I'd like to see an android auto replacement, and them partnering with existing free phone approaches.
Two many xkcd already about creating new standards.
FSF announces Librephone project
271–280 of 669 posts
Re: FSF announces Librephone project
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you hoping the Free Software Foundation _doesn't_ prioritize Free Software ? For people who are okay with random bits of proprietary software doing who-knows-what on their devices there are various alternatives already.
To me: Open Source Firmware signed by OS > Firmware blob signed by device manufacturer > Firmware blob hardcoded by device Manufacturer The FSF treats hardcoded firmware blobs as "free" and updatable firmware blobs as nonfree despite there not being a big difference between them in practice. And practical differences like being able to fix security issues benefits users.
> And practical differences like being able to fix security issues benefits users.
More often than not these updates are not actually benefits to the users.
Re: FSF announces Librephone project
#273Cool idea, but I’m skeptical. I just want a phone that works—calls, texts, banking apps, and a good camera. If this Librephone can’t run my usual apps or needs me to wait years for it to work with new phones, I’ll stick to my current one. Why not team up with projects that already exist instead of starting over? Hope it works out, but I won’t hold my breath.
Re: FSF announces Librephone project
#274Why can't they just partner with postmarketOS here? Why do we have to have /e/OS instead of a better supported LineageOS, because /e/ is a 1:1 copy anyways? Why do we have to have a Librephone project now instead of partnering with say, Fairphone and the Pine64 people? Open source loses this war because proprietary devices are streamlined. The only thing that comes close to this is GrapheneOS, LineageOS, and postmark…
Why is eBPF a problem?
Re: FSF announces Librephone project
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
Get a big tech second phone. Cheapest available. Just perform the needed tasks and use your Libre phone for everything else. Does anyone remember having a copy of internet explorer that the bank required (or chrome these days) but using firefox for everything else? Apply that concept to a phone.
But then I would need to constantly charge two phones and keep two phones in my pocket all the time because I never know when I would need to do those things on the go.
You check your banking apps multiple times each day with the frequency and unpredictability expected from messaging apps?
If not that frequently or unpredictably then you could just plan to use your laptop for banking some time during the day.
Re: FSF announces Librephone project
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think they will fail because they fundamentally don't understand the problem. Android does not contain binary blobs because of some evil conspiracy against free software. If they could get away with it, the whole damn thing would be open source. The problem is those blobs do things that interact with complex hardware for which only blobs are available. Even if you reverse engineer them, you are going to get sued in…
No one is going sue the fsf into oblivion. The movement has decades of legal experience, if a company would be dumb enough that company would just burn money and lose. Especially about reverse engineering software, as if patents had any power there. Apple, the end boss in that regard, not fighting on that level against the m1 project is proof enough. Second, fuck the carriers. Certifications will not persist as soon…
I understand it might seem confusing if you are not familiar with the requirements, but they are not trivial to bypass.
Cell phones operate in licensed radio spectrum, so they need to have proper testing and certification (https://www.fcc.gov/oet/ea/rfdevice). Any device not properly certified would be illegal to manufacture or import into the US.
Separately cellular networks require PTCRB certification of the devices to ensure they are interoperable with the network (https://www.ptcrb.com/). The FSF could in theory write custom firmware for baseband and wifi chips, but they would need to seek certification as this would be considered a substantial modification. It would likely require cooperation from the chip manufactures to provide samples with various testing/debugging harnesses enabled.
Qualcomm and the like would probably sue to stop the FSF on the basis that it could put their own device certifications into jeopardy.
That isn't even touching on non-transmitting components like GPUs or sensors where the actual functional logic may be split between hardware and software (your blob driver). Even by doing a clean room reimplementation, you risk infringing on software patents, and will have little flexibility to work around them since the hardware will expect things to be done a specific way.
You would think it would be ridiculous to assume the people working on this know nothing about the mobile space, yet their actions do bring that into question.
Re: FSF announces Librephone project
#277Cool idea, but I’m skeptical. I just want a phone that works—calls, texts, banking apps, and a good camera. If this Librephone can’t run my usual apps or needs me to wait years for it to work with new phones, I’ll stick to my current one. Why not team up with projects that already exist instead of starting over? Hope it works out, but I won’t hold my breath.
I think you misunderstood what they're planning to do.
Librephone isn't going to be releasing their own OS. It's an effort to systematically replace binary blobs so that existing projects like GrapheneOS and LineageOS are more free.
Re: FSF announces Librephone project
#278> Practically, Librephone aims to close the last gaps between existing distributions of the Android operating system and software freedom. The FSF has hired experienced developer Rob Savoye (DejaGNU, Gnash, OpenStreetMap, and more) to lead the technical project. He is currently investigating the state of device firmware and binary blobs in other mobile phone freedom projects, prioritizing the free software work done…
The time is right, but I still don’t think this project can accomplish much because people are generally happy with their phones. That said, the phone market is huge. They could sell enough devices to fund future development which might be good enough even if it doesn’t slow down Apple or Google. At least then there will be a device for those of us who are not happy with the state of things.
The project will accomplish much if those who want it have better choices, even if they’re not perfect.
They don’t need to replace or even challenge Apple and Google for market adoption, just be there and be a viable alternative used by a noticeable minority of people.
Getting half as far as desktop linux would be a fantastic achievement.
Re: FSF announces Librephone project
#279Why can't they just partner with postmarketOS here? Why do we have to have /e/OS instead of a better supported LineageOS, because /e/ is a 1:1 copy anyways? Why do we have to have a Librephone project now instead of partnering with say, Fairphone and the Pine64 people? Open source loses this war because proprietary devices are streamlined. The only thing that comes close to this is GrapheneOS, LineageOS, and postmark…
Supposedly Graphene is partnering with a major OEM (they say "one of the top 10") to get better hardware support. Even then they're still at the whim of Google, though - the most recent QPR1 update still has not been pushed to AOSP even after many weeks. Supposedly partnering with an OEM means they get these updates quicker but who knows.
Re: FSF announces Librephone project
#280Why can't they just partner with postmarketOS here? Why do we have to have /e/OS instead of a better supported LineageOS, because /e/ is a 1:1 copy anyways? Why do we have to have a Librephone project now instead of partnering with say, Fairphone and the Pine64 people? Open source loses this war because proprietary devices are streamlined. The only thing that comes close to this is GrapheneOS, LineageOS, and postmark…
I got an FP5, would not buy again.