More than a decade after launching in Europe, the Netherlands company is now selling its repairable phones in the US, starting with the Fairphone (Gen 6+).
ITT: People complaining about how this phone isn’t 100% perfect and what they want. Instead of moving towards heaven, we might as well remain in hell until heaven is directly attainable. It’s a good start and the more money that gets thrown this way, the more others will follow. But by all means, don’t support this endeavor, let’s stay in our Apple/Samsung/Google versions of hell instead.
That is what turned me off choosing Graphene, other than having to buy Google hardware. They, but also some other Foss people, are investing way too much time attacking other alternatives fiercely, as if they were created by the devil, because they are not pure enough or because they are less secure than Graphene.
There is no concrete timeline yet as far as I know. So your guess is as good as mine. Bottom line if you want to use GrapheneOS now or in the near future you have to buy Google hardware which is a nogo for me, even if you rip out the OS.
No not really. People keep asking them why they dont support certain hardware, and they need to keep explaining why they dont support the hardware. They don’t go out of their way to demonize those projects. Their project is aimed at providing the highest level of security and privacy. They can’t help that Fairphone’s hardware does not adhere to their hardware requirements in order to attain that security and privacy.
GrapheneOS’s goal is not to deliver the most broad amount of support for as many phones as possible, its goal is to obtain the highest levels of security. For broad support there is /e/os for instance. On the other hand, /e/os is not the most secure OS. Those are just the facts. Every OS has its own use cases.
Except that this is exactly what at least one of the leading developers is doing by harassing threads that are about other projects, with all sorts of loaded language, insinuations of nasty motives, Russian influence and what not.
All of that does nothing to achieve GrapheneOS’ goals.
I have no issue at all with GrapheneOS stating that FP6 is not an option because this hardware feature is missing or that firmware update routine being insufficient. That is not what I am talking about here.
But it’s also unfair to blame customers for not supporting something financially when it would be easy to improve from the criticism. If fairphone wanted to sell more they would address the feedback from GrapheneOS instead of hiding behind the startup label, but instead we get this zombie development where the product is held up by partnership decisions that are holding them back, and any criticism to help improve their standing is shot down.
ITT: People complaining about how this phone isn’t 100% perfect and what they want. Instead of moving towards heaven, we might as well remain in hell until heaven is directly attainable. It’s a good start and the more money that gets thrown this way, the more others will follow. But by all means, don’t support this endeavor, let’s stay in our Apple/Samsung/Google versions of hell instead.
EDIT: I meant “isn’t”
Basically sums up all the reactions to any increase in popularity of any open/foss project 🤷🏻♂️
That is what turned me off choosing Graphene, other than having to buy Google hardware. They, but also some other Foss people, are investing way too much time attacking other alternatives fiercely, as if they were created by the devil, because they are not pure enough or because they are less secure than Graphene.
@Jiral @DannyMac jasnt #grapheneos a partnership with #motorola ? When first devices?
There is no concrete timeline yet as far as I know. So your guess is as good as mine. Bottom line if you want to use GrapheneOS now or in the near future you have to buy Google hardware which is a nogo for me, even if you rip out the OS.
I only buy second hand hardware these days, but I get you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
No not really. People keep asking them why they dont support certain hardware, and they need to keep explaining why they dont support the hardware. They don’t go out of their way to demonize those projects. Their project is aimed at providing the highest level of security and privacy. They can’t help that Fairphone’s hardware does not adhere to their hardware requirements in order to attain that security and privacy.
GrapheneOS’s goal is not to deliver the most broad amount of support for as many phones as possible, its goal is to obtain the highest levels of security. For broad support there is /e/os for instance. On the other hand, /e/os is not the most secure OS. Those are just the facts. Every OS has its own use cases.
Except that this is exactly what at least one of the leading developers is doing by harassing threads that are about other projects, with all sorts of loaded language, insinuations of nasty motives, Russian influence and what not.
All of that does nothing to achieve GrapheneOS’ goals.
I have no issue at all with GrapheneOS stating that FP6 is not an option because this hardware feature is missing or that firmware update routine being insufficient. That is not what I am talking about here.
But it’s also unfair to blame customers for not supporting something financially when it would be easy to improve from the criticism. If fairphone wanted to sell more they would address the feedback from GrapheneOS instead of hiding behind the startup label, but instead we get this zombie development where the product is held up by partnership decisions that are holding them back, and any criticism to help improve their standing is shot down.