8 ms·
They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS it sounds like they are saying that /e/OS is less secure than fairphone's ow
by em-bee 5d ago
They replaced their own non-GMS Fairphone OS with a dramatically less secure /e/OS
it sounds like they are saying that /e/OS is less secure than fairphone's own OS. with all criticism against /e/OS taken into account, i highly doubt that fairphone would have been able to make their own version of android more secure than /e/OS when they are not even interested in working on that.
- microtonal 5d agoIt starts with simply rolling major releases out earlier than /e/OS. Remember that to get security fixes for vulnerabilities not marked high/critical, you need the QPR/major updates. Those vulnerabilities may not be an immediate RCE, but they might get used in exploit chains after an RCE. Also, Fairphone and /e/OS will have many known RCEs, because they do not roll out embargoed patches like GrapheneOS and to some extend Samsung & Pixel do.
- em-bee 5d agoas if fairphone ever did that: they don't fully keep up with privacy/security backports and lag a year behind on shipping yearly OS releases so, again, how is /e/OS being behind on updates any worse than fairphone's own OS?
- microtonal 4d agoAndroid 16 was released on Fairphone 6 on March 16 2026. Yes, I know, way too late. The Android 16 build of /e/OS for Fairphone 6 was released on July 20 2026. Four months later. This was exactly the point of my comment.
- em-bee 4d agofairphone probably rolls out a stock android release with little change whereas /e/OS has to forward port all its changes and patches on all the phones they support. maybe taking 4 months is to much for that, but that's most likely a resource problem that can probably best be solved by buying more murena phones.