitrary new programs because they couldn't secure the attack surface it opened up.
  - naasking 1y ago
    > only maintain their outdated kernel versions, and never maintain them in the sense of updating their driver code into newer kernel releases Just an aside, but this is one of the major downsides of monolithic kernels, and a case where microkernels would have had more consumer friendly upsides.
TranquilMarmot 1y ago
Supposedly Graphene is partnering with a major OEM (they say "one of the top 10") to get better hardware support. Even then they're still at the whim of Google, though - the most recent QPR1 update still has not been pushed to AOSP even after many weeks. Supposedly partnering with an OEM means they get these updates quicker but who knows.
- styanax 1y ago
  You may have missed this, it's only been ~11 days since the post but they've got a solution now, with the first release having happened: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-preview-releases https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-p...
  - TranquilMarmot 1y ago
    This is a security patch which is different from the QPR1 release. _Supposedly_ once they partner with an OEM they will get more reliable access which would be nice, but I'm hesitant. I switched my Pixel 8 Pro to Graphene a few months ago and really like it.
bebna 1y ago
I got an FP5, would not buy again.
- haltcatchfire 1y ago
  Could you elaborate on why? This type of comment doesn't add any value.
- dddw 1y ago
  Can you elaborate?
- boudin 1y ago
  I got a FP4, will definitely buy again.
- GTP 1y ago
  I considered purchasing it, but ultimately turned it down due to its size. What's the reason you're not liking it?
  - guerrilla 1y ago
    I like the size. I do not like the weight. I love the phone overall though. Love love. Good choice despite downsides.
- beeforpork 1y ago
  We bought two FP5 with e/OS/ from Murena (for spouse and myself), and would buy again. Why wouldn't you?
  - palata 1y ago
    I don't like how /e/OS claims everywhere that they support all those phones, when in all my experience they just can't keep up and I end up with phones that don't receive vendor firmware updates for 1+ year.
fsflover 1y ago
Why are all commenters on HN ignoring the only smartphone running an FSF-endorsed [0] operating system, Librem 5, and only list everything else? I just can't get it. Even the FSF themselves didn't mention it or provided any reasoning for choosing a Google-controlled operating system - despite recommending Librem 5 earlier [1]. What am I missing? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641 [1] https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11/ https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11/
- rjsw 1y ago
  We know that you will post something about Librem 5 so there is no need for anyone else to do it.
  - gessha 1y ago
    It’s amusing to me that whenever I see a submission about Linux phones, I start looking for the obligatory @fsflover comment. No bad feelings, fsflover, keep up the good work. I also can’t wait to post on here from a libre phone.
- tyler-dot-earth 1y ago
  as someone who has followed this phone for a long time, it has had an image problem - fairly old hardware, early software/buggy, and bad customer service experiences. i'm still pretty tempted to play with one.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    > fairly old hardware How new do you think the chosen Android hardware will be at the end of the promised reverse-engineering efforts? See also: https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/ https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/ It's fast enough and stable enough to serve me (and many other people, including in the HN comments) as a daily driver. > bad customer service experiences This depends: Purism is a quite small company, and sometimes they take time to reply, but the community at forums.puri.sm has been really helpful. I'm a happy user.
sunshine-o 1y ago
[flagged]
- MYEUHD 1y ago
  > the FSF is at least 15 years late to really launch something in that space Not really. https://replicant.us https://replicant.us is an FSF-supported project. But it kind of died due to the lack of contributors. IMHO, postmarketOS is better than Replicant or any other Android Rom, because it doesn't depend on Android.
  - sunshine-o 1y ago
    Yes we should have seen (me included) that going the free android distribution path was a long term trap. This is where the Stallman hard, radical and long term vision make a lot of sense in retrospect. Because we see now Google is pulling the rug.
    - pas 1y ago
      the smart strategy is to put effort into projects that have a fork failsafe option and concentrate effort on the components that don't have this (ie. drivers, hardware, codecs, whatever), but instead what we got is 20 more years GnomeJS and whatnot.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- padjo 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - sunshine-o 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - saagarjha 1y ago
closeneough 1y ago
This project is about reverse engineering the firmware blobs. It states that they do not want to create a distribution like postmarketOS or other projects do.
- fsflover 1y ago
  The listed distributions have already been created. The OP didn't suggest to create a distribution but to collaborate with existing ones not relying on the Google's OS.
  - pessimizer 1y ago
    Graphene and Lineage both rely on Google's OS, so this is not what the OP was saying.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      Did you miss postmarketOS in the OP's post?
Itoldmyselfso 1y ago
> GrapheneOS has huge problems because of Pixel devices, which LineageOS could help with. What are these "huge problems" caused by Pixel devices?
- franga2000 1y ago
  Probably that Google is dragging their feet releasing Pixel kernel and other source code. LineageOS has many years of experience getting a working system on top of bad or incomplete sources, including getting kernel source out of vendors in the first place.
  - palata 1y ago
    > dragging their feet releasing Pixel kernel Isn't it only the device tree, and therefore only affecting initial support for the Pixel 10? Doesn't feel like a huge problem, though it makes it harder to support the Pixel 10.
- moffkalast 1y ago
  I will never use GOS as long as it requires me to buy a Pixel, on principle, because it's made by Google. It's like having to buy a Microsoft Surface in order to use Linux.
  - b112 1y ago
    You can use an older pixel, thus not really giving money to Google, and also preventing that phone from landing in a landfill. Without all that Google and carrier excess junk on board, an older phone is fast. You can buy a new pixel, install GrapheneOS, and laugh thinking about how you're denying the enemy the OS level tracking they wanted with that device.
    - notrealyme123 1y ago
      But you still support Google and the closed source Android ecosystem with that.
wolvesechoes 1y ago
Why do we have to have million Linux distros? Why do we have to have dozen desktop environments? Because in FOSS world every single actor is a snowflake with unique vision. Any form of cooperation ends up in drama and moral accusations.
