Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

thenewleafjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 245 posts

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#191

Post by HidyBush »

josephcsible wrote: post #188
HidyBush wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not understanding your argument. You say that unlocking a bootloader is dangerous, so what's your solution? You can't have non-unlockable bootloaders because that would mean a loss of hardware functionality, which you just suggested you consider unacceptable. You can't have easily unlockable bootloaders because that would be dangerous. So now what? I proposed a very reasonable solution that gives the user control…

> You say that unlocking a bootloader is dangerous I didn't say that. In fact, I believe the opposite. > You can't have easily unlockable bootloaders because that would be dangerous. I do want easily unlockable bootloaders.

I confused you with the person I originally replied to.

Still, my solution still allows to have a passwordless bootloader if you choose to not set a password, so I really don't get what would be wrong with it.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#192

Post by beebeepka »

rgmerk wrote: post #190
josephcsible wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Laws against custom engine firmware and knives are unjust themselves, so they shouldn't be used to justify other things.

I hate to have to make this argument, but here goes... ...where do you draw the line? An M240 machine gun? A Stinger missile? A PFOS factory? A Special Atomic Demolition Munition? We regulate private possession of dangerous items all the time, and pretty much everybody draws the line somewhere despite vigorous dispute where that line should be drawn in specific cases.

You said you're concerned with "thugs" using knives to do bad things. That's where you seem to draw the line. I am afraid what you'll try to restrict when you see the reports about these people breathing air.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#193

Post by Kbelicius »

bornfreddy wrote: post #94
attah_ wrote: post #61

Calling it an alternative is an insult against actual alternatives. It's still Android, just less googly.

Cool, except... What alternatives are there? With the caveat that phone calls (roaming too), SMS and mobile data must work reliably. Is there an alternative that provides this? Librem 5 maybe? Last I checked neither PinePhone nor Purism were there yet.

I've been using SailfishOS for 3 years now as my daily driver, never had any problems with calls, sms or mobile data. Roaming or not. It is not a fork of android but if you get the paid version you get android app support on it. At one point I even got microg on it to see if my banking application would work and it did. Officially they support a very small number of phones, I think only some sony models.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#194

Post by Kbelicius »

alexb_ wrote: post #10
fsflover wrote: post #7

In my humble opinion, relying on custom ROMs running mandatory non-free drivers is a road to nowhere, long term , due to their unavoidable planned obsolescence. And it always has been. Supporting GNU/Linux phones is the way to improve future privacy and security (despite they may not be as secure as some Android custom ROMs are yet).

Unfortunately for that idea, I would like my phone to actually just function normally, and have support for programs that Android uses. You are making perfect the enemy of good here.

Check out sailfishOS. Not a fork of android but you can get andorid app support on it. You can even get microg on it and use the banking apps (worked for me). The problem is that, officially, they support only a small number of sony models.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#195

Post by chinabot »

commoner wrote: post #92
squarefoot wrote: post #88

From the /e/ Foundation website: "The easy-installer beta version supports 15 devices" This is the #1 problem, but it's not /e/ developers fault, as supporting devices is a time consuming and costly activity, and the risk of bricking an expensive device is just too high for normal users to want to try. Manufacturers are to blame. It's not a technical problem but rather a political one; manufacturers should be forced…

I'd expect the installer to support more devices over time, since /e/ officially supports 269 devices: https://support.e.foundation/devices It's promising that more and more alternative Android distributions are offering installers to make them more accessible to average phone users. On the Linux phone side, even Ubuntu Touch has an installer that supports 81 devices: https://devices.ubuntu-touch.io/installer/ But, d…

Not one iPhone on the list.. Shame I have a perfectly good older iphone that just became a paperweight due to lack of support

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#196

Post by tonoto »

rand0m4r wrote: post #42

after being an android user for about 13 years i switched to an iphone se this year, and i’m very satisfied. you just can’t compare apples and oranges, android is sluggish even with a high end phone

I switched to an Iphone 11 Pro last year after many years with Android, but I'm going back to Android when two years has passed (I'm on agreement to be able to switch every 2 years), although I would happily look into /e/ instead. One and a half years with IOS has been a misery so far, due to lack of separate media volume the switch is almost always on silent - thus I regularly misses many calls. I feel shortage of RAM on IOS, and the way they have solved it is by having some form of pseudo multi tasking.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#197

Post by fsflover »

flas9sd wrote: post #154
fsflover wrote: post #7

In my humble opinion, relying on custom ROMs running mandatory non-free drivers is a road to nowhere, long term , due to their unavoidable planned obsolescence. And it always has been. Supporting GNU/Linux phones is the way to improve future privacy and security (despite they may not be as secure as some Android custom ROMs are yet).

there's irony in having "degoogled" Phones built upon a platform that is at the technical discretion of Google, but you'd discount a lot of mindshare that grew around Android to say GNU/Linux is the only way long term. I don't know if the community could sustain a AOSP hardfork (or if it's necessary), but combining a mainline kernel with open firmware is a possibility for Android handhelds too.

The software is not a problem, the hardware is. You should be able to run AOSP on Pinephone and Librem 5 just fine. They do not depend on the proprietary drivers and can run mainline Linux.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#198

Post by angled »

crb wrote: post #103
Grazester wrote: post #14

I feel like I wouldn't use this based on the name alone. How do I say it? forward slash ee forward slash? I don't understand why anyone would think it was a good idea to name it this!

Did no-one else immediately think of (or relate it to) Enlightenment? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightenment_(software)

Absolutely - and Carsten kind of worked / works in this space.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#199

Post by kubanczyk »

0xbadcafebee wrote: post #13

"We are making a mobile phone ecosystem that lets users escape the permanent and industrial harvesting of their personal data." I have never heard any normal person ever talk about data privacy. It feels like there's this giant bubble that the tech world lives in, and they are the only people who care about this issue.

The elders still sometimes say things like "shush, not over the phone". This didn't use to make sense for like 30-40 years, and, hey, it's a great comeback now.

Re: Review of /e/ – Android-based alternative for mobile phones

#200

Post by kubanczyk »

josefx wrote: post #124
bornfreddy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, except... What alternatives are there? With the caveat that phone calls (roaming too), SMS and mobile data must work reliably. Is there an alternative that provides this? Librem 5 maybe? Last I checked neither PinePhone nor Purism were there yet.

The problem with Android based "alternatives" is Googles licensing. The licensing agreements for Googles apps require that Google gets to decide which android forks device manufacturers are allowed to sell if they don't want to be completely cut of from Googles ecosystem. So if you actually plan to use it for anything bigger you wont even be able to find a manufacturer willing to touch it, even Amazon had problems ge…

It sounds interesting but I cannot connect the dots.

So, the Google-authored apps' use can become illegal in future on a specific ("bigger") fork of Android you say? But that's just the license terms of Google apps. I don't understand what would a manufacturer be afraid of, exactly? (Does Kindle need any Google apps?...)

Post reply on HN