> links that take you to their kickstarter page

Just going to point out that they implemented their own crowdfunding type page and aren't using Kickstarter at all.

> How secure will your phone be if they can't afford to pay developers or go under?

It runs ARM Linux so I assume you'd just have to switch distros.

This is one of the things that stood out to me at the launch of this phone: using a site that clearly copies the Kickstarter design language, but on a non-kickstarter page, has always felt shady. The assumed guarantees Kickstarter makes are not present. (It was not clear if they would issue refunds if they failed to make the minimum threshold, for example).

I agree with your opinion if the Kickstarter design being copied too closely, but they are far from the only ones doing this. Other crowdfunding sites are virtually indistinguishable from this page too.

We don't know, and will not know for a few years. Maybe it is sustainable, maybe not.

They are realistic unlike many who have tried similar things before. This is something they have going for them: realism in their expectations creates realism in their budgets and aims. In turn this means that they can reach their goals. They might not overturn Samsung as the #1 seller of phones in the world, but if they sell enough to the types of people who want the features they are selling they can still remain useful long term.

Note that the company has been delivering computers for a while. This is more complex than what they have done before, but it is just a step in a direction they have been going. There is a good chance they will remain a company even if the phone itself fails.

My guess

Security-wise it will depend on the distro. Under Gnome /KDE it will be flatpak responsible for sandboxing. So it doesn't depend (too much) on Purism. On the hardware side they put way more effort (at the price of perf maybe ?) than other manufacturer to avoid backdoors.

You think they put as much work into this as Apple has? Do you think the phone will be more secure than an iPhone?

with this product, any company could improve own prices and check the prices of their competitors: https://competera.net/solutions/by-need/competitor-price-mon...

The point of the Librem 5 is not to make the most popular possible phone, it's to make a better phone than what is currently available.

Markets only matter to capitalists. Real hackers share with each other to make things happen that markets do not comprehend. Whether this project will be a success, only time will tell, but it has nothing to do with the market.

I created an account HN just to say that this is the worst example of gate keeping I've read. The original poster has legitimate questions regarding the security of a purchase in this device. Do "real hackers" have unlimited funds and don't have to worry about $800 purchases on still-virtual products?

> Do "real hackers" have unlimited funds and don't have to worry about $800 purchases on still-virtual products?

No, but you can invest in a product you believe in. We all understand it's an investment, not a guarantee. This phone is about the user being in control of their phone, if you don't care about that, or are not willing to invest, either wait until it comes out or get another smartphone.

The pre-order is for free software enthusiasts, not the general public.

As for the security, the company has previous experience shipping hardware, so I'd say it's better than your average hardware Kickstarter, but it isn't Apple and that's not the point.

>The point of the Librem 5 is not to make the most popular possible phone

That's a strawman of GP's words. "The most popular" is absurd, but "minimally viable" is not particularly since security in a major Librem selling point and security is an active process, not a one-off. In turn sustainability matters, and for a hardware project that requires significantly more capital then a pure software project. It's not at all unreasonable to question that or attacking the company, Librem should have good answers there regardless.

>Markets only matter to capitalists. Real hackers share with each other to make things happen that markets do not comprehend.

What a ridiculous load of bunk. The Librem is not powered by good intentions and hacker ethos it's powered by silicon manufactured in an expensive capitalist fabricator, battery which is the same, etc. Ongoing development will need some capital, as will repairs and replacements and infrastructure. Nothing like a huge company but it's there, and it's rightfully utilizing the wider world.

"Real hackers" are hacking, they're doing cool stuff utilizing things for purposes beyond what was intended, pushing the limits in ways not imagined perhaps even by the original designers. Sometimes this has no wider effect beyond a subsect, sometimes it subverts markets, sometimes it creates entire new markets. It's symbiotic with the wider world not cutoff from it! This can be true of not just tech but even law. When RMS and co worked out copyleft, they didn't just rage against the sheer existence of IP and seek to destroy it all or somehow fruitlessly deny that it existed, they hacked it to their own ends instead.

> When RMS and co worked out copyleft, they didn't just rage against the sheer existence of IP and seek to destroy it all or somehow fruitlessly deny that it existed, they hacked it to their own ends instead.

You mean like people who per-ordered the Librem5, because it's a practical cause they believe in, instead of just raging in the semi-frequent HN threads how awful Android is?

>You mean like people who per-ordered the Librem5, because it's a practical cause they believe in, instead of just raging in the semi-frequent HN threads how awful Android is?

Can you explain what point you're actually arguing against here, or in sibling posts you've replied to? That's a good example of using the market to achieve a good goal, which is just what should happen. That's not an argument that "markets only matter to capitalists."

A product like the Librem5 is currently not viable to manufacture by any known OEM in the smartphone market, just as it wasn't viable for a company to develop a free-software UNIX, so RMS had to come in and start it even if it wasn't necessarily "market viable" at the time.

People sometimes do things out of passion, precisely because the markets would not support their ideas, at least initially.

So, it is not known at present whether the Librem5 would prove viable at all, but Purism are doing it despite this and there are people who pre-ordered are trying to make it viable, despite there being no guarantee that they'll get security updates or even a viable product at present.

In essence, this phone is probably non-market viable at present, but there are people who are per-ordering anyways, in order to eventually make it viable for the wider market i.e. taking practical steps for a cause they believe in. Such causes are not a good fit for "markets" in general.

I agree with what you say, but

>What a ridiculous load of bunk.

doesn't seem less dismissive than the comment you're replying to. Getting a consumer product that isn't increasingly exploitative does, in fact, require good intentions and hacker ethos.

Blowing it off as if there is some perfectly rational market solution for things like individual security and choice has yet to be demonstrated.

Real hackers :)

Markets do matter because they dictate if the company exists to support the people who have purchased their product. Will a Real Hacker spend unpaid time to fix security bugs in this phone, then also host this for free and distribute?

> Will a Real Hacker spend unpaid time to fix security bugs in this phone, then also host this for free and distribute?

That's how the vast majority of free software was developed for a very long time indeed.

But not to the size and scale of a phone operating system.

Most major open source projects face corporate sponsorship. Or provided by universities.

The Librem5 will run a standard GNU/Linux distro, many of which are entirely community maintained.

Some might.

What do "real hackers" eat and how do they pay for it?

They sometimes invest in products they believe can make an impactful change, perhaps with money others spend on partying and what-not, so what's your point? Nobody's forcing you to pre-order this.

At some point reality kicks in and if the thing is not economically viable, it won't work, long term.

"Real hackers" should pay more attention to economics and to quote the anonymous guy, "gatekeep" less, if they don't want to be stuck in a box forever, whining about the "evil" Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.

The goal is to make it viable by developing enough of an ecosystem around it for it to be desirable by a wider audience. Accoutring to your approach, we wouldn't have free software at all, because it flies in the face of conventional economics. Someone with a little more vision had to prove it works, despite all the naysayers.

> if they don't want to be stuck in a box forever, whining about the "evil" Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.

If supporting a real hardware platform that is independent of "evil" Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. isn't taking practical steps to not be stuck with them, I don't know what is.

I’m a supporter of FLOSS. FLOSS succeded where it did precisely because it made sense, economically. It was a novel approach, but it made sense.

This whole hacker - economist/businessman dichotomy is harfmul to the evolution of open solutions, be them software or hardware or both.