- fsflover 1y ago
  Why do we need so many car models and manufacturers?
  - mcny 1y ago
    I don't mind the many multiple distributions but the default experience really sucks. For example, there should only ever be one clipboard by default. If power users want multiple, they can go out of their way to configure their device config as such. Similarly, the function keys should function as function keys on a keyboard out of the box, without us having to fiddle with config files. Also the scroll wheel click to scroll should work out of the box without requiring editing config files. The default experience is still pretty poor.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  - wolvesechoes 1y ago
    We don't. But as soon as FOSS orgs will obtain resources comparable to those of car companies I will stop complaining.
- notrealyme123 1y ago
  So what exactly is the problem? To many options?
  - j45 1y ago
    The options thinking they're an island retreat only for those who agree with their way while standing on the same continent. What's missing is building something that resonates with the user/consumer's experience backwards, not just personal preferences or interpretations, which is fine, but at that point it's a personal project, not a product, or much larger unless it really captivates both people who can contribute to creating it and also it is adopted quite easily. Creating beginners can seem like something too many OSS projects can be allergic to. It's the greatest sin of too many projects, and they ultimately can't be freed of it.
zozbot234 1y ago
> LineageOS has huge problems since the mandatory eBPF requirements of late Android versions It's a mixed bag. The eBPF requirement makes it harder to support newer AOSP versions on very old downstream kernels (you now need a close-to-mainline port, like what pmOS aims to provide) but because it is a requirement, it will make it easier for newer devices to run a more up-to-date kernel starting from the available downstream sources.
m4rtink 1y ago
Mobile software is unfortunately not really a lego that can always be combined at will. In your examples you compare Android rebuilds with real Linux distros. The projects also have quite different goals (providing full manufacturer ROM replacement for Android on Lineage OS to reusing any old hardware to basically run servers on PostmarketOS).
- feitingen 1y ago
  That's not entirely true. Most PostmarketOS devices start out using LineageOS kernels, and many are atill using those. Why not use PostmarketOS kernels on LineageOS? The ultimate goals are different, but cooperation on upstreaming kernel work would benefit both.
  - zozbot234 1y ago
    LineageOS kernels are AOSP downstream kernels, and PostmarketOS has expressly deprecated their use. LineageOS is now working on running their system on close-to-mainline kernels, as provided by PostmarketOS and most Linux distributions.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > Mobile software is unfortunately not really a lego that can always be combined at will. If we're talking about the mainline Linux, then it this looks exactly like a Lego to me. I hope that FSF will concentrate their efforts on that.
j45 1y ago
You have a good point about things coming together, but open source often is a lot of design and development by committee, or interest. Librephone appears to be taking existing linux approaches, and specifically reverse engineering the SoC blobs to be completely free. I may have mis read, but it doesn't appear they are building another android distro for android phones, as they already have done that in the past. Just tried to learn the difference between these and it seems like: - Graphene - For current devices only - An alternative for phones that are supported and updated by Google. Security Patches, etc. - LineageOS - For devices while they're supported or may not be updated that often. Support can be sometime by community members. - PostmarketOS - devices that no longer have a maintained Android version for it, can just become a linux computer. Mobile functionality doesn't necessarily. Some phone chips overtime end up having a hardware security flaw that software can't fix. I really enjoy using Android. Part of the issue is not all deices get timely security updates, even if they get monthly updates, the updates might be from 6 months ago. Google might release a security patch but sometimes it has to go through the device manufacturer, and maybe even the mobile company. Pixel / Android pure installs seem to improve this a bit, but it's hard to have complete trust.
- oblio 1y ago
  Librem?
sznio 1y ago
From my understanding of the article, Postmarket or Lineage or any other mobile operating system will be able to make use of this project. The goal is to provide FOSS drivers, so that you can run Lineage without proprietary blobs copied from the distribution of Android provided by the device manufacturer. It's mainly a libre purity project. A Lineage user won't be able to tell a thing, but the system will be "ethically pure"
- fsflover 1y ago
  > Postmarket or Lineage or any other mobile operating system will be able to make use of this project. Any OS "is able" to use anything from any other OS - in theory and given infinite resources. In practice though, it makes a huge difference when something works by default.
  - ric2b 1y ago
    No, software licensing often gets in the way.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      How does the licensing affect firmware blobs?
      - jrochkind1 1y ago
        They are also software that is licensed?
        fsflover 1y ago
        AFAIK you can use and reverse engineer the firmware blobs on any OS, free or not.
        devmor 1y ago
        I wonder if it's one of those situations where the potential for legal system abuse is a chilling effect.
3abiton 1y ago
You're forgetting 1 tiny thing: the wjole AOSP ecosystem is running on volunteer dev time. It's much more difficult to organize and streamline vision / roadmap.
ForHackernews 1y ago
I prefer /e/OS to LineageOS because it includes sensible defaults (e.g. Maps app + MicroG with location providers and signature spoofing enabled) that are a pain to set up for yourself after flashing vanilla LineageOS. /e/OS already partners with Fairphone, if you like that hardware: https://murena.com/shop/smartphones/brand-new/murena-fairphone-6/ https://murena.com/shop/smartphones/brand-new/murena-fairpho... I agree that PostmarketOS needs a lot more love, but it's very far from being a daily driver system today.
- strcat 1y ago
  /e/ has extraordinarily poor privacy and security. Extremely delayed privacy and security patches including years of delays for kernel, driver and firmware updates or complete AOSP patches is not compatible with privacy. /e/ rolls back privacy and security far more than LineageOS and /e/ includes their own invasive services. Murena services even send data to OpenAI without user consent. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand... is a detailed post covering the lack of privacy and security of /e/ with a bunch of linked sources including other detailed posts by third party privacy and security researchers. It also touches on the lack of security of Fairphone hardware including end-of-life Linux kernel branches not getting LTS updates and delays for driver/firmware patches, but it's much worse with /e/.
