5 ms·

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 ge

by fsflover 10mo 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. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641

charcircuit 10mo ago
Because it was a kickstarter that was run like a scam, was years late to deliver the first device, the hardware was already not good at the start due picking an automotive SOC, the form factor was bulky, and the software was really buggy. GrapheneOS is a much more practical open source OS to use Linux on a phone.
- zozbot234 10mo ago
  GrapheneOS is not solving the actual interesting problem (running on an entirely mainline kernel, just like on x86). It's effectively a hardened variety of LineageOS/AOSP, hence entirely reliant on device-specific downstream kernels/BSPs that will never see a feature update. BTW, hardware support on postmarketOS "community" class devices has seen some nice improvements as of late. Once these improvements meaningfully stabilize (avoiding the risk of regression/breakage; there's been some of that even in the recent testing for the 2025-12 stable release) it's quite possible that some "community" devices might finally reach "main" class, marking them as OK for daily-driver use. Something to watch for as we approach 2026-06.
  - charcircuit 10mo ago
    >GrapheneOS is not solving the actual interesting problem Consumers don't care how interesting the developer's problems are. They want their own problems to be solved and GrapheneOS does a better job of that. >running on an entirely mainline kernel Google already did that work years ago. Android will work on a mainline kernel. Just like with x86 the mainline kernel needs to support the hardware e you want to use though.
    - fsflover 10mo ago
      > and GrapheneOS does a better job of that While Google is allowing that. > Just like with x86 the mainline kernel needs to support the hardware e you want to use though Librem 5 runs on all free drivers. This is why it will never be tied to an old kernel. This doesn't work with GrapheneOS.
      - charcircuit 10mo ago
        >While Google is allowing that. And while Linus allows Linux to be open source. A benefit of open source is that you can fork it if upstream decides to stop development or go closed source. >This doesn't work with GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS can use free drivers too. It literally is using Linux.
        fsflover 10mo ago
        > And while Linus allows Linux to be open source. Linus can't close the kernel. He would need to ask all contributors for a signed agreement for that. This is the benefit of GPL. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46177148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46177148 > GrapheneOS can use free drivers too. It literally is using Linux. Except there is no device with free drivers that it supports. They just refuse to support Librem or Pinephone without a good reason. (I strongly disagree with their "security" arguments.) > A benefit of open source is that you can fork it if upstream decides to stop development or go closed source Android is already semi-closed (see this submission). Are GrapheneOS developers forking it? (No)
        charcircuit 10mo ago
        >Linus can't close the kernel. That's not how it works. GPL only prevents old versions from becoming closed source. If Linus added code to the kernel which required a $100k license to redistribute then people could no longer freely distribute the code of the kernel. People could not freely distribute compile kernels because they would need that license. GPL doesn't magically make all licensing issues go away. He could also make a required kernel module that was not GPL licensed that Linux could require to operate. >Except there is no device with free drivers that it supports. Having a working system providing competitive value to others is much more important. >They just refuse to support Librem or Pinephone without a good reason. The good reason is that those devices can't provide industry standard security.
- fsflover 10mo ago
  I don't care about the problems they had many years ago. Sent from my daily driver Librem 5.
MarsIronPI 10mo ago
Because it's prohibitively expensive for something that isn't guaranteed to be a usable daily-driver for most people. Also IIRC the hardware isn't quite worth the price tag in-and-of-itself.
- fsflover 10mo ago
  > something that isn't guaranteed to be a usable daily-driver for most people See my other reply concerning this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 > hardware isn't quite worth the price tag in-and-of-itself https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/ https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/
JCattheATM 10mo ago
Partly because most people don't really care if something is FSF endorsed or not. Partly because it's far from a great user experience.
- fsflover 10mo ago
  The original comment said "We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your device"
  - JCattheATM 10mo ago
    Sure. My comment doesn't negate or contradict that at all.
    - fsflover 10mo ago
      Yes, it does. Nobody was speaking about "most people" here, except you. Your comment is irrelevant to the discussion. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163
      - JCattheATM 10mo ago
        Original comment said: > We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your device. We does not refer only to HN users, and there is no implication as such. The default assumption is that 'we' refers to the general population. However, even if I'm charitable and go with your assumption that 'we' referred to HN users, I will confidently say most HN users also don't care about FSF approval. > See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 You like to post a lot of HN links without ever giving an indication of what they point to. As a habit, I don't waste my time clicking random links that people post without context.
        fsflover 10mo ago
        Most HN users don't know about the alternatives, just like the public. If you say that those who know don't care, I will ask you for some evidence. In my linked post I explain why the public doesn't matter at this point of time. Also I explain that the public doesn't need the alternative before it works flawlessly, i.e., before it becomes popular among technical users.

