That's the main use for almost everyone. You're suggesting people use a less secure device and are stating that it's more secure if they don't use it in the way it's mostly used?

That doesn't sound like freedom. That sounds like living in paranoia. You bring up FUD in so many comments, but you seem to be living it. Ironically though, you choose to use systems that provide FUD when there are systems that let you not worry about that.

> There is not a single non-free blob in the OS that runs there once the bootloader is up (unless you put some there by yourself, which you're of course free to do).

"unless you put some there by yourself, which you're of course free to do" also means unless someone else puts one there.

---

I think the "firmware jail" loader also uses Smart Direct Memory Access (SDMA)?

---

You can run blobs on the main CPU with strong isolation with TEE and other hardware security features.

Security vulnerabilities aren't only JS related.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2026-3...

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2026-3...

Adding an extension that can access all your browsing data doesn't seem very secure either.

Required permissions:

- Access browser tabs

- Access browser activity during navigation

- Access your data for all websites

> This is false. Please stop writing false statements without any links. NXP promises to produce the i.MX 8M Quad until Jan. 2033. The support will be even longer.

I think they meant that the processor itself is old. It supports ARMv8 and is lacking the enhanced memory protection and execution features of the ARMv9-A processors on newer phones.

> This is false again. It doesn't matter how much my device might be compromised. The attacker will not get any access to the shut down sensors, radios or voice/video, if I use the three kill switches.

The problem is that your device can be compromised quite easily and without you knowing. The kill switches are moot at that point.

https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/fw

https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/fw/firmware-librem5-nonfree

https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-fw-jail/-/tree/pureos...

> Which blobs are running on GrapheneOS CPU?

Depends on the phone. Arguably though, GrapheneOS has the legacy of years of thousands of security researchers working to secure Android from third-party network and GNSS modules.

---

Just so you know, I'm not using Librem or GrapheneOS. I'm looking at this objectively and have no skin in the game.

Openness for users/consumers was never a goal for the Open Handset Alliance.

> Using money as the only metric is stupid and myopic.

Publicly traded companies will be publicly traded companies.

I would also guess that the common masses would choose the opposite as shown by them choosing convenience over openness. It's convenient to not have a separate key to prevent evil-maid attacks.

> Well, it's a good thing that PureOS is LUKS-encrypted by default then.

My bad, I meant leave their phone unattended. Wherein someone can compromise the device from boot, so that when unlocked, the device is fully compromised.

But it still brings the point that you can't make a phone without proprietary chips and firmware from the mobile industry giants.

> You want to reflash it before use, obviously.

I think that is non-obvious to the majority of users buying a phone.

> The SoC supports High Assurance Boot, you can burn your key into its efuses and have it only ever accept software that's cryptographically signed by you.

An important consideration for consumers is that their data is secure if they lose their phone. Without a secure boot process by default, that's a hard sell for the common masses.

That's mainly because of device trees. The firmware also isn't distributed via separate flash storage on the device, but I don't consider that making a difference. It's still proprietary firmware running on proprietary hardware. On Qualcomm-based Pixel devices, cellular, WiFi, Bluetooth, and GNSS are all isolated and sandboxed.

> It's also interesting that you mention it unprompted, as it's fairly off-topic here

A primary reason people complain about proprietary blobs is security. People claim that the Librem 5 is more open and secure, but it still uses the same proprietary modules as a Pixel running GrapheneOS. Does Librem 5 have signature checks for the firmware and a tamper-proof bootloader to load the firmware and OS, or can someone sell you a compromised Librem 5?

Is it more free, open, and secure than a Pixel running Android? Because, the only difference I'm seeing is how the firmware is stored and Google Play Services. And with GrapheneOS, only how the firmware is stored. Everything else points to a more insecure system with Librem 5.

I don't see how it's different from running a free open-source ASOP OS. On the mainstream Android devices, the wireless hardware is also isolated and communication is done via IOMMU.

There's some debate as to whether using the USB stack for communication to the modem in the Librem 5 is less secure than IOMMU as well.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47935853#47943179

GrapheneOS is probably more secure also.

https://github.com/linuxboot/heads/blob/c859c28b88b7bc197c16...

https://forums.puri.sm/t/the-librem-5-blob-list/28815/26

https://github.com/linuxboot/heads/blob/c859c28b88b7bc197c16...

https://forums.puri.sm/t/the-librem-5-blob-list/28815/26

iOS was a new SDK from the start.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260420021444/https://www.openh...

Openness for end-users was never a tenet. It is a very HN view to think that open-source equals freedom for users, and to state that it was a promise when it never was.

Nowhere is their goal to allow users complete control of their device. Android was built as an open-OS for the mobile device industry, not end-users.

Android might have been considered more open than other mobile OSes by users, but it was never a promise or goal.

The yet-to-be-released Steam Machine is not subsidized and is unlocked. Steam is a OS agnostic digital marketplace, so it doesn't matter what OS you install on the machine.

Microsoft doesn't see a threat in allowing other OSes on their Surface hardware because the majority of their revenue comes from M365.

It's just market forces really. In the end, phones provide enough utility for the majority of users while being locked down. There's nothing stopping you from buying a fully-open phone, but there's just very little utility in it for the majority of users.

The vast majority of users don't care about "openness" of the OS. They care about the utility of their phone in everyday life.

Can I access digital payment systems, social media apps, and entertainment apps? How's the camera on the phone? How big is the screen? Is it waterproof? How expensive is it?

These are the questions the majority of phone buyers care about. Not, can I download an app off of a random website and install it?

---

I would say that the majority of developers don't care about the "openness" either. They care about accessing a wide audience and getting revenue from their work. Free apps without ads or in-app purchases (zero-revenue apps) are the minority.

Google is also fine with losing the zero-revenue app developers because they provide no value for Google. Actually, they are probably a loss for Google, since Google provides Google Play Services.