zlacker

>>joseph+(OP)
This story with restricting users is a similar one to Manifest V3 in Chromium.

But we don't have anything like FF as an alternative to go from Android. Especially considering banks require "certified OS".

>>zx8080+E7
I switched to a Linux smartphone because I've had enough of the duopoly.

I also switched banks so I can use my bank card as the 2FA device, similar to CAP. [0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_Authentication_Program

>>Hackbr+Wd
Which one?

>>russne+7h
It’s a Librem 5. I’m looking for a more powerful model that can also run mainline(-ish) Linux.

>>Hackbr+si
Seeing as GrapheneOS appear to be recommended on the newest Pixel models, I wonder if it shouldn't be too difficult to get Arch Linux running on them with the AUR plasma-mobile?

>>russne+9k
Run away from Graphene, it is suspicious at best scenario and dangerous at worst.

Just observe that the key factor is to be independent from Google and then the only recommended devices from their side are exactly google devices where nobody here can have an idea of what is modified inside them.

You'd be better off supporting other distributions like Calyx, which have no problems in supporting other devices like the fairphone and so on.

>>nunobr+gl
No, the "key factor" of GrapheneOS is to provide a secure OS on a secure hardware. If the "key factor" was to be independent from Google, they wouldn't support Google devices at all. But since the Pixel phones are the only ones with secure enough hardware, GrapheneOS supports them.

They even tell you in their usage guide that it's more secure to use Google's app store than e.g. F-Droid (which neglects several good security practices for an app store), and that it's not a good idea to blindly aim for "degoogling" at all costs.

Go away with your baseless FUD.

>>pferde+zn
> Pixel phones are the only ones with secure enough hardware

The biggest thing that excludes most phones from supporting GrapheneOS is the lack of unlockable bootloader. Pixel phones also allow the developers to target a large but homogeneous hardware base.

>>close0+xp
There is no single biggest thing. GrapheneOS has a rather strict demands for a device they're willing to support, see https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

>>pferde+Gq
GrapheneOS doesn't support Pixels with locked bootloader. It's where the game stops for all locked phones, a common practice now. You can already see how this is the single biggest thing.

The second big thing is that the "non-exhaustive list of requirements" is basically "whatever new Pixels do". Your conclusion that Pixel phones are "the only ones with secure enough hardware" is overstretching what's happening here.

The developers took the Pixel as a template because it's a well selling line, with good security, and generally with unlocked bootloader, and modelled the requirements based on it. It's a reasonable approach to the development of a niche security oriented OS because: "In order to support a device, the appropriate resources also need to be available and dedicated towards it". It has the downside that it makes it sound like no other phone has comparable security features.

Are the fully supported Pixel 6/6a more secure than any other non-Pixel phone sold on the market today?