4 ms·

smartphones aside pixel like Fairphone do explicitly allow alternative OS, definitely cannot pretend they are hostile

by tcfhgj 6d ago

subscribed 6d ago
Fairphone? Delayed patches (they don't keep up with AOSP), missing secure element (makes disk encryption key cracking trivial in comparison). Fairphone 6/6+ (the latest), is based on..... It's pretty hard to find the Android version it's based on... Got it. They ship phones based on Android 16 half of the year after the release of 17 (9 since public beta). Many security patches are NOT backported to 16, which makes Fairphone insecure by design. They allow relocking the bootloader, which is nice, If they also support custom AVB keys, I'd say this is a fine example of the example of the vendor that is not hostile, just not good enough. I wouldn't say they're hostile - Samsung is hostile for example. So, what's your angle here? Do you want me to go through every vendor you bring up or what?
- tcfhgj 5d ago
  I didn't insinuate hostility of every vendor except Google.
  - subscribed 5d ago
    You're not engaging with my words but you're instead twisting them. I'll stop wasting my time on you.
    - tcfhgj 5d ago
      I am pretty sure I understood quite well. > Well, go for it, fork and "provide support" to the hardware hostile to non-stock OS, be a hero :)
      - subscribed 5d ago
        No, you're maliciously extending my words about some vendors to all vendors. In the comment about issues with software and hardware, that somehow is being painted as GrapheneOS fault, I mentioned (among other things) hardware hostile to non-stock OS. I didn't say it's Fairphone, I didn't name them. You brought them up, so I addressed that, explained why I don't consider Nothing hostile but just vulnerable by default and inadequate. I even provided an example of the vendor I actually consider hostile (Samsung). So if you understood quite well, you're trolling now and not discussing in the good faith. The alternative is you didn't understand and thought I consider ALL vendors as hostile, which is putting claims in my mouth, which would be fine if you asked, but you keep discussing with strawman. So please go bother someone else; this is the second time you're doing that and I wasted enough time on that.

smartphones aside pixel like Fairphone do explicitly allow alternative OS, definitely cannot pretend they are hostile

by tcfhgj 6d ago

smartphones aside pixel like Fairphone do explicitly allow alternative OS, definitely cannot pretend they are hostile

Fairphone? Delayed patches (they don't keep up with AOSP), missing secure element (makes disk encryption key cracking trivial in comparison). Fairphone 6/6+ (the latest), is based on..... It's pretty hard to find the Android version it's based on... Got it. They ship phones based on Android 16 half of the year after the release of 17 (9 since public beta). Many security patches are NOT backported to 16, which makes Fairphone insecure by design. They allow relocking the bootloader, which is nice, If they also support custom AVB keys, I'd say this is a fine example of the example of the vendor that is not hostile, just not good enough. I wouldn't say they're hostile - Samsung is hostile for example. So, what's your angle here? Do you want me to go through every vendor you bring up or what?

tcfhgj 5d ago
I didn't insinuate hostility of every vendor except Google.
- subscribed 5d ago
  You're not engaging with my words but you're instead twisting them. I'll stop wasting my time on you.
  - tcfhgj 5d ago
    I am pretty sure I understood quite well. > Well, go for it, fork and "provide support" to the hardware hostile to non-stock OS, be a hero :)
    - subscribed 5d ago
      No, you're maliciously extending my words about some vendors to all vendors. In the comment about issues with software and hardware, that somehow is being painted as GrapheneOS fault, I mentioned (among other things) hardware hostile to non-stock OS. I didn't say it's Fairphone, I didn't name them. You brought them up, so I addressed that, explained why I don't consider Nothing hostile but just vulnerable by default and inadequate. I even provided an example of the vendor I actually consider hostile (Samsung). So if you understood quite well, you're trolling now and not discussing in the good faith. The alternative is you didn't understand and thought I consider ALL vendors as hostile, which is putting claims in my mouth, which would be fine if you asked, but you keep discussing with strawman. So please go bother someone else; this is the second time you're doing that and I wasted enough time on that.