[kop316]

Is this person a Graphene OS dev?

I couldn't confirm that (from a cursory search), but if so, this massively undermines my confidence in using it on my Pixel.

[seba_dos1]

The person who wrote the comment I replied to? I don't think so, they just copy'n'pasted and linked to a page written by a GrapheneOS dev. However, I have some history of communication with GOS devs on Twitter trying to correct their mistakes and they always confidently repeat their misconceptions despite of clearly not knowing what they're talking about and it ends up with "I'm not lying, you're lying" and me getting blocked, so...

(granted, I'm probably not the best in non-violent communication, but they could at least try to do some research anyway ;))

[kop316]

Gotcha.

> (granted, I'm probably not the best in non-violent communication, but they could at least try to do some research anyway ;))

Considering how badly incorrect the dev's page is, I agree. I gave them some credit since it was over a year old, but if they behave like that, it sounds like I need to reinstall LineageOS.

[atat7024]

LineageOS breaks the AOSP security model.

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone as a first choice.

[kop316]

You make this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26775235

Which is riddled with errors. Make a well cited annotation of the errors.

You say you addressed my comments "elsewhere" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26783664

I ask you where.

Your response is a deflection: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26784172

My interaction with you has only undermined my confidence in GrapheneOS (especially considering seba_dos1's perspective, and he is a person I have worked with and I trust his judgement). I have no idea why you think I would listen to you about LineageOS.

[atat7024]

Not a dev, just a somewhat active community member — would be interested which dev you spoke to, and on what inaccuracy!

[seba_dos1]

First time was with someone behind the official GrapheneOS twitter account, and second time was with Daniel Micay, both times about the hardware supposedly preventing the ability to update the firmware even when running alternative software.

In reality, the only thing that prevents the firmware from being upgraded is the default software not implementing such features (because PureOS does not and will not distribute non-free software or firmware). A user who wants to do that can reflash everything without modifying the hardware in any way or even opening the case. Both WiFi flash and the M4 core-based solution described in https://puri.sm/posts/librem5-solving-the-first-fsf-ryf-hurd... can be bypassed completely to load the firmware from rootfs just by using a different kernel and bootloader, and disabling SPI flash read-only protection is a single line of code change in the device tree.

[atat7024]

> just by

[seba_dos1]

If you install an alternative distro on the Librem 5, you're already using a different kernel and bootloader; exactly like on a PC. This is not some locked down Android device where that could be considered rocket science.