6 ms·

It's because Fairphone doesn't fulfil GOS's hardware requirements. If Fairphone addresses that, there's no reason for GOS to not support a Fairphone device.

fc417fc802 5d ago
I don't understand the issue. If Fairphone wants GOS can't they just compile it themselves with whatever unsupported hardware based security features disabled? Ditto for any given end user. It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions.
- Telaneo 5d ago
  Simple. Fairphone doesn't want GOS. Forking GOS and porting it to a new device is a huge and unreasonable ask for an individual user. Even less so when you include the fact that you'll need to keep it up to date.
  - fc417fc802 5d ago
    I understand that bringing AOSP to an unsupported device is a huge endeavor. But fairphone already has the driver situation sorted out. What's the complexity here? (Genuine question, I'd like to correct any misconceptions about the android ecosystem that I have.)
  - josephg 5d ago
    Why? Because of drivers? Don’t they already have Linux drivers for the fairphone? I wonder if fable or astra could wire everything up.
    - imkac 5d ago
      As a company that often lies, they won’t spend a single penny on this.
      - fsflover 4d ago
        Unsubstantiated accusations are against the HN guidelines.
    - microtonal 5d ago
      LLMs do not solve every problem. You are dependent on Qualcomm for hardware firmware updates and apparently they charge quite a bit extra if you want continuous monthly security updates [1]. This is possibly one of the reasons that smaller OEMs like Fairphone do not update firmware regularly and instead choose to keep their customers vulnerable to many known CVEs. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48079791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48079791
      - fc417fc802 5d ago
        They're getting remarkably good at reverse engineering. I wonder if the relevant firmware updates can be provided by the user or OEM or if they're blobs that have to be signed by qualcomm?
  - grapheneos 5d ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49669636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49669636
- imkac 5d ago
  Yes, they can, but they have promoted /e/OS, and they have no ability to develop Android.
- grapheneos 5d ago
  An incredibly incomplete port without many of the core security features and decent updates is not GrapheneOS. It isn't possible to bring GrapheneOS to Fairphone devices. > It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions. Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life Linux kernel. Fairphone 6 is approaching the same fate. None of their devices keep up with the incomplete security backports to older releases, let alone the full security updates via new major releases. All of their devices are missing important hardware security features which should be standard. They're repeatedly said they don't consider any of this a significant issue and have no plans to significantly change it.
  - fc417fc802 5d ago
    Yes, I realize that the official stance is that it isn't grapheneos without the security features. That doesn't change the fact that someone who won't have the security features either way (and presumably doesn't care because otherwise he would switch to a different piece of hardware) might want the option of using a build of grapheneos that isn't officially condoned by the maintainers. (That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right?) I didn't realize fairphone was stuck on an EoL kernel. I guess that means that even if the build can be made to work right now (far from certain given an old kernel) it would likely break in the future.
    - grapheneos 4d ago
      > might want the option of using a build of grapheneos An OS without the core features and updates of GrapheneOS clearly isn't GrapheneOS. It's not permitted to refer to it as such. > That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right? No, the point of FOSS is that you can take all of our code and use it for other purposes. Calling an incomplete port to another device GrapheneOS is misleading users. It isn't GrapheneOS and must have a unique name.
      - fc417fc802 4d ago
        No one was suggesting that your trademark should be infringed when marketing to users. If I do my own custom build of firefox referring to it as such in casual conversation is entirely separate from marketing it under that name for others to use (see ex icecat). Honestly while grapheneos is a useful thing that I'm glad exists you're being absolutely insufferable.
microtonal 5d ago
I don't think they can, even if they wanted to. From the GrapheneOS device requirements: Device support code updated to new monthly, quarterly and yearly releases of AOSP within several months to provide new security improvements (Pixels receive these in the month they're released) Fairphone's hardware and software is developed by a Chinese ODM (T2Mobile), who even have difficulty pushing out monthly patches very timely. They don't even do QPR2s, major Android updates are very late (usually almost a year), they rarely do driver firmware or kernel updates. There is no way they could fulfill this guarantee unless they started doing software development in-house and paid Qualcomm for monthly firmware updates.
- karel-3d 5d ago
  Oh for some reason I thought Fairphone does all this in-house, not that they just take Chinese ODM. It makes more sense now.

fc417fc802 5d ago

I don't understand the issue. If Fairphone wants GOS can't they just compile it themselves with whatever unsupported hardware based security features disabled? Ditto for any given end user. It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions.

