Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

It still boggles my mind that the most popular privacy OS requires Google manufactured hardware, that fact alone makes me not trust it at all.
 help



They list their exact criteria for supporting a device. So far, only Pixels fit all of them (and I guess the Motorolas will soon)

https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices


Phone hardware is a hellscape it doesn’t surprise me at all that they need to keep the number of supported devices small in order to deliver a decent product.

Despite Google's other failings, it was the OG supporter of data portability, and that spirit extends to its phones. No other phone manufacturer with wide distribution comes close. It's unfortunate that the people who design the hardware do such a poor job with the resources at their disposal.

Is it still the case that Android backups leave much to be desired when compared to iphone? Pretty much the only reason I use Apple is that I can switch to a replacement phone and it’s exactly the same state as the last backup.

It's ridiculous is what it is. It makes me deeply distrustful of the organisation behind Graphene that they would make such a crazy choice.

The intersection of phones that have unlockable bootloaders, public-ish driver blobs and decent hardware is tiny.

What other phone would you pick?


Everything Lineage supports.

How do you reconcile that position with what Graphene OS lists as requirements for support, as linked by another commenter? https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

I’m not an expert, but all the listed points there sound reasonable. If indeed only the Pixels support them, well, it’s too bad there’s not other, similarly secure hardware out there.


Please go read this and try again: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices

If you want Graphene level security you need to have the hardware for it.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: