zlacker

[return to "Graphene OS: a security-enhanced Android build"]
1. SchwKa+Tn[view] [source] 2025-07-25 00:46:39
>>madars+(OP)
My only problem with Graphene is the ridiculous low number of supported devices, i know I know, security reasons and so on. But I would accept an lower security hardened version but at least have Graphene instead of Google's junk
◧◩
2. crossr+0G[view] [source] 2025-07-25 03:28:31
>>SchwKa+Tn
I actually like Graphene's focus in Pixel. It is available in a lot of countries unlike Fairphone - via Pixel of course.

So Graphene is actually not limited to the developed/western world. As for not supporting other devices, I believe the reason could be the team size and the fact that the fragmented Android world is known for unique shenanigans of every OEM. Besides Google's update/upgrade cycle is another reason it is an appropriate choice.

◧◩◪
3. beefle+kP[view] [source] 2025-07-25 05:32:47
>>crossr+0G
por que no los dos?
◧◩◪◨
4. gf000+u01[view] [source] 2025-07-25 07:30:16
>>beefle+kP
Because as mentioned, Fairphone has lackluster hardware security.

You can have the best alarm system in the word, if you leave the back door open and anyone can just walk in from the street.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. bornfr+rq1[view] [source] 2025-07-25 11:59:59
>>gf000+u01
Meh. Not all people have the strictest security (and privacy!) requirements. While it is admirable that GOS strives for perfection, I would be more than happy with a less secure, but repairable phone, such as Fairphone.

So just give me that alarm system for my tent, please. It will do fine for my case.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. mbanan+x92[view] [source] 2025-07-25 16:24:14
>>bornfr+rq1
We don't really strive for perfection. Pixels aren't really perfect and there are numerous suggestions we could make today for Pixels to drastically improve their hardware. Our requirements are in some way below what even Pixels provide today.

Our requirements are not at all exotic or outlandish, the fact that most OEMs don't meet them says more about how far behind most OEMs are, rather than our standards being unrealistic. We've also been told that they're not unrealistic in practice from numerous OEMs who want to build a device that meets our requirements.

It is also important to note for Pixels specifically that since the 8th gen Pixels, they receive 7 years of support. Additionally, they partner with iFixIt to provide official replacement parts for the duration of the device's life. I'd say that's pretty sustainable, especially when you consider that the Fairphone doesn't actually provide proper support for the amount of years they claim, since they have consistent delays in providing patches.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. bornfr+c84[view] [source] 2025-07-26 09:00:03
>>mbanan+x92
Ok, fair enough, if we are looking at software side of "repairs" (updates). However I'm talking about hardware side of things - with Fairphone I can remove and replace the battery by myself (or even carry a spare if I choose to), while e.g. in the newest Pixel, 9a, the battery is glued in place.

As for the requirements, I will take your word for it. And I do appreciate that you put the emphasis on security as it is often overlooked. I guess what I'm saying is that having control over my phone (as opposed to BigTech or apps having the control) is for me a much higher priority goal than just security by itself. Hardware reparability is (again, for me) a close second.

Anyway, I hope you find a good partner for the phones, and I'm curious to see what you come up with!

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. gf000+P76[view] [source] 2025-07-27 10:23:44
>>bornfr+c84
> while e.g. in the newest Pixel, 9a, the battery is glued in place.

Is this really that big of an issue? It's like a couple dollar fee every 4-5 years or so.

[go to top]