4 ms·
It's ridiculous is what it is. It makes me deeply distrustful of the organisation behind Graphene that they would make such a crazy choice.
by mvdtnz 4mo ago
It's ridiculous is what it is. It makes me deeply distrustful of the organisation behind Graphene that they would make such a crazy choice.
- digitalPhonix 4mo agoThe intersection of phones that have unlockable bootloaders, public-ish driver blobs and decent hardware is tiny. What other phone would you pick?
- kevin_thibedeau 4mo agoEverything Lineage supports.
- jcgl 4mo agoHow do you reconcile that position with what Graphene OS lists as requirements for support, as linked by another commenter? https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices I’m not an expert, but all the listed points there sound reasonable. If indeed only the Pixels support them, well, it’s too bad there’s not other, similarly secure hardware out there.
- hexfish 4mo agoPlease go read this and try again: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices If you want Graphene level security you need to have the hardware for it.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- HybridStatAnim8 4mo agoIt is not ridiculous at all. GrapheneOS is not going to compromise the privacy and security of their users for the sake of spite for one specific company. It would be immature and irresponsible to make important choices based on spite rather than objectivity. Motorola has stepped up to meet the baseline requirements for GrapheneOS support, and we should get Motorola devices with official GrapheneOS support next year.