[KirinDave]

In general, until we have open source handset hardware to work with, all fine-tuned sensors and clock hardware support will be bad. This is a problem Linux had for a long time, and it took a ton of effort to partially solve the problem. It seems a bit unfair to blame AOSP for not having drivers for specific hardware, that's not it's function.

The big contribution of Purism phones is that more open hardware. After that, the real question we should ask is, "What software platform can offer us the greatest values in the multi-dimensional optimization problem we face?"

It's true though that you wouldn't just flash AOSP. But it's also true that dismissing Graphene BECAUSE it is based on AOSP is unfair.

[groovybits]

I agree, hardware is a primary concern.

I am not meaning to paint those who work on AOSP or third-party ROMs in a bad light. The work they do is terrific and great for the community. I also do not mean to dismiss any of the fantastic work that Graphene brings to the Android community.

I am simply stating that the biggest difference between Librem and Android is that there are more hurdles to jump through to provide a completely usable and free AOSP phone to an end-user in 2019. Android has been made to host a Google ecosystem, where the Librem 5 is being created to host an open ecosystem.

It sounds like the Purism team identified this issue ahead of time and decided to provide that open hardeware platform for us.

[strcat]

Librem 5 is not open hardware. I also don't understand why you're comparing hardware to an operating system that's perfectly capable of running on top of it with the strengths and weaknesses of the hardware underneath it. You make it sound like AOSP or GrapheneOS wouldn't run on it. I don't think it would make a very good hardware target due to having so many security regressions from the status quo but it could certainly be one of the official targets. Whether or not it's an official hardware target, people will be able to use GrapheneOS on it.

[wuschel]

strcat, many thanks for your interesting explanations.

Could you write more on the state of open hardware, and perhaps point me to open-hardware endeavours that have the slightest chance of success?

I understand that it is an very expensive undertaking to deliver a hardware mashine that is based on an open architecture from the CPU to the actual communication/data storage devices (logical design, actual layout, photolithography, assembly). Since patents on older circuitry must be all expired by now, it must be the lack of money that is the actual stopper for truly open systems.