[kuhsaft]

> We are not on a normies forum but on HN.

Being on HN does not mean that you are familiar with the intricacies of hardware and low-level software.

> I only say, that if you want to have a third option, you can have it today. There will be compromises, which can be dealt with by technical users.

I think it’s irresponsible to promote it as an alternative device without noting that it’s less secure and full of footguns. Also, disingenuous to promote it as FOSS when it only fits that definition under FSF technicalities. And lastly, to promote it as more open than phones with AOSP distros that utilize the same set of proprietary hardware, just with different communication mechanisms/boundaries.

[fsflover]

This is not a forum with legal advises. I inform people about an option, which they asked for. GNU/Linux phones have a similar security approach to GNU/Linux on desktop. People explicitly seeking GNU/Linux should know this. They can also ask or search the Internet.

> I think it’s irresponsible to promote it as an alternative device without noting that it’s less secure and full of footguns

I disagree with you here. Informing about options is better than not informing. "Less secure" depends on a threat model. GNU/Linux on desktop is working well enough for millions of people. So it is a viable security approach for many. Saying that your threat model is the only one that should exist and be promoted is crazy.

> only fits that definition under FSF technicalities

This is one of the strictest definitions there is. By which definition does GrapheneOS run FLOSS?

> same set of proprietary hardware, just with different communication mechanisms/boundaries

More choice is always good, isn't it? If it is not for you, you are free to use and promote the duopoly. (Yes, I consider AOSP obeying Google's development strategy long term. It will not end well. See: this topic.)

[kuhsaft]

Relevant conversation about those technicalities: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30042576

Though with a username of fsflover, I think you'll be biased.

Also, another relevant thread (that you were even a part of!) discussing the pointlessness of what Purism did to fit the technicalities: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29841267

It's actually worse than I thought. There's the initramfs /lib/firmware loading workaround for the FSF certification of the OS.

But even before that there is code run by the main CPU that loads instructions for the secondary core to load a blob from separate flash memory to pass to the memory controller to initialize it.

All that just to attempt to fit the technicalities of the FSF RYF hardware certification while still loading a blob like every other phone microprocessor.

---

It's interesting that I could make a device that burns efuses to make it obsolete and it could still be considered FSF Respects Your Freedom certified.