  - ForHackernews 1y ago
    You post something similar almost every time /e/OS is mentioned. I recognize that GrapheneOS has a different threat model in mind (journalists, activists, etc.), but /e/OS is a big improvement over OEM Android for most regular people. I tend to agree with your linked article that for users happy to live in Apple's locked-down glass box, iOS is a more secure, more usable system than either Graphene or /e/OS.
    - strcat 1y ago
      /e/ isn't a safe option for regular people. It doesn't provide the most basic privacy and security patches or protections. Multiple years of important privacy and security patches being missing is terrible for a personal computer with tons of sensitive data. Replacing the stock OS on a Pixel 7 with an OS multiple years behind on important privacy/security patches and protections with different service privacy issues is not an overall privacy upgrade. /e/ has their own privacy invasive services including sending sensitive user data to third parties without consent and user tracking via unique identifiers. /e/ claiming a voice-to-text service is private while it actually sends the audio data to OpenAI is not the approach of a privacy project. Falsely claiming the data sent to OpenAI is anonymized when it's brought up makes it worse. That's one representative example. I didn't mention GrapheneOS in my reply above, but it's not aimed at a niche audience or specifically for people who need advanced protections as your claiming. It provides much broader app compatibility, stability and usability than /e/ despite their inaccurate claims about it. GrapheneOS is a privacy project providing both privacy protections and also security protections to avoid exploits compromising privacy. iOS is certainly far more private and secure than /e/. It's definitely less secure than GrapheneOS against remote attacks on browsers, messaging apps, etc. iOS having a more secure kernel than the current status quo of hardened Linux doesn't mean it's more secure overall.
honkostani 1y ago
As in every idealistic movement, the fundamentalists(which contribute all the talk and non of the walk) hijack it and drive it into a wall.
- ookdatnog 1y ago
  Your statement is wrong in two distinct ways: - Fundamentalists never hijacked the FSF, they founded it: Stallman is about as fundamentalist as possible about free software. - In the case of the FSF, the fundamentalists are absolutely walking the walk, both in terms of contributing software, and in terms of going out of their way to not use proprietary software.
  - positron26 1y ago
    > in terms of going out of their way to not use proprietary software. Performative and an example of very self-defeating tactics that belie motivations other than actually accomplishing anything. > they founded it This is true, but it actually contributes to arguments that the FSF is full of crazies content to preach from the monastery of ascetic suffering rather than live in a world with lots of independence and strong open source.
ekianjo 1y ago
PostmarketOS has never achieved proper support on any device so far.
- fsflover 1y ago
  Doesn't this count? https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Purism_Librem5_(purism-librem5) https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Purism_Librem5_(purism-li...
  - wltr 1y ago
    Looks like it is not. Unfortunately.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      What's not proper about it?
      - wltr 1y ago
        At least camera and other sensors. It looks much better than other devices, though. What I meant is that compared to Android, the average user might not want a half-baked device.
supermatt 1y ago
TLDR or something? They aren't making an OS. The project is about opening up the closed blobs that mobile chipsets use: "This project's goal is not another Android distribution, but a long-term project to better understand and reverse-engineer the nonfree blobs used by virtually all SoCs made today."
- fsflover 1y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589873
  - supermatt 1y ago
    Thats clearly not what the OP is suggesting as per "Why do we have to have /e/OS instead of a better supported LineageOS, because /e/ is a 1:1 copy anyways?". Both cases are android. /e/OS is not librephone. There's little point in "partnering" with postmarketOS, because the project is literally about clean room reversing the proprietary blobs found in android devices: https://librephone.fsf.org/site/ https://librephone.fsf.org/site/ - there are no commercial phones using postmarketOS with blobs to reverse engineer.
    - fsflover 1y ago
      > there are no commercial phones using postmarketOS with blobs to reverse engineer This is false: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Purism_Librem5_(purism-librem5) https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Purism_Librem5_(purism-li... See also my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589096
      - supermatt 1y ago
        > This is false You can install postmarketOS on it (just as you can install lineageOS, etc on a Samsung galaxy, etc), but it ships with PureOS. "The Librem 5 is a phone built on PureOS" - https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ The project is to reverse engineer proprietary blobs - so it makes sense to go where those blobs are and reverse to match the functionality that is exposed commercially instead of guessing at a subset for base implementation on a non-official OS? > See also my other comment It seems you are just as confused about this project as the OP, which is ironic given your name.
RIMR 1y ago
Why partner with postmarketOS, LineageOS, GrapheneOS, or CalyxOS? This would be an open source initiative that contributors from any of those projects to add to. The results could be used by any of the aforementioned distributions, and more. It might even make running vanilla Linux on our exiting smartphones viable. Why partner with Fairphone and Pine64? They already have open hardware, and require zero reverse engineering to get a fully open solution working. In a world with thousands of Fairphones and Pinephones, and billions of corporate smartphones, replacing the proprietary software needed to run those billions of corporate smartphones is a hell of a win for software freedom. And are you really expecting the argument "open source loses" to be a real argument against a project by the Free Software Foundation? This is like asking a cancer charity why they don't endorse your preferred brand of cigarettes. What the FSF is doing here isn't about maximizing your experience with your preferred custom ROM, it is about tearing down the proprietary software barriers that prevent the vast majority of smartphone users from fully owning the hardware they purchased. It fits perfectly with the FSF's goals.
- ycombinete 1y ago
