this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2026
925 points (98.9% liked)

Technology

87390 readers
3952 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Man I love it. Hoping one day it is supported on grapheneos. Still no headphone jack throws me off though

[–] Benaaasaaas@group.lt 13 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Graphene OS needs a hardware level chip, that enables secure encryption of data so far only pixels have that. They are working with Motorola though.

[–] Hiro8811@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Somehow after being repeatedly told that they still ask it. But GOS team did make a post detailing why they won't support nor partnership with fairphone 97829

97830

97831

[–] pineapplelover@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 22 hours ago

Yeah I am aware of their hardware requirements. I'm not sure if Fairphone has this on their roadmap

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

I personally think that the GOS team is intentionally not wanting to, not due to the requirements, but due to the water so to speak.

There was a lot of bad blood between a company that Fairphone closely partners with, so therefore they don't want to even think about the concept of it. I think that shows quite well when you look at their post considering that their post goes into detail on the supply chain aspects of it and who they're partnered with instead of focusing on the actual issues with the device.

Being said, I understand their points on the software updates and the hardware requirement. But, ostensibly I don't think they are rejecting it due to those concerns.

[–] QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago* (last edited 19 hours ago)

Shoot me down for this, but I think GOS is melodramatic. They need to think like a tech partner. If they get asked so many questions about other phones, they need to de-obfuscate their requirements and exchange a dialog with phone manufacturers like FairPhone! Gave you an upvote though.

[–] QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago

Mannn, I wanted them, but Motorola took too long. I gotta go Fairphone+.

[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 1 points 18 hours ago

Honestly, the only thing that stopped me from going them this time around was the ip55 rating. I do too much stuff that involves my phone getting wet. So, realistically, I can't look at anything that has less than IP68 because I need that full immersion rating. The quest for repairability doesn't need to compromise that, you can have an IP68 rating with a battery that is removable by screws. The Samsung X-Cover Pro proved that. It's just not financially incentivized for consumer devices, which is why you normally only find it for dedicated corporate device lines

[–] DannyMac@sh.itjust.works 41 points 1 day ago (4 children)

ITT: People complaining about how this phone is 100% perfect and what they want. Instead of moving towards heaven, we might as well remain in hell until heaven is directly attainable. It's a good start and the more money that gets thrown this way, the more others will follow. But by all means, don't support this endeavor, let's stay in our Apple/Samsung/Google versions of hell instead.

[–] uniquethrowagay@feddit.org 17 points 1 day ago

Is my fairphone 5 the perfect device? No, I guess.

Did I get to buy a new USB-C port for my nearly 3 year old phone after destroying the old one by dropping it in a full sink of dirty water and replace it in 5 minutes without soldering or phone repair knowledge? Hell yes!

A friend of mine just bought a new battery for his 6-7 year old FP3 and can keep using it.

If Fairphone can do modularity of that kind, imagine what big players Apple or Samsung would be able to achieve if they cared at all. Imagine GrapheneOS would not publicly shit on Fairphone for their flaws but instead reach out a hand and ask for collaboration to try and make their next phone compatible.

Oh well, hell is fine too, I guess.

[–] Crit@lemmy.wtf 1 points 21 hours ago

But it's also unfair to blame customers for not supporting something financially when it would be easy to improve from the criticism. If fairphone wanted to sell more they would address the feedback from GrapheneOS instead of hiding behind the startup label, but instead we get this zombie development where the product is held up by partnership decisions that are holding them back, and any criticism to help improve their standing is shot down.

that's too many stairs

Basically sums up all the reactions to any increase in popularity of any open/foss project 🤷🏻‍♂️

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (4 children)

That is what turned me off choosing Graphene, other than having to buy Google hardware. They, but also some other Foss people, are investing way too much time attacking other alternatives fiercely, as if they were created by the devil, because they are not pure enough or because they are less secure than Graphene.

[–] AliOski@feddit.nl -1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

No not really. People keep asking them why they dont support certain hardware, and they need to keep explaining why they dont support the hardware. They don't go out of their way to demonize those projects. Their project is aimed at providing the highest level of security and privacy. They can't help that Fairphone's hardware does not adhere to their hardware requirements in order to attain that security and privacy.

GrapheneOS's goal is not to deliver the most broad amount of support for as many phones as possible, its goal is to obtain the highest levels of security. For broad support there is /e/os for instance. On the other hand, /e/os is not the most secure OS. Those are just the facts. Every OS has its own use cases.

[–] Jiral@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 20 hours ago)

Except that this is exactly what at least one of the leading developers is doing by harassing threads that are about other projects, with all sorts of loaded language, insinuations of nasty motives, Russian influence and what not.

All of that does nothing to achieve GrapheneOS' goals.

