261–270 of 467 posts
The GrapheneOS obsession with picking a fight with everyone else is the most unfortunate part of the project.
You can tell it's truly secure and private because the Cellebrite leak says they can't break it (one of very few!) and some governments assume you're a drug dealer if you use it. My next phone will run GrapheneOS.
It could also just mean they haven't bothered try
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any one of us here could learn the skills to design a smartphone. It won't necessarily be good, but I remember that years ago, someone made one with a touchscreen hat and GSM hat atop a Raspberry Pi, rubber-banded to a power bank. I'm sure any one of us HN users could do this. And it worked. Quality only goes up from there. The problem is it won't run any apps, so you'll need to carry this open-source secure phone in…
Or use everything via the web browser; but yes, I think apps are the main reason we can't just have a generic Linux phone OS on an open hardware platform
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any one of us here could learn the skills to design a smartphone. It won't necessarily be good, but I remember that years ago, someone made one with a touchscreen hat and GSM hat atop a Raspberry Pi, rubber-banded to a power bank. I'm sure any one of us HN users could do this. And it worked. Quality only goes up from there. The problem is it won't run any apps, so you'll need to carry this open-source secure phone in…
This is not as simple as you're saying. Making a new phone not relying on proprietary drivers tied to Android is impossible without a huge effort: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21656355
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android Well that's untrue. I'd even venture to say that with how many OEMs there are it's insane how safe Android is. Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6, they can't control OEMs who might have ~10 people working on their devices.
> Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6 Pixel 8 https://endoflife.date/pixel
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's quite surreal how unsafe the standard Android Well that's untrue. I'd even venture to say that with how many OEMs there are it's insane how safe Android is. Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6, they can't control OEMs who might have ~10 people working on their devices.
> Google for one updates their devices for 7 years since Pixel 6 Pixel 8 https://endoflife.date/pixel
Pixel 8 line:
> Ends in 4 years and 10 months (01 Oct 2030)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can escape the duopoly by using a GNI/Linux phone, Librem 5 or Pinephone, but don't expect any support from Google or Apple for them. I'm using the former as a daily driver.
I would not trust any of these. They are a security disaster, lacking even basic features for securing your device against tampering and hacking. There is a reason GrapheneOS is number one and a reason why they only run on Pixels (for now).
Indeed the GrapheneOS community is known for attacking the GNU/Linux mobile with false claims, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45562484.
Security is a meaningless word without defining a threat model. Try to defend your GrapheneOS against Google, especially these two problems: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45208925 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45017028.
See also good replies by other people here comparing GOS with Pinephone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32496220
https://tbot.substack.com/p/grapheneos-new-oem-partnership > GrapheneOS has officially confirmed a major new hardware partnership—one that marks the end of its long-standing Pixel exclusivity. According to the team, work with a major Android OEM began in June and is now moving toward the development of a next-generation smartphone built to meet GrapheneOS’ strict privacy and security standards.
Damn, I just got a Pixel 10 pro XL for installing GrapheneOS. I hate how below average Pixel's hardware is and I wouldn't have minded waiting a couple of more years for this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on your threat model, but yes.
[flagged]