Telaneo 5d ago
Simple. Fairphone doesn't want GOS. Forking GOS and porting it to a new device is a huge and unreasonable ask for an individual user. Even less so when you include the fact that you'll need to keep it up to date.
- fc417fc802 5d ago
  I understand that bringing AOSP to an unsupported device is a huge endeavor. But fairphone already has the driver situation sorted out. What's the complexity here? (Genuine question, I'd like to correct any misconceptions about the android ecosystem that I have.)
- josephg 5d ago
  Why? Because of drivers? Don’t they already have Linux drivers for the fairphone? I wonder if fable or astra could wire everything up.
  - imkac 5d ago
    As a company that often lies, they won’t spend a single penny on this.
    - fsflover 4d ago
      Unsubstantiated accusations are against the HN guidelines.
  - microtonal 5d ago
    LLMs do not solve every problem. You are dependent on Qualcomm for hardware firmware updates and apparently they charge quite a bit extra if you want continuous monthly security updates [1]. This is possibly one of the reasons that smaller OEMs like Fairphone do not update firmware regularly and instead choose to keep their customers vulnerable to many known CVEs. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48079791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48079791
    - fc417fc802 5d ago
      They're getting remarkably good at reverse engineering. I wonder if the relevant firmware updates can be provided by the user or OEM or if they're blobs that have to be signed by qualcomm?
- grapheneos 5d ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49669636 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49669636
imkac 5d ago
Yes, they can, but they have promoted /e/OS, and they have no ability to develop Android.
grapheneos 5d ago
An incredibly incomplete port without many of the core security features and decent updates is not GrapheneOS. It isn't possible to bring GrapheneOS to Fairphone devices. > It's not as though we're talking about a device with hardware specs locked behind an NDA and drivers that only support outdated kernel versions. Fairphone 5 and earlier have an end-of-life Linux kernel. Fairphone 6 is approaching the same fate. None of their devices keep up with the incomplete security backports to older releases, let alone the full security updates via new major releases. All of their devices are missing important hardware security features which should be standard. They're repeatedly said they don't consider any of this a significant issue and have no plans to significantly change it.
- fc417fc802 5d ago
  Yes, I realize that the official stance is that it isn't grapheneos without the security features. That doesn't change the fact that someone who won't have the security features either way (and presumably doesn't care because otherwise he would switch to a different piece of hardware) might want the option of using a build of grapheneos that isn't officially condoned by the maintainers. (That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right?) I didn't realize fairphone was stuck on an EoL kernel. I guess that means that even if the build can be made to work right now (far from certain given an old kernel) it would likely break in the future.
  - grapheneos 4d ago
    > might want the option of using a build of grapheneos An OS without the core features and updates of GrapheneOS clearly isn't GrapheneOS. It's not permitted to refer to it as such. > That's kind of the whole point of FOSS, right? No, the point of FOSS is that you can take all of our code and use it for other purposes. Calling an incomplete port to another device GrapheneOS is misleading users. It isn't GrapheneOS and must have a unique name.
    - fc417fc802 4d ago
      No one was suggesting that your trademark should be infringed when marketing to users. If I do my own custom build of firefox referring to it as such in casual conversation is entirely separate from marketing it under that name for others to use (see ex icecat). Honestly while grapheneos is a useful thing that I'm glad exists you're being absolutely insufferable.

microtonal 5d ago

I don't think they can, even if they wanted to. From the GrapheneOS device requirements: Device support code updated to new monthly, quarterly and yearly releases of AOSP within several months to provide new security improvements (Pixels receive these in the month they're released) Fairphone's hardware and software is developed by a Chinese ODM (T2Mobile), who even have difficulty pushing out monthly patches very timely. They don't even do QPR2s, major Android updates are very late (usually almost a year), they rarely do driver firmware or kernel updates. There is no way they could fulfill this guarantee unless they started doing software development in-house and paid Qualcomm for monthly firmware updates.

karel-3d 5d ago
Oh for some reason I thought Fairphone does all this in-house, not that they just take Chinese ODM. It makes more sense now.