  This type of semi-whataboutist comment appears at the top of most open source project announcements. Once we live in a centrally planned utopia these projects will all be merged with each other and produce the perfect phone/operating system/smart watch.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > tearing down the proprietary software barriers that prevent the vast majority of smartphone users Are you aware that all those millions of devices require each model a dedicated reverse-engineering effort? You don't gain the coverage you're implying by concentrating on Android at all.
torginus 1y ago
That's just the unfortunate reality of free software. Free software is anarchy, and the only people who thrive in anarchy are the ones who band into fiefdoms, who then fight amongst each other and build mutually incompatible projects (often from the very same components) which are direct substitutes to each other. There's tons of evidence of this with stuff like linux distros, desktop environments (each one MUST have its own sanctioned file manager, video player, music player etc, god forbid some godless charlatan come along and make its own). The price of admission into these 'tribes' is the adoption of the local creed (libraries/HIG/coding style/whatever/not speaking out against the Dear Leader/Core Principles/local purity committee). As with other such despotic organizations, incompetence and laziness is tolerated, disloyalty is not.
- pferde 1y ago
  [flagged]
akagusu 1y ago
> Open source loses this war because proprietary devices are streamlined. "Open source" didn't loose because it didn't fight anything. It was exactly "Open source" that enabled Google to dominate the smartphone landscape. FSF and many other have been warning us for decades that Android been open source didn't matter because firmware, play store and many other components of Android were proprietary. People gave a shit to them and now do you want to blame them for the results? The diversity of projects were not and are not the problem. The problem is people that do nothing and only criticize.
- positron26 1y ago
  > It was exactly "Open source" that enabled Google to dominate the smartphone landscape. The financial interest may have preferred a licensing model, but either way, it was the financial interest that actually built a ton of this software. Linux isn't unpopular with businesses because of its license model. It is healthy because it found ways to plug into financial interest. The FSF will always push licensing models while ignoring financial interest, basically abandoning users and businesses. There are how many billion smartphone users on Earth, and the FSF expects volunteer programmers and volunteer donations recruited on one of the worst websites I have ever seen to carry the load? Give me a break.
  - Ajedi32 1y ago
    This is the one big flaw I've seen in Stallman's philosophy on software. He's been thoroughly proven right I think about the dangers of closed-source (unmodifiable) software to user freedom. But I think his insistence that Free Software also needs to be freely redistributable with no payment to the author in order to be Free has greatly limited the resources available to build such software. The FSF will argue "you can totally sell Free Software"[1], which ignores the fact that without any restrictions on distribution/copying, the fair market value of said Free Software rapidly drops to ~$0. It's not a viable business model. Companies have built alternate business models around soliciting donations, or selling support or non-free add-ons to Free software, but selling Free Software itself (at least as the FSF defines it) doesn't actually work in practice. (You can do it obviously, but it's effectively just a different way of soliciting donations at that point; the fair market value of the software is ~$0.) [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
bogwog 1y ago
Did you read the article? They're not creating nor choosing an operating system for the librephone project. They're looking into reverse engineering the binary firmware blobs needed to achieve a fully free software distribution on a modern device. Afaik, this work will benefit all alternative OS projects for whatever devices they succeed with. I guess maybe a good analogy would be like trying to port coreboot to a laptop.
pessimizer 1y ago
I'm pretty sure they said they're partnering with everybody that they possibly can. I also don't know what you mean by "just partner with postmarketOS." It's basically a project to create a fully-free Android-compatible distribution (or rather the fully-free low-level elements that would support this), and postmarketOS is not Android. I also don't have any idea why you think that they wouldn't be talking to everybody who is reverse engineering phones to get OSes on them. I really do not understand this comment at all. I don't understand the weird judgemental tone, and I don't understand that people have reacted to it like there is content there.
kristianpaul 1y ago
"Librephone is the FSF's project to free up those blobs. This project's goal is not another Android distribution, but a long-term project to better understand and reverse-engineer the nonfree blobs used by virtually all SoCs made today. " Looks they're going to build something literally from the ground
- TZubiri 1y ago
  I feel that free software sometimes obsesses over the 1% when the 99% of their objective is achieved. I make a parallel with politics and transparency, a software lead once told me that a completely transparent government was tried in the french revolution and it kind of didn't work. For example, we all would agree that there's some functions of government related to war and security that should not be transparent. I feel that free software would obsess over that private fraction because for all you know it might hold all of the secrets and evil that you imagine. That said, it is possible that under the guise of reasonable need for private blobs/three-letter-agencies, a lot of other 'evil' things may be hidden. Maybe they say it's due to security or IP concerns, to provide protection against device tampering, to avoid pollution of radiofrequency spectrums, but it's possible that in reality they are hiding spying software in the wifi firmware and hardware keystores? I feel that if the FSF recognizes that there's some areas that are ok to have closed source, then they could be taken seriously, otherwise they will just be ignored and leave room for precisely the kind of misuse of closed source that they fear. This is especially noticeable when they fight against projects that precisely do a lot for open source, like github (See GitLab/Savannah), or Android, they are 99% of the way there, give them a break. Extremism begets extremism, if the jails are too full (or too empty), advocating for the other extreme will get you nowhere, the Overton Window doesn't quite apply, in fact it can be harmful as you are providing a real threat to the other extreme.
  - worik 1y ago
    > free software sometimes obsesses over the 1% when the 99% of their objective is achieved. That is the nature of software. 1% is too much. It is Free or it is not
  - 1y ago
Templeton2X 1y ago
[dead]

