zlacker

>>madars+(OP)
I just installed Graphene on a new pixel. I've only used it for two days, but I got that same feeling of "finding buried treasure in your backyard" I got when I first installed Linux in 1999. I can't believe this amazing software is free in all senses of the word. It is a TON of work and they got so much right. The security and usability settings give all the grainular control I've known was possible and wanted for a long time.

I see some core team on this thread, so just wanted to say THANK YOU! Awesome job! Keep fighting for the users!

I'm totally the wrong person to offer recommendations on mobile, but so far it works very well for me, but then, I use almost no third party apps, and none of them are Play store only. My only complaint is the hardware (outside of their control).

>>jrexil+LE
> I can't believe this amazing software is free in all senses of the word.

I wish that were true, but if you delete the 100s of binary blobs (many with effectively root access) copied from a stock donor vendor partition the phone won't function at all.

There is no such thing as a fully open source and user controlled Android device today.

>>lrvick+K21
Let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. GrapheneOS does what it can to isolate those things as much as possible. It even makes good use of hardware features such as the IOMMU. It's a huge improvement on the status quo, even though it's not going to pass FSF RYF certification.

>>matheu+302
FSF RYF certification is anti-freedom, anti-privacy and anti-security. Pretending hardware is open because there aren't closed source components which are / can be updated doesn't make sense. They certify closed source hardware with closed source firmware. In many cases, privacy and security has been crippled to obtain the certification by preventing important firmware upgrades. Not shipping firmware updates in the OS doesn't mean the firmware isn't there and doesn't make the hardware or firmware open source. GrapheneOS wants to have actual open source hardware and firmware, not what the FSF is peddling. We certainly don't want to block people getting important firmware upgrades needed to defend devices. FSF heavily misleads people about these topics for ideological reasons.

>>strcat+Rg2
I agree with you. I think FSF RYF is a pointless certification since firmware isn't going away anytime soon. I'm not a fan of their "it's part of the wiring if you can't upgrade it" compromise either since it doesn't achieve their goals and makes the situation even worse.

It would be nice if the firmware itself was free software so that it could be shipped alongside the Linux kernel, maintained indefinitely and we could customize it however we want. The hardware is supposed to do what we want it to do, not what the manufacturer lets us do.

I don't like the fact every single device out there has entirely separate computers inside them running unknown proprietary software. It feels like our operating systems aren't operating the system anymore, it's like they're just some user app sandboxed away from the real system. This presentation explains what I mean:

https://youtu.be/36myc8wQhLo

It's an imperfect reality. Security by isolation of devices via IOMMU addresses real concerns such as devices being able to access RAM via DMA. It's great that GrapheneOS is doing this.