I don’t really mind that GrapheneOS excludes other manufacturers/devices based on their extremely strict requirements, it’s good to have a tighter option for those who want it. Their team has always been unnecessarily antagonistic/hostile towards other projects in this space, though. The way they communicate publicly is always so extreme and deliberately lacking in context so that everything is framed as “GrapheneOS = good, competitors = bad”. They won’t acknowledge differing threat models to their own and treat everyone else as a bad actor or a clueless moron, which has led to this very weird cult mentality among the userbase. So many people shill the absolute fuck out of this project online yet have never put any thought into what their personal threat model is or what features they actually want in a custom OS. They don’t even know why they installed GrapheneOS, they just read comments from other people on social media or watched a YouTube video and blindly followed along.
Personally I also hope that Graphene and Fairphone talk with each other instead about each other, because together they could create a fantastic device.
This isn’t even an issue from Fairphone’s perspective. It’s devices are supported by every other privacy-based ROM out there and its primary focus is on shipping and supporting devices with “stock” Android. As I said above, there is nothing actually wrong with Fairphone devices from a security perspective compared to the majority of its competitors, and even those issues that do exist are fringe cases that consumers do not care about.
The only reason this discussion about “GrapheneOS on Fairphone” keeps resurfacing is because of the cult-like behaviour I described elsewhere in this thread, where GrapheneOS is so widely recommended without context that people new to this space think it is the only solution to stock Android’s privacy issues. So they keep pestering the GrapheneOS team, asking for something that has been resolutely denied on multiple occasions previously, provoking a response that inevitably gets recirculated on social media and run as content on “news” sites. And then we get comments lile yours that frame GrapheneOS on Fairphone as an achievable and realistic thing that could happen with better communication, even though neither party is interested in pursuing that.
There are no issues but those that exist are not important?
I’m not sure if you just didn’t read my reply properly or if you’re engaging in bad faith here but you’ve just stitched the first sentence of a paragraph and half of the last sentence of a paragraph together as if they’re related when they clearly aren’t. One is referring to the non-existent issue (from Fairphone’s perspective as clearly stated) of lack of GrapheneOS support, in direct response to you. The other is referring to the perceived security issues with Fairphone devices referenced in the article, and this is clearly stated in the first half of the same sentence which you decided to cut for some reason.
Update speed is a major issue and Fairphone is not great at it either. Yeah, it is not the worst offender, but that does not mean that it is good.
Nice strawman but I never said it was good. Again, respond in full instead of cherrypicking half a sentence. “Slow” updates compared to a Pixel is obviously not a problem considering Google has a minority market share and many people do not even bother to update their phone regularly. It is a fringe issue that is irrelevant to most.
That being said, which other rom is on equal footing with Graphene?
It doesn’t matter whether they’re equal to GrapheneOS. Like I said, if you are new to this space and don’t know anything then you think you need GrapheneOS because an influencer told you “iTs tHe bEsT oNe” and you looked at a comparison chart where it had the most green rows in its column. In reality many of its unique features and differences are well beyond the requirements of most people simply looking to reduce the amount of information big tech holds on them. Threat modelling exists for a reason but unfortunately many people burn out and return to big tech because they listen to bad advice from morons instead of thinking for themselves.
These projects don’t need to be identical to each other, and in fact it’s actually very healthy for the ecosystem and movement if they have differing feature sets and goals. Your utopian dream of GrapheneOS having a market monopoly is a terrible idea because it assumes the people in control are mentally stable and that nothing will ever go wrong, which we already know is a completely unrealistic assumption to have because Micay exists and Google just made custom ROM development much harder for Pixels.
So? I’m aware that my hypothetical idea is not the reality. But what hinders it from becoming the reality? As far as I am aware the humans behind each organization have mouths and ears, no?
Fairphone has zero interest in GrapheneOS and vice versa. Pretending that the only hindrance to this fictional collaboration is a lack of communication is delusional.
I don’t really mind that GrapheneOS excludes other manufacturers/devices based on their extremely strict requirements, it’s good to have a tighter option for those who want it. Their team has always been unnecessarily antagonistic/hostile towards other projects in this space, though. The way they communicate publicly is always so extreme and deliberately lacking in context so that everything is framed as “GrapheneOS = good, competitors = bad”. They won’t acknowledge differing threat models to their own and treat everyone else as a bad actor or a clueless moron, which has led to this very weird cult mentality among the userbase. So many people shill the absolute fuck out of this project online yet have never put any thought into what their personal threat model is or what features they actually want in a custom OS. They don’t even know why they installed GrapheneOS, they just read comments from other people on social media or watched a YouTube video and blindly followed along.
deleted by creator
This isn’t even an issue from Fairphone’s perspective. It’s devices are supported by every other privacy-based ROM out there and its primary focus is on shipping and supporting devices with “stock” Android. As I said above, there is nothing actually wrong with Fairphone devices from a security perspective compared to the majority of its competitors, and even those issues that do exist are fringe cases that consumers do not care about.
The only reason this discussion about “GrapheneOS on Fairphone” keeps resurfacing is because of the cult-like behaviour I described elsewhere in this thread, where GrapheneOS is so widely recommended without context that people new to this space think it is the only solution to stock Android’s privacy issues. So they keep pestering the GrapheneOS team, asking for something that has been resolutely denied on multiple occasions previously, provoking a response that inevitably gets recirculated on social media and run as content on “news” sites. And then we get comments lile yours that frame GrapheneOS on Fairphone as an achievable and realistic thing that could happen with better communication, even though neither party is interested in pursuing that.
deleted by creator
I’m not sure if you just didn’t read my reply properly or if you’re engaging in bad faith here but you’ve just stitched the first sentence of a paragraph and half of the last sentence of a paragraph together as if they’re related when they clearly aren’t. One is referring to the non-existent issue (from Fairphone’s perspective as clearly stated) of lack of GrapheneOS support, in direct response to you. The other is referring to the perceived security issues with Fairphone devices referenced in the article, and this is clearly stated in the first half of the same sentence which you decided to cut for some reason.
Nice strawman but I never said it was good. Again, respond in full instead of cherrypicking half a sentence. “Slow” updates compared to a Pixel is obviously not a problem considering Google has a minority market share and many people do not even bother to update their phone regularly. It is a fringe issue that is irrelevant to most.
It doesn’t matter whether they’re equal to GrapheneOS. Like I said, if you are new to this space and don’t know anything then you think you need GrapheneOS because an influencer told you “iTs tHe bEsT oNe” and you looked at a comparison chart where it had the most green rows in its column. In reality many of its unique features and differences are well beyond the requirements of most people simply looking to reduce the amount of information big tech holds on them. Threat modelling exists for a reason but unfortunately many people burn out and return to big tech because they listen to bad advice from morons instead of thinking for themselves.
These projects don’t need to be identical to each other, and in fact it’s actually very healthy for the ecosystem and movement if they have differing feature sets and goals. Your utopian dream of GrapheneOS having a market monopoly is a terrible idea because it assumes the people in control are mentally stable and that nothing will ever go wrong, which we already know is a completely unrealistic assumption to have because Micay exists and Google just made custom ROM development much harder for Pixels.
Fairphone has zero interest in GrapheneOS and vice versa. Pretending that the only hindrance to this fictional collaboration is a lack of communication is delusional.
deleted by creator
You really struggle with reading, don’t you?
“The increased userbase gives Graphene more leverage and in a just world big companies and countries would maybe rethink their approach to data collection.”
deleted by creator
Unfortunately you don’t seem to understand the meaning of the words “compared to”. If, as you admit:
Then it is impossible for there to be something wrong with Fairphone security compared to the majority of competitors.