realusername 1y ago

I agree about postmarketOS but eOS isn't the same as Lineageos, I used both and they are pretty different. eOS wants to have its own non-Google ecosystem which is a non-goal for Lineageos

rjdj377dhabsn 1y ago

Why is eBPF a problem?

cookiengineer 1y ago
A lot of functionality of newer Android releases (Android/AOSP 13 and later) rely on eBPF [1] for both interception of process insights and sandboxing of processes. eBPF in a nutshell is a way to build kernel hooks, so that you can also disallow or intercept syscalls or kernel API calls that the Apps are executing behind the scenes. eBPF was introduced with Kernel 4.14 officially (but partly long before that). Most LineageOS supported devices still rely on older kernels, the most range being around the Kernel 4.4 or 4.9 branches, which lack that eBPF functionality. The LineageOS maintainers were backporting a lot of things already, but that's the "hardcut of now unsupported legacy devices" that people are experiencing with their old phones. The issue here is that upstream vendors (e.g. Fairphone, actually meaning upstream Qualcomm IoT) only maintain their outdated kernel versions, and never maintain them in the sense of updating their driver code into newer kernel releases. The drivers are always stuck in an outdated state of a feature frozen kernel. I'm just making this specific example with the Fairphone because "5 to 8 years support" isn't what most people would think it is. It means "only the really critical security patches of old stuff gets backported" and does not mean "hey we migrated our old code to a new kernel and Android version". For example, Fairphone 1, 2, 3, 3+ are all stuck in old kernels right now (4.9 being the latest backport for the FP3+) and are essentially not updatable because of this. I don't try to blame Fairphone here, because other manufacturers are much much worse in this regard. Fairphone and Pixel are already the "as good as it can get" for third-party ROMs case. I mentioned postmarketOS specifically, because they're trying to fix that by upstreaming the kernel drivers, so that Linux support of those devices will stay updated with newer kernel releases (hopefully). [1] https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/kernel/bpf https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/kernel/bpf
- saagarjha 1y ago
  I don't think Android is really using eBPF for much. Last I remember they were loath to adding more things and they've definitely locked away the ability to load arbitrary new programs because they couldn't secure the attack surface it opened up.
- naasking 1y ago
  > only maintain their outdated kernel versions, and never maintain them in the sense of updating their driver code into newer kernel releases Just an aside, but this is one of the major downsides of monolithic kernels, and a case where microkernels would have had more consumer friendly upsides.

TranquilMarmot 1y ago

Supposedly Graphene is partnering with a major OEM (they say "one of the top 10") to get better hardware support. Even then they're still at the whim of Google, though - the most recent QPR1 update still has not been pushed to AOSP even after many weeks. Supposedly partnering with an OEM means they get these updates quicker but who knows.

styanax 1y ago
You may have missed this, it's only been ~11 days since the post but they've got a solution now, with the first release having happened: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-preview-releases https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/27068-grapheneos-security-p...
- TranquilMarmot 1y ago
  This is a security patch which is different from the QPR1 release. _Supposedly_ once they partner with an OEM they will get more reliable access which would be nice, but I'm hesitant. I switched my Pixel 8 Pro to Graphene a few months ago and really like it.

bebna 1y ago

I got an FP5, would not buy again.

haltcatchfire 1y ago
Could you elaborate on why? This type of comment doesn't add any value.
dddw 1y ago
Can you elaborate?
boudin 1y ago
I got a FP4, will definitely buy again.
GTP 1y ago
I considered purchasing it, but ultimately turned it down due to its size. What's the reason you're not liking it?
- guerrilla 1y ago
  I like the size. I do not like the weight. I love the phone overall though. Love love. Good choice despite downsides.
beeforpork 1y ago
We bought two FP5 with e/OS/ from Murena (for spouse and myself), and would buy again. Why wouldn't you?
- palata 1y ago
  I don't like how /e/OS claims everywhere that they support all those phones, when in all my experience they just can't keep up and I end up with phones that don't receive vendor firmware updates for 1+ year.

fsflover 1y ago

Why are all commenters on HN ignoring the only smartphone running an FSF-endorsed [0] operating system, Librem 5, and only list everything else? I just can't get it. Even the FSF themselves didn't mention it or provided any reasoning for choosing a Google-controlled operating system - despite recommending Librem 5 earlier [1]. What am I missing? [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641 [1] https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11/ https://www.fsf.org/givingguide/v11/

rjsw 1y ago
We know that you will post something about Librem 5 so there is no need for anyone else to do it.
- gessha 1y ago
  It’s amusing to me that whenever I see a submission about Linux phones, I start looking for the obligatory @fsflover comment. No bad feelings, fsflover, keep up the good work. I also can’t wait to post on here from a libre phone.
tyler-dot-earth 1y ago
as someone who has followed this phone for a long time, it has had an image problem - fairly old hardware, early software/buggy, and bad customer service experiences. i'm still pretty tempted to play with one.
- fsflover 1y ago
  > fairly old hardware How new do you think the chosen Android hardware will be at the end of the promised reverse-engineering efforts? See also: https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/ https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/ It's fast enough and stable enough to serve me (and many other people, including in the HN comments) as a daily driver. > bad customer service experiences This depends: Purism is a quite small company, and sometimes they take time to reply, but the community at forums.puri.sm has been really helpful. I'm a happy user.

sunshine-o 1y ago

[flagged]

MYEUHD 1y ago
> the FSF is at least 15 years late to really launch something in that space Not really. https://replicant.us https://replicant.us is an FSF-supported project. But it kind of died due to the lack of contributors. IMHO, postmarketOS is better than Replicant or any other Android Rom, because it doesn't depend on Android.
- sunshine-o 1y ago
  Yes we should have seen (me included) that going the free android distribution path was a long term trap. This is where the Stallman hard, radical and long term vision make a lot of sense in retrospect. Because we see now Google is pulling the rug.
  - pas 1y ago
    the smart strategy is to put effort into projects that have a fork failsafe option and concentrate effort on the components that don't have this (ie. drivers, hardware, codecs, whatever), but instead what we got is 20 more years GnomeJS and whatnot.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
padjo 1y ago
[flagged]
- sunshine-o 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - saagarjha 1y ago

closeneough 1y ago

This project is about reverse engineering the firmware blobs. It states that they do not want to create a distribution like postmarketOS or other projects do.

fsflover 1y ago
The listed distributions have already been created. The OP didn't suggest to create a distribution but to collaborate with existing ones not relying on the Google's OS.
- pessimizer 1y ago
  Graphene and Lineage both rely on Google's OS, so this is not what the OP was saying.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    Did you miss postmarketOS in the OP's post?

