openmic.social is an uncensored community. You may encounter strong language, controversial opinions, and mature or NSFW material. You must be 18+ to browse. Illegal content is prohibited and removed on sight — please report it. By continuing, you accept that you may see content you personally disagree with.
ITT: People complaining about how this phone is 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.
But it’s also unfair to blame customers for not supporting something financially when it would be easy to improve from the criticism. If fairphone wanted to sell more they would address the feedback from GrapheneOS instead of hiding behind the startup label, but instead we get this zombie development where the product is held up by partnership decisions that are holding them back, and any criticism to help improve their standing is shot down.
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.
Basically sums up all the reactions to any increase in popularity of any open/foss project 🤷🏻♂️
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.
Except that this is exactly what at least one of the leading developers is doing by harassing threads that are about other projects, with all sorts of loaded language, insinuations of nasty motives, Russian influence and what not.
All of that does nothing to achieve GrapheneOS’ goals.
I have no issue at all with GrapheneOS stating that FP6 is not an option because this hardware feature is missing or that firmware update routine being insufficient. That is not what I am talking about here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_mentality
@Jiral @DannyMac jasnt #grapheneos a partnership with #motorola ? When first devices?
There is no concrete timeline yet as far as I know. So your guess is as good as mine. Bottom line if you want to use GrapheneOS now or in the near future you have to buy Google hardware which is a nogo for me, even if you rip out the OS.
I only buy second hand hardware these days, but I get you