ITT: People complaining about how this phone isn’t 100% perfect and what they want. Instead of moving towards heaven, we might as well remain in hell until heaven is directly attainable. It’s a good start and the more money that gets thrown this way, the more others will follow. But by all means, don’t support this endeavor, let’s stay in our Apple/Samsung/Google versions of hell instead.
EDIT: I meant “isn’t”
that’s too many stairs
Basically sums up all the reactions to any increase in popularity of any open/foss project 🤷🏻♂️
Is my fairphone 5 the perfect device? No, I guess.
Did I get to buy a new USB-C port for my nearly 3 year old phone after destroying the old one by dropping it in a full sink of dirty water and replace it in 5 minutes without soldering or phone repair knowledge? Hell yes!
A friend of mine just bought a new battery for his 6-7 year old FP3 and can keep using it.
If Fairphone can do modularity of that kind, imagine what big players Apple or Samsung would be able to achieve if they cared at all. Imagine GrapheneOS would not publicly shit on Fairphone for their flaws but instead reach out a hand and ask for collaboration to try and make their next phone compatible.
Oh well, hell is fine too, I guess.
GrapheneOS’s toxic leadership have crab mentality. Oh and a victimhood complex.
No not really. Their project is aimed at providing the highest level of security and privacy. They can’t help that Fairphone’s hardware does not adhere to their hardware requirements in order to attain that security and privacy.
GrapheneOS’s goal is not to deliver the most broad amount of support for as many phones as possible, its goal is to obtain the highest levels of security. For broad support there is /e/os for instance.
They choose to roast small hardware manufacturers for their hardware/firmware security deficits and burn bridges instead of being constructive and offering collaboration once their security requirements are met by future phones.
They could voice their legitimate concerns without being such total dicks about it.
That is what turned me off choosing Graphene, other than having to buy Google hardware. They, but also some other Foss people, are investing way too much time attacking other alternatives fiercely, as if they were created by the devil, because they are not pure enough or because they are less secure than Graphene.
No not really. People keep asking them why they dont support certain hardware, and they need to keep explaining why they dont support the hardware. They don’t go out of their way to demonize those projects. Their project is aimed at providing the highest level of security and privacy. They can’t help that Fairphone’s hardware does not adhere to their hardware requirements in order to attain that security and privacy.
GrapheneOS’s goal is not to deliver the most broad amount of support for as many phones as possible, its goal is to obtain the highest levels of security. For broad support there is /e/os for instance. On the other hand, /e/os is not the most secure OS. Those are just the facts. Every OS has its own use cases.
I’ll be that guy. No headphone jack, no sale. As others have said, I’d love GrapheneOS as well, but I know why that isn’t in the cards.
Yeah, no jack no thanks …
Not a deal breaker for others but it is for me. Their rationale saying that the USB-C is more resilient than the jack is weird because I’ve never had the jack fail and even if it does isn’t that why you’re selling a repairable phone to me …?
Anyways, I see they’re selling earbuds so I’m going to assume that that’s their main motivator.
Whatever reason q company give for now headphone jack is always bs. Its plain and simple they wanna sell you their wireless earbuds.
€600 is the minimum for a Fairphone. A new cheap one by a major brand would be €150.
I’d definitely like some privacy on my phone but damn.
Fairphone costs cheapest in carbon footprint and disruption caused to copper mining communities.
It’s more expensive for you, sure, but it’s the least costly option in grand scheme of things.
Fairphone 6 might be the worst phone I’ve ever owned. I bought one hoping it’d last me 6 years and it barely last 6 months. The software is so buggy it’s embarrassing.
I am now 6 months in, I do not share that experience at all.
Same question for you then: what OS?
Standard Android. I have a kid running a 5 with e os.
Now make it for Graphene
There’s one dev who’s been hard at work making postmarketOS work for FP6:
Preferably before my Pixel 6 is EOL later this year…
You either have to wait for Motorola or get a new Pixel.
I’d choose any other company over Google tbh.
Graphene is only on pixels, why not their /e/os?
Graphene is only on pixels
Only because Pixels have met their hardware requirements. They are going to start working with Motorola now.
why not their /e/os?
From what I understand, the two OS are not aiming for the same objectives. /e/os is a degoogled OS and that’s its main purpose. GrapheneOS is focused on hardening security on AOSP.
/e/ os is not degoogled.
On some technical level you may be correct, but their site claims that /e/os is degoogled.
/e/OS is a “deGoogled” version of Android OS. It has an open-source Android OS core, with no Google apps or Google services accessing your personal data.
- Google default search engine has been removed from the OS everywhere and replaced with our new ethical search engine: Murena Find
- Google Services have been replaced by microG
- Connectivity checks do not use Google servers
- We do not use Google’s Network Time Protocol servers
- We do not use Google’s Domain Name System servers
- Geolocation uses BeaconDB Location Services in addition to GPS
So I would love to know more about what you’re talking about.
I thought Fairphone was one of the few supported phones. Perhaps I’m thinking of a different phone OS.
No I think you are thinking of calyx. Graphene repeatedly asserted that they won’t support fairphone because of the slow update.
You are correct.
It wasn’t just the update cycle either, it’s that they don’t have the physical hardware chips to support Graphene’s minimum requirements for security, which would severely weaken any benefits you actually get from GrapheneOS.
not any, but some benefits, and GrapheneOS maintainers are perfectionists
Entirely lacking disk encryption for typical users due to not having a secure element is a pretty major flaw.
It’s also missing hardware accelerated virtualization which is necessary for much of GrapheneOS’s sandboxing, has weak security for other keys in the OS keystore, is missing hardware memory tagging which makes it much easier for apps to use overflow attacks, doesn’t have proper verified boot support once a custom alternative OS is flashed, and leaves exposed debugging APIs even when the phone is locked.
This breaks:
- Secure app spawning
- Memory corruption protection
- Integer overflow protection
- Most of Graphene’s kernel hardening
- Much of Graphene’s attack surface reduction abilities
- Hardware-based attestation and security monitoring
- Quick tile protection pre-unlock
- Debugging access prevention
- Verified Boot
- The security of your PIN against any automated attack
At that point, GrapheneOS can’t physically provide you essentially any security anymore.
$650 is less bad than I thought it was going to be.
Especially considering that is with 12gb of RAM instead of the previous 8
The new Fairphone is available on Amazon and at Fairphone.com for $650, and it’s officially certified to work on T-Mobile and AT&T’s networks.
Fail lol
Yeah what a bunch of losers getting certified for 2 of the 3 largest US carriers.