Itoldmyselfso 1y ago

> GrapheneOS has huge problems because of Pixel devices, which LineageOS could help with. What are these "huge problems" caused by Pixel devices?

franga2000 1y ago
Probably that Google is dragging their feet releasing Pixel kernel and other source code. LineageOS has many years of experience getting a working system on top of bad or incomplete sources, including getting kernel source out of vendors in the first place.
- palata 1y ago
  > dragging their feet releasing Pixel kernel Isn't it only the device tree, and therefore only affecting initial support for the Pixel 10? Doesn't feel like a huge problem, though it makes it harder to support the Pixel 10.
moffkalast 1y ago
I will never use GOS as long as it requires me to buy a Pixel, on principle, because it's made by Google. It's like having to buy a Microsoft Surface in order to use Linux.
- b112 1y ago
  You can use an older pixel, thus not really giving money to Google, and also preventing that phone from landing in a landfill. Without all that Google and carrier excess junk on board, an older phone is fast. You can buy a new pixel, install GrapheneOS, and laugh thinking about how you're denying the enemy the OS level tracking they wanted with that device.
  - notrealyme123 1y ago
    But you still support Google and the closed source Android ecosystem with that.

wolvesechoes 1y ago

Why do we have to have million Linux distros? Why do we have to have dozen desktop environments? Because in FOSS world every single actor is a snowflake with unique vision. Any form of cooperation ends up in drama and moral accusations.

fsflover 1y ago
Why do we need so many car models and manufacturers?
- mcny 1y ago
  I don't mind the many multiple distributions but the default experience really sucks. For example, there should only ever be one clipboard by default. If power users want multiple, they can go out of their way to configure their device config as such. Similarly, the function keys should function as function keys on a keyboard out of the box, without us having to fiddle with config files. Also the scroll wheel click to scroll should work out of the box without requiring editing config files. The default experience is still pretty poor.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- wolvesechoes 1y ago
  We don't. But as soon as FOSS orgs will obtain resources comparable to those of car companies I will stop complaining.
notrealyme123 1y ago
So what exactly is the problem? To many options?
- j45 1y ago
  The options thinking they're an island retreat only for those who agree with their way while standing on the same continent. What's missing is building something that resonates with the user/consumer's experience backwards, not just personal preferences or interpretations, which is fine, but at that point it's a personal project, not a product, or much larger unless it really captivates both people who can contribute to creating it and also it is adopted quite easily. Creating beginners can seem like something too many OSS projects can be allergic to. It's the greatest sin of too many projects, and they ultimately can't be freed of it.

zozbot234 1y ago

> LineageOS has huge problems since the mandatory eBPF requirements of late Android versions It's a mixed bag. The eBPF requirement makes it harder to support newer AOSP versions on very old downstream kernels (you now need a close-to-mainline port, like what pmOS aims to provide) but because it is a requirement, it will make it easier for newer devices to run a more up-to-date kernel starting from the available downstream sources.

m4rtink 1y ago

Mobile software is unfortunately not really a lego that can always be combined at will. In your examples you compare Android rebuilds with real Linux distros. The projects also have quite different goals (providing full manufacturer ROM replacement for Android on Lineage OS to reusing any old hardware to basically run servers on PostmarketOS).

feitingen 1y ago
That's not entirely true. Most PostmarketOS devices start out using LineageOS kernels, and many are atill using those. Why not use PostmarketOS kernels on LineageOS? The ultimate goals are different, but cooperation on upstreaming kernel work would benefit both.
- zozbot234 1y ago
  LineageOS kernels are AOSP downstream kernels, and PostmarketOS has expressly deprecated their use. LineageOS is now working on running their system on close-to-mainline kernels, as provided by PostmarketOS and most Linux distributions.
fsflover 1y ago
> Mobile software is unfortunately not really a lego that can always be combined at will. If we're talking about the mainline Linux, then it this looks exactly like a Lego to me. I hope that FSF will concentrate their efforts on that.

j45 1y ago

You have a good point about things coming together, but open source often is a lot of design and development by committee, or interest. Librephone appears to be taking existing linux approaches, and specifically reverse engineering the SoC blobs to be completely free. I may have mis read, but it doesn't appear they are building another android distro for android phones, as they already have done that in the past. Just tried to learn the difference between these and it seems like: - Graphene - For current devices only - An alternative for phones that are supported and updated by Google. Security Patches, etc. - LineageOS - For devices while they're supported or may not be updated that often. Support can be sometime by community members. - PostmarketOS - devices that no longer have a maintained Android version for it, can just become a linux computer. Mobile functionality doesn't necessarily. Some phone chips overtime end up having a hardware security flaw that software can't fix. I really enjoy using Android. Part of the issue is not all deices get timely security updates, even if they get monthly updates, the updates might be from 6 months ago. Google might release a security patch but sometimes it has to go through the device manufacturer, and maybe even the mobile company. Pixel / Android pure installs seem to improve this a bit, but it's hard to have complete trust.

oblio 1y ago
Librem?

sznio 1y ago

From my understanding of the article, Postmarket or Lineage or any other mobile operating system will be able to make use of this project. The goal is to provide FOSS drivers, so that you can run Lineage without proprietary blobs copied from the distribution of Android provided by the device manufacturer. It's mainly a libre purity project. A Lineage user won't be able to tell a thing, but the system will be "ethically pure"

fsflover 1y ago
> Postmarket or Lineage or any other mobile operating system will be able to make use of this project. Any OS "is able" to use anything from any other OS - in theory and given infinite resources. In practice though, it makes a huge difference when something works by default.
- ric2b 1y ago
  No, software licensing often gets in the way.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    How does the licensing affect firmware blobs?
    - jrochkind1 1y ago
      They are also software that is licensed?
      - fsflover 1y ago
        AFAIK you can use and reverse engineer the firmware blobs on any OS, free or not.
        devmor 1y ago
        I wonder if it's one of those situations where the potential for legal system abuse is a chilling effect.

3abiton 1y ago

You're forgetting 1 tiny thing: the wjole AOSP ecosystem is running on volunteer dev time. It's much more difficult to organize and streamline vision / roadmap.

