9 ms·

Which one?

by russnes 1y ago

Which one?

Hackbraten 1y ago
It’s a Librem 5. I’m looking for a more powerful model that can also run mainline(-ish) Linux.
- russnes 1y ago
  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?
  - nunobrito 1y ago
    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.
    - strcat 1y ago
      CalyxOS was not a hardened OS and is a much different space from GrapheneOS. It hasn't provided the 2025-06-05 or later Android security patches and updates for it have been discontinued. It's strange to recommend people use an insecure and non-private OS without updates. https://calyxos.org/news/2025/08/01/a-letter-to-our-community/ https://calyxos.org/news/2025/08/01/a-letter-to-our-communit... https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm has a high quality comparison of the privacy and security between different alternate AOSP-based operating systems.
    - duesabati 1y ago
      I was very interested in Graphene, do you have other grounds for your suspicions?
      - fsflover 1y ago
        I agree with the parent. GrapheneOS puts security above freedom, which is wrong. It forces you to give your money to Google and rely on Google hardware, which is questionable in the long term. They refuse to support different hardware "for your security". Their developers are constantly attacking GNU/Linux phones, which are the actual long-term solution for both freedom and security. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44680624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44680624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43675380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43675380
        strcat 1y ago
        > It forces you to give your money to Google and rely on Google hardware These are the only reasonably secure mobile devices with proper alternate OS support. It's not GrapheneOS forcing people to use these devices if they want a device to run it but rather other OEMs not providing what is required. The hardware requirements are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. GrapheneOS has been working with a major Android OEM since June 2025 towards their future devices meeting these requirements and providing official GrapheneOS support. > Their developers are constantly attacking GNU/Linux phones, which are the actual long-term solution for both freedom and security. These devices provide objectively far less privacy and security at a hardware, firmware and software level. Linux itself is not a long term approach to privacy and security due to being a massive monolithic kernel written in C with very poor security. A long term approach will involve moving over current software onto a reasonably secure base. Moving to a dramatically less private and secure desktop operating system stack would be a huge regression in both the short and long term. It's not advancing as quickly in those areas, would not the usability/functionality people expect and is definitely not the future of secure devices. Android's current incarnation based around the Linux kernel is not the future of secure devices either, but it's far more private and secure today with a clearer path to moving forward.
        backscratches 1y ago
        I have been using google phones since the nexus and have never given google any money or paid more than $300 far a device. I am essentially pirating billions of dollars of expert development from them and they get nothing in return. In a real way I am actively siphoning value from google making them lose money (they get none of my data, which is what they hoped to actieve by producing the hardware).
    - pferde 1y ago
      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.
      - BlueTemplar 1y ago
        > it's not a good idea to blindly aim for "degoogling" at all costs Why not ? This seems to be exactly the push that was needed.
      - close04 1y ago
        > 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.
        pferde 1y ago
        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 https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
        close04 1y ago
        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?
- spookie 1y ago
  Fairphone and Sony Xperias - Fairphone 5 works with Ubuntu touch - Xperias that are from previous gen can run Sailfish OS I've looked into others, don't recommend
seviu 1y ago
Out of all the models I saw, SailfishOS is the only one that ticks all the boxes for me. Wish there were other alternatives. PinePhone Pro got discontinued. This is truly a duopoly.
- panny 1y ago
  >PinePhone Pro got discontinued. At the EXACT moment everyone is now looking for Google alternatives. This is truly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. https://liliputing.com/pinephone-pro-linux-smartphone-has-been-discontinued-but-the-original-pinephone-is-still-available/ https://liliputing.com/pinephone-pro-linux-smartphone-has-be...

Which one?

Hackbraten 1y ago

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

russnes 1y ago
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?
- nunobrito 1y ago
  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.
  - strcat 1y ago
    CalyxOS was not a hardened OS and is a much different space from GrapheneOS. It hasn't provided the 2025-06-05 or later Android security patches and updates for it have been discontinued. It's strange to recommend people use an insecure and non-private OS without updates. https://calyxos.org/news/2025/08/01/a-letter-to-our-community/ https://calyxos.org/news/2025/08/01/a-letter-to-our-communit... https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm https://eylenburg.github.io/android_comparison.htm has a high quality comparison of the privacy and security between different alternate AOSP-based operating systems.
  - duesabati 1y ago
    I was very interested in Graphene, do you have other grounds for your suspicions?
    - fsflover 1y ago
      I agree with the parent. GrapheneOS puts security above freedom, which is wrong. It forces you to give your money to Google and rely on Google hardware, which is questionable in the long term. They refuse to support different hardware "for your security". Their developers are constantly attacking GNU/Linux phones, which are the actual long-term solution for both freedom and security. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44680624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44680624 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43675380 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43675380
      - strcat 1y ago
        > It forces you to give your money to Google and rely on Google hardware These are the only reasonably secure mobile devices with proper alternate OS support. It's not GrapheneOS forcing people to use these devices if they want a device to run it but rather other OEMs not providing what is required. The hardware requirements are listed at https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices. GrapheneOS has been working with a major Android OEM since June 2025 towards their future devices meeting these requirements and providing official GrapheneOS support. > Their developers are constantly attacking GNU/Linux phones, which are the actual long-term solution for both freedom and security. These devices provide objectively far less privacy and security at a hardware, firmware and software level. Linux itself is not a long term approach to privacy and security due to being a massive monolithic kernel written in C with very poor security. A long term approach will involve moving over current software onto a reasonably secure base. Moving to a dramatically less private and secure desktop operating system stack would be a huge regression in both the short and long term. It's not advancing as quickly in those areas, would not the usability/functionality people expect and is definitely not the future of secure devices. Android's current incarnation based around the Linux kernel is not the future of secure devices either, but it's far more private and secure today with a clearer path to moving forward.
      - backscratches 1y ago
        I have been using google phones since the nexus and have never given google any money or paid more than $300 far a device. I am essentially pirating billions of dollars of expert development from them and they get nothing in return. In a real way I am actively siphoning value from google making them lose money (they get none of my data, which is what they hoped to actieve by producing the hardware).
  - pferde 1y ago
    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.
    - BlueTemplar 1y ago
      > it's not a good idea to blindly aim for "degoogling" at all costs Why not ? This seems to be exactly the push that was needed.
    - close04 1y ago
      > 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.
      - pferde 1y ago
        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 https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
        close04 1y ago
        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?
spookie 1y ago
Fairphone and Sony Xperias - Fairphone 5 works with Ubuntu touch - Xperias that are from previous gen can run Sailfish OS I've looked into others, don't recommend

seviu 1y ago

Out of all the models I saw, SailfishOS is the only one that ticks all the boxes for me. Wish there were other alternatives. PinePhone Pro got discontinued. This is truly a duopoly.

panny 1y ago
>PinePhone Pro got discontinued. At the EXACT moment everyone is now looking for Google alternatives. This is truly snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. https://liliputing.com/pinephone-pro-linux-smartphone-has-been-discontinued-but-the-original-pinephone-is-still-available/ https://liliputing.com/pinephone-pro-linux-smartphone-has-be...