I have no issue at all with GrapheneOS stating that FP6 is not an option because this hardware feature is missing or that firmware update routine being insufficient. That is not what I am talking about here.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] arc99@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Fairphones seem okay from a hardware POV but the software is a bit lacking in terms of security and support.

[–] ADTJ@feddit.uk 2 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

See I keep reading this, especially here on Lemmy but since owning one, I've had more frequent updates than I think any phone I've previously owned, and definitely more than family who go with bigger brands.

I don't know why they have this reputation, perhaps it was true in the past

[–] arc99@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago)

This comes from the people who run GrapheneOS e.g. https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private. Maybe they're opinionated for some reason that extends beyond the hardware/software.

[–] QuandaleDingle@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

I AM BUYING IT NOWWWW!!!! LESSSS GOOOO!

[–] LemmyEntertainYou@piefed.social 9 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Fairphone 6 might be the worst phone I've ever owned. I bought one hoping it'd last me 6 years and it barely last 6 months. The software is so buggy it's embarrassing.

[–] FLP22012005@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I am now 6 months in, I do not share that experience at all.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] toph@feddit.uk 18 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (9 children)

It still sucks for security. If you own this phone you should consider that the authorities and pretty much anyone who really wants to can get into your phone at will. I wish they could meet Graphene’s hardware requirements.

[–] lightnsfw@reddthat.com 10 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Aren't Graphene's hardware requirements "be a Pixel"?

[–] toph@feddit.uk 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

No lol, they have a list of specific hardware security requirements for a device to have, the biggest one being a secure element. Without a secure element there is no hardware-backed key derivation throttling, so it's much more possible for an attacker to brute force your phone's PIN.

Support for using alternate operating systems including full hardware security functionality
Complete monthly Android Security Bulletin patches without any regular delays longer than a week for device support code (firmware, drivers and HALs)
At least 5 years of updates from launch for device support code with phones (Pixels now have 7) and 7 years with tablets
Device support code updated to new monthly, quarterly and yearly releases of AOSP within several months to provide new security improvements (Pixels receive these in the month they're released)
Linux 6.1, 6.6 or 6.12 Generic Kernel Image (GKI) support
Hardware accelerated virtualization usable by GrapheneOS (ideally pKVM to match Pixels but another usable implementation may be acceptable)
Hardware memory tagging (ARM MTE or equivalent)
Hardware-based coarse grained Control Flow Integrity (CFI) for baseline coverage where type-based CFI isn't used or can't be deployed (BTI/PAC, CET IBT or equivalent)
PXN, SMEP or equivalent
PAN, SMAP or equivalent
Isolated radios (cellular, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, NFC, etc.), GPU, SSD, media encode / decode, image processor and other components
Support for A/B updates of both the firmware and OS images with automatic rollback if the initial boot fails one or more times
Verified boot with rollback protection for firmware
Verified boot with rollback protection for the OS (Android Verified Boot)
Verified boot key fingerprint for yellow boot state displayed with a secure hash (non-truncated SHA-256 or better)
StrongBox keystore provided by secure element
Hardware key attestation support for the StrongBox keystore
Attest key support for hardware key attestation to provide pinning support
Weaver disk encryption key derivation throttling provided by secure element
Insider attack resistance for updates to the secure element (Owner user authentication required before updates are accepted)
Inline disk encryption acceleration with wrapped key support
64-bit-only device support code
Wi-Fi anonymity support including MAC address randomization, probe sequence number randomization and no other leaked identifiers
Support for disabling USB data and also USB as a whole at a hardware level in the USB controller
Reset attack mitigation for firmware-based boot modes such as fastboot mode zeroing memory left over from the OS and delaying opening up attack surface such as USB functionality until that's completed
Debugging features such as JTAG or serial debugging must be inaccessible while the device is locked

Until the collaboration with Motorola produces a device, only the recent Pixels meet the requirements.

Fairphone is also one of the worse OEM's when it comes to how slowly they patch and releases security vulnerabilities, and they are known to be quite sloppy, in the past they have published their private keys. I wouldn't trust keeping anything remotely private or sensitive on a Fairphone.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Nickelalloy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Can they get in remotely? I would love to read more about it if you sit on some sources since I am just a novice.

Edit: Saw the comment about updates now.

(If I recall there was a reply from some devs about that update claim, and I got my impression changed after e/OS presnted some statistics.)

I think I found the reply to the accusation:

https://community.e.foundation/t/e-os-and-security-updates/72384

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] sunstoned@lemmus.org 38 points 2 days ago (6 children)

If this thing ran grapheneos I'd get rid of my pixel tomorrow

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] SubstituteTurkey@lemmy.ca 157 points 2 days ago (47 children)
[–] Sparrow_1029@programming.dev 76 points 2 days ago

There's one dev who's been hard at work making postmarketOS work for FP6:

https://ani.social/u/TheMightyCat

load more comments (46 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›