ForHackernews 1y ago

I prefer /e/OS to LineageOS because it includes sensible defaults (e.g. Maps app + MicroG with location providers and signature spoofing enabled) that are a pain to set up for yourself after flashing vanilla LineageOS. /e/OS already partners with Fairphone, if you like that hardware: https://murena.com/shop/smartphones/brand-new/murena-fairphone-6/ https://murena.com/shop/smartphones/brand-new/murena-fairpho... I agree that PostmarketOS needs a lot more love, but it's very far from being a daily driver system today.

strcat 1y ago
/e/ has extraordinarily poor privacy and security. Extremely delayed privacy and security patches including years of delays for kernel, driver and firmware updates or complete AOSP patches is not compatible with privacy. /e/ rolls back privacy and security far more than LineageOS and /e/ includes their own invasive services. Murena services even send data to OpenAI without user consent. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-stand... is a detailed post covering the lack of privacy and security of /e/ with a bunch of linked sources including other detailed posts by third party privacy and security researchers. It also touches on the lack of security of Fairphone hardware including end-of-life Linux kernel branches not getting LTS updates and delays for driver/firmware patches, but it's much worse with /e/.
- ForHackernews 1y ago
  You post something similar almost every time /e/OS is mentioned. I recognize that GrapheneOS has a different threat model in mind (journalists, activists, etc.), but /e/OS is a big improvement over OEM Android for most regular people. I tend to agree with your linked article that for users happy to live in Apple's locked-down glass box, iOS is a more secure, more usable system than either Graphene or /e/OS.
  - strcat 1y ago
    /e/ isn't a safe option for regular people. It doesn't provide the most basic privacy and security patches or protections. Multiple years of important privacy and security patches being missing is terrible for a personal computer with tons of sensitive data. Replacing the stock OS on a Pixel 7 with an OS multiple years behind on important privacy/security patches and protections with different service privacy issues is not an overall privacy upgrade. /e/ has their own privacy invasive services including sending sensitive user data to third parties without consent and user tracking via unique identifiers. /e/ claiming a voice-to-text service is private while it actually sends the audio data to OpenAI is not the approach of a privacy project. Falsely claiming the data sent to OpenAI is anonymized when it's brought up makes it worse. That's one representative example. I didn't mention GrapheneOS in my reply above, but it's not aimed at a niche audience or specifically for people who need advanced protections as your claiming. It provides much broader app compatibility, stability and usability than /e/ despite their inaccurate claims about it. GrapheneOS is a privacy project providing both privacy protections and also security protections to avoid exploits compromising privacy. iOS is certainly far more private and secure than /e/. It's definitely less secure than GrapheneOS against remote attacks on browsers, messaging apps, etc. iOS having a more secure kernel than the current status quo of hardened Linux doesn't mean it's more secure overall.

honkostani 1y ago

As in every idealistic movement, the fundamentalists(which contribute all the talk and non of the walk) hijack it and drive it into a wall.

ookdatnog 1y ago
Your statement is wrong in two distinct ways: - Fundamentalists never hijacked the FSF, they founded it: Stallman is about as fundamentalist as possible about free software. - In the case of the FSF, the fundamentalists are absolutely walking the walk, both in terms of contributing software, and in terms of going out of their way to not use proprietary software.
- positron26 1y ago
  > in terms of going out of their way to not use proprietary software. Performative and an example of very self-defeating tactics that belie motivations other than actually accomplishing anything. > they founded it This is true, but it actually contributes to arguments that the FSF is full of crazies content to preach from the monastery of ascetic suffering rather than live in a world with lots of independence and strong open source.

ekianjo 1y ago

PostmarketOS has never achieved proper support on any device so far.

fsflover 1y ago
Doesn't this count? https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Purism_Librem5_(purism-librem5) https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Purism_Librem5_(purism-li...
- wltr 1y ago
  Looks like it is not. Unfortunately.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    What's not proper about it?
    - wltr 1y ago
      At least camera and other sensors. It looks much better than other devices, though. What I meant is that compared to Android, the average user might not want a half-baked device.

supermatt 1y ago

TLDR or something? They aren't making an OS. The project is about opening up the closed blobs that mobile chipsets use: "This project's goal is not another Android distribution, but a long-term project to better understand and reverse-engineer the nonfree blobs used by virtually all SoCs made today."

fsflover 1y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589873 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589873
- supermatt 1y ago
  Thats clearly not what the OP is suggesting as per "Why do we have to have /e/OS instead of a better supported LineageOS, because /e/ is a 1:1 copy anyways?". Both cases are android. /e/OS is not librephone. There's little point in "partnering" with postmarketOS, because the project is literally about clean room reversing the proprietary blobs found in android devices: https://librephone.fsf.org/site/ https://librephone.fsf.org/site/ - there are no commercial phones using postmarketOS with blobs to reverse engineer.
  - fsflover 1y ago
    > there are no commercial phones using postmarketOS with blobs to reverse engineer This is false: https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Purism_Librem5_(purism-librem5) https://wiki.postmarketos.org/wiki/Purism_Librem5_(purism-li... See also my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589096 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589096
    - supermatt 1y ago
      > This is false You can install postmarketOS on it (just as you can install lineageOS, etc on a Samsung galaxy, etc), but it ships with PureOS. "The Librem 5 is a phone built on PureOS" - https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ The project is to reverse engineer proprietary blobs - so it makes sense to go where those blobs are and reverse to match the functionality that is exposed commercially instead of guessing at a subset for base implementation on a non-official OS? > See also my other comment It seems you are just as confused about this project as the OP, which is ironic given your name.