charcircuit 10mo ago

Because it was a kickstarter that was run like a scam, was years late to deliver the first device, the hardware was already not good at the start due picking an automotive SOC, the form factor was bulky, and the software was really buggy. GrapheneOS is a much more practical open source OS to use Linux on a phone.

zozbot234 10mo ago
GrapheneOS is not solving the actual interesting problem (running on an entirely mainline kernel, just like on x86). It's effectively a hardened variety of LineageOS/AOSP, hence entirely reliant on device-specific downstream kernels/BSPs that will never see a feature update. BTW, hardware support on postmarketOS "community" class devices has seen some nice improvements as of late. Once these improvements meaningfully stabilize (avoiding the risk of regression/breakage; there's been some of that even in the recent testing for the 2025-12 stable release) it's quite possible that some "community" devices might finally reach "main" class, marking them as OK for daily-driver use. Something to watch for as we approach 2026-06.
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  >GrapheneOS is not solving the actual interesting problem Consumers don't care how interesting the developer's problems are. They want their own problems to be solved and GrapheneOS does a better job of that. >running on an entirely mainline kernel Google already did that work years ago. Android will work on a mainline kernel. Just like with x86 the mainline kernel needs to support the hardware e you want to use though.
  - fsflover 10mo ago
    > and GrapheneOS does a better job of that While Google is allowing that. > Just like with x86 the mainline kernel needs to support the hardware e you want to use though Librem 5 runs on all free drivers. This is why it will never be tied to an old kernel. This doesn't work with GrapheneOS.
    - charcircuit 10mo ago
      >While Google is allowing that. And while Linus allows Linux to be open source. A benefit of open source is that you can fork it if upstream decides to stop development or go closed source. >This doesn't work with GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS can use free drivers too. It literally is using Linux.
      - fsflover 10mo ago
        > And while Linus allows Linux to be open source. Linus can't close the kernel. He would need to ask all contributors for a signed agreement for that. This is the benefit of GPL. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46177148 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46177148 > GrapheneOS can use free drivers too. It literally is using Linux. Except there is no device with free drivers that it supports. They just refuse to support Librem or Pinephone without a good reason. (I strongly disagree with their "security" arguments.) > A benefit of open source is that you can fork it if upstream decides to stop development or go closed source Android is already semi-closed (see this submission). Are GrapheneOS developers forking it? (No)
        charcircuit 10mo ago
        >Linus can't close the kernel. That's not how it works. GPL only prevents old versions from becoming closed source. If Linus added code to the kernel which required a $100k license to redistribute then people could no longer freely distribute the code of the kernel. People could not freely distribute compile kernels because they would need that license. GPL doesn't magically make all licensing issues go away. He could also make a required kernel module that was not GPL licensed that Linux could require to operate. >Except there is no device with free drivers that it supports. Having a working system providing competitive value to others is much more important. >They just refuse to support Librem or Pinephone without a good reason. The good reason is that those devices can't provide industry standard security.
fsflover 10mo ago
I don't care about the problems they had many years ago. Sent from my daily driver Librem 5.

MarsIronPI 10mo ago

Because it's prohibitively expensive for something that isn't guaranteed to be a usable daily-driver for most people. Also IIRC the hardware isn't quite worth the price tag in-and-of-itself.

fsflover 10mo ago
> something that isn't guaranteed to be a usable daily-driver for most people See my other reply concerning this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 > hardware isn't quite worth the price tag in-and-of-itself https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/ https://puri.sm/posts/the-danger-of-focusing-on-specs/

JCattheATM 10mo ago

Partly because most people don't really care if something is FSF endorsed or not. Partly because it's far from a great user experience.

fsflover 10mo ago
The original comment said "We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your device"
- JCattheATM 10mo ago
  Sure. My comment doesn't negate or contradict that at all.
  - fsflover 10mo ago
    Yes, it does. Nobody was speaking about "most people" here, except you. Your comment is irrelevant to the discussion. See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163
    - JCattheATM 10mo ago
      Original comment said: > We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your device. We does not refer only to HN users, and there is no implication as such. The default assumption is that 'we' refers to the general population. However, even if I'm charitable and go with your assumption that 'we' referred to HN users, I will confidently say most HN users also don't care about FSF approval. > See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163 You like to post a lot of HN links without ever giving an indication of what they point to. As a habit, I don't waste my time clicking random links that people post without context.
      - fsflover 10mo ago
        Most HN users don't know about the alternatives, just like the public. If you say that those who know don't care, I will ask you for some evidence. In my linked post I explain why the public doesn't matter at this point of time. Also I explain that the public doesn't need the alternative before it works flawlessly, i.e., before it becomes popular among technical users.