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

Librem5 Hardware Update

puri.sm

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 111 posts

Re: Librem5 Hardware Update

#71

Post by ndnxhs »

yogthos wrote: post #44
djsumdog wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea using adb/oemunlock. Sometimes you have to get a code (like with Sony, you input your IMEI number into their website and get one). I've had one Sony that was unlockable; a condition of the original cell provider. Still, it's bizarre considering you can install Linux on any PC/laptop you buy. The bigger issue of course, is that you can't just install Linux on a phone. They're all random pins soldered to random chi…

Yeah, I think the fact that you have to request your IMEI number and then use additional tools to unlock the device you bought is absurd. Nowadays, a phone is no different from any other computer, and you should be able to buy one that lets you run whatever you want on it without jumping through any hoops.

Some of them make you wait weeks/months before you get their approval to unlock.

Re: Librem5 Hardware Update

#72

Post by lvs »

amelius wrote: post #14

I'm quite impressed by their company manifesto: https://puri.sm/about/social-purpose/ More companies should follow this example.

Indeed. This is an encouraging idea. But in a broader sense -- applied to a whole sector of corporations, for example -- I'm curious how legally enforceable this kind of charter is, under the cited statute or under other laws governing incorporation.

Under what conditions can articles of incorporation be changed? Can't their investors force such a change? If so, it seems a large burden must be placed on choosing investors who are somehow legally bound under similar rules.

And what mechanism of enforcement exists? Presumably investor lawsuits are the main mechanism, which again puts a large burden on finding investors whose goals are not returns maximization. If this state statute specifies a distinct tax classification, perhaps there would then be state-level prosecutorial or administrative enforcement.

Re: Librem5 Hardware Update

#73

Post by ekianjo »

rocky1138 wrote: post #48

I don't really have anything of value to add to the conversation, but in case the Librem5 team is here I just wanted to thank you for your work and applaud your openness to the current status of everything. Another project which is taking on a similar challenge and is similarly open is the Dragonbox Pyra.

> and is similarly open is the Dragonbox Pyra

The Pyra is taking forever and it's pretty much a one-two men's team, which is why it takes so long I guess.

Re: Librem5 Hardware Update

#74

Post by lvs »

eudora wrote: post #64
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you think about it, it amazes me. So many people, including me, would love to have these switches. Like physical switch for the mic, camera and radio. And yet, the companies that are supposed to listen to the customer seem to do exactly the opposite to what the customer wants, like installing all these unremovable crappy apps nobody uses or removeing the headphone jack. Are these people so out of touch with real…

Hold up. I don't have stats but I'm incredibly confident that almost no users want hardware switches. Does your mum want a hardware switch? Does the guy working at Starbucks? I think it might be the techheads who think that installing Linux and having hardware switches are normal - they're the ones who are out of touch with reality.

Anecdotally, I do see a large number of lay people with tape over their laptop cameras. Enough stories have filtered into the press about RAT malware and whatnot that there is likely to be some endemic insecurity about a camera pointed in your face across a fairly broad section of the populace.

Re: Librem5 Hardware Update

#75

Post by jsjohnst »

conradev wrote: post #65
cyphar wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main reason is that powering off a device (for their hardware kill switches) connected via USB is more reliable than powering off a device connected via PCIe. There's also just more layers of security when using USB as opposed to a single layer with PCIe (IOMMU -- which is secure as far as I know but I'd prefer to be safe rather than sorry in this case).

That makes sense. I thought of the kill switch thing after commenting… eGPUs (necessarily) have the ability to be unplugged while running, but I think it was a lot of work on the part of the OSes to make that work well.

What would be a benefit to putting the modems on PCIe bus? I don’t see any positives, only drawbacks.

Re: Librem5 Hardware Update

#76

Post by craftyguy »

newnewpdro wrote: post #62
craftyguy wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's a platform under active development, and they're probably more concerned with functionality than some super sexy tiny cooling solution? At some point they'll most likely test the production cooling system, but for now it probably doesn't matter. You'd be surprised how many things (cooling, PCBs, etc) are much larger early on than their production counterparts...

So the i.MX 8M SoM package will be smaller and dissipate less heat in the final handset? I wouldn't expect the same chip going into a smartphone to require a heatsink or any thermal consideration at all on a sparsely populated, open-air circuit board.

It could be that power management is not enabled yet, or perhaps other thermal protections are not fully enabled yet. I doubt the SoM package itself will get much smaller, but I'm just basically guessing since I'm not an employee of Purism.

Re: Librem5 Hardware Update

#77

Post by jsjohnst »

lvs wrote: post #74
eudora wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hold up. I don't have stats but I'm incredibly confident that almost no users want hardware switches. Does your mum want a hardware switch? Does the guy working at Starbucks? I think it might be the techheads who think that installing Linux and having hardware switches are normal - they're the ones who are out of touch with reality.

Anecdotally, I do see a large number of lay people with tape over their laptop cameras. Enough stories have filtered into the press about RAT malware and whatnot that there is likely to be some endemic insecurity about a camera pointed in your face across a fairly broad section of the populace.

Yet those tinfoil folks who cover the camera do nothing about the microphone. Since ~2009, it’s been impossible to turn on the camera on an Apple laptop/monitor without the light turning on, yet there’s no indication of something using the mic.

Re: Librem5 Hardware Update

#79

Post by pessimizer »

fghtr wrote: post #66
rocky1138 wrote: post #48

I don't really have anything of value to add to the conversation, but in case the Librem5 team is here I just wanted to thank you for your work and applaud your openness to the current status of everything. Another project which is taking on a similar challenge and is similarly open is the Dragonbox Pyra.

And one more project is https://neo900.org .

It's dead, and I'm pretty sure all of the cash has been spent.

Re: Librem5 Hardware Update

#80

Post by Digital-Citizen »

eudora wrote: post #64
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you think about it, it amazes me. So many people, including me, would love to have these switches. Like physical switch for the mic, camera and radio. And yet, the companies that are supposed to listen to the customer seem to do exactly the opposite to what the customer wants, like installing all these unremovable crappy apps nobody uses or removeing the headphone jack. Are these people so out of touch with real…

Hold up. I don't have stats but I'm incredibly confident that almost no users want hardware switches. Does your mum want a hardware switch? Does the guy working at Starbucks? I think it might be the techheads who think that installing Linux and having hardware switches are normal - they're the ones who are out of touch with reality.

"I don't have stats but I'm incredibly confident that almost no users want hardware switches."

How "incredibly confident" can you be about this claim without published stats?

I would like hardware switches ala Purism's laptops but I see that Hacker News prioritizes steering discussions away from these switches (such as down-moderating the grandparent post for making a similar claim with no pointer to evidence but leaving your evidenceless post relatively highly moderated). I'm not sure if other people would have thought about having such switches therefore I'm not sure if they would value them or even consider asking vendors to include such switches.

Post reply on HN