RIMR 1y ago

Why partner with postmarketOS, LineageOS, GrapheneOS, or CalyxOS? This would be an open source initiative that contributors from any of those projects to add to. The results could be used by any of the aforementioned distributions, and more. It might even make running vanilla Linux on our exiting smartphones viable. Why partner with Fairphone and Pine64? They already have open hardware, and require zero reverse engineering to get a fully open solution working. In a world with thousands of Fairphones and Pinephones, and billions of corporate smartphones, replacing the proprietary software needed to run those billions of corporate smartphones is a hell of a win for software freedom. And are you really expecting the argument "open source loses" to be a real argument against a project by the Free Software Foundation? This is like asking a cancer charity why they don't endorse your preferred brand of cigarettes. What the FSF is doing here isn't about maximizing your experience with your preferred custom ROM, it is about tearing down the proprietary software barriers that prevent the vast majority of smartphone users from fully owning the hardware they purchased. It fits perfectly with the FSF's goals.

ycombinete 1y ago
This type of semi-whataboutist comment appears at the top of most open source project announcements. Once we live in a centrally planned utopia these projects will all be merged with each other and produce the perfect phone/operating system/smart watch.
fsflover 1y ago
> tearing down the proprietary software barriers that prevent the vast majority of smartphone users Are you aware that all those millions of devices require each model a dedicated reverse-engineering effort? You don't gain the coverage you're implying by concentrating on Android at all.

torginus 1y ago

That's just the unfortunate reality of free software. Free software is anarchy, and the only people who thrive in anarchy are the ones who band into fiefdoms, who then fight amongst each other and build mutually incompatible projects (often from the very same components) which are direct substitutes to each other. There's tons of evidence of this with stuff like linux distros, desktop environments (each one MUST have its own sanctioned file manager, video player, music player etc, god forbid some godless charlatan come along and make its own). The price of admission into these 'tribes' is the adoption of the local creed (libraries/HIG/coding style/whatever/not speaking out against the Dear Leader/Core Principles/local purity committee). As with other such despotic organizations, incompetence and laziness is tolerated, disloyalty is not.

pferde 1y ago
[flagged]

akagusu 1y ago

> Open source loses this war because proprietary devices are streamlined. "Open source" didn't loose because it didn't fight anything. It was exactly "Open source" that enabled Google to dominate the smartphone landscape. FSF and many other have been warning us for decades that Android been open source didn't matter because firmware, play store and many other components of Android were proprietary. People gave a shit to them and now do you want to blame them for the results? The diversity of projects were not and are not the problem. The problem is people that do nothing and only criticize.

positron26 1y ago
> It was exactly "Open source" that enabled Google to dominate the smartphone landscape. The financial interest may have preferred a licensing model, but either way, it was the financial interest that actually built a ton of this software. Linux isn't unpopular with businesses because of its license model. It is healthy because it found ways to plug into financial interest. The FSF will always push licensing models while ignoring financial interest, basically abandoning users and businesses. There are how many billion smartphone users on Earth, and the FSF expects volunteer programmers and volunteer donations recruited on one of the worst websites I have ever seen to carry the load? Give me a break.
- Ajedi32 1y ago
  This is the one big flaw I've seen in Stallman's philosophy on software. He's been thoroughly proven right I think about the dangers of closed-source (unmodifiable) software to user freedom. But I think his insistence that Free Software also needs to be freely redistributable with no payment to the author in order to be Free has greatly limited the resources available to build such software. The FSF will argue "you can totally sell Free Software"[1], which ignores the fact that without any restrictions on distribution/copying, the fair market value of said Free Software rapidly drops to ~$0. It's not a viable business model. Companies have built alternate business models around soliciting donations, or selling support or non-free add-ons to Free software, but selling Free Software itself (at least as the FSF defines it) doesn't actually work in practice. (You can do it obviously, but it's effectively just a different way of soliciting donations at that point; the fair market value of the software is ~$0.) [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

bogwog 1y ago

Did you read the article? They're not creating nor choosing an operating system for the librephone project. They're looking into reverse engineering the binary firmware blobs needed to achieve a fully free software distribution on a modern device. Afaik, this work will benefit all alternative OS projects for whatever devices they succeed with. I guess maybe a good analogy would be like trying to port coreboot to a laptop.

pessimizer 1y ago

I'm pretty sure they said they're partnering with everybody that they possibly can. I also don't know what you mean by "just partner with postmarketOS." It's basically a project to create a fully-free Android-compatible distribution (or rather the fully-free low-level elements that would support this), and postmarketOS is not Android. I also don't have any idea why you think that they wouldn't be talking to everybody who is reverse engineering phones to get OSes on them. I really do not understand this comment at all. I don't understand the weird judgemental tone, and I don't understand that people have reacted to it like there is content there.

kristianpaul 1y ago

"Librephone is the FSF's project to free up those blobs. This project's goal is not another Android distribution, but a long-term project to better understand and reverse-engineer the nonfree blobs used by virtually all SoCs made today. " Looks they're going to build something literally from the ground

TZubiri 1y ago
I feel that free software sometimes obsesses over the 1% when the 99% of their objective is achieved. I make a parallel with politics and transparency, a software lead once told me that a completely transparent government was tried in the french revolution and it kind of didn't work. For example, we all would agree that there's some functions of government related to war and security that should not be transparent. I feel that free software would obsess over that private fraction because for all you know it might hold all of the secrets and evil that you imagine. That said, it is possible that under the guise of reasonable need for private blobs/three-letter-agencies, a lot of other 'evil' things may be hidden. Maybe they say it's due to security or IP concerns, to provide protection against device tampering, to avoid pollution of radiofrequency spectrums, but it's possible that in reality they are hiding spying software in the wifi firmware and hardware keystores? I feel that if the FSF recognizes that there's some areas that are ok to have closed source, then they could be taken seriously, otherwise they will just be ignored and leave room for precisely the kind of misuse of closed source that they fear. This is especially noticeable when they fight against projects that precisely do a lot for open source, like github (See GitLab/Savannah), or Android, they are 99% of the way there, give them a break. Extremism begets extremism, if the jails are too full (or too empty), advocating for the other extreme will get you nowhere, the Overton Window doesn't quite apply, in fact it can be harmful as you are providing a real threat to the other extreme.
- worik 1y ago
  > free software sometimes obsesses over the 1% when the 99% of their objective is achieved. That is the nature of software. 1% is too much. It is Free or it is not
- 1y ago

Templeton2X 1y ago

[dead]