You've got a supercomputer and a library and a set of video production equipment in your pocket, among other things. The capabilities of such a device are fundamentally different from something that's tethered to a desk or that's conspicuous when out-and-about. The idea of it being open and untrackable is exciting for some and terrifying for others.
Now, the tech to make that tie near-unbreakable exists.
I was only aware of that possibility for pc clones
Here's an alternative OS for the C64, though I no longer have such a machine to try it on: https://www.c64-wiki.com/wiki/Contiki
The problem today is that modern computers are designed to prevent this, by means that can provide mathematical proofs you won't be able to defeat the protection in any useful sense before the Sun burns out. You have tamper-proof fuses embedded in microchips, and some systems have cryptographic hashes in every major component to prevent you from replacing something too hard to reprogram, etc.
We're yet to see a fully locked down computer (smartphones are close), but the tech for it is there.
Extremely common at major universities and research centres. CTSS, ITS, TENEX, Multics, Unix and even VM/370 were all alternate operating at some point.
> Other than OS2, alternate OSs for other systems were rather rare,
You weren't there, were you? A lot of people replaced MS-DOS with DR-DOS before Microsoft deliberately broke it with Windows. A little later, a number of people were running Unix System V on their PCs, to the extent that there was a regular column about Unix in Byte.
They added some obfuscated code to Windows 3.1 that made it refuse to run on DR-DOS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
So not common outside of ivory towers, no?
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.
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.
Few interested hardware vendors, discontinued after 4 years. "mixed reviews at launch, while critics and analysts deemed it to be commercially unsuccessful"
Windows 10 S was another attempt that "Similarly [restricts] software installation to applications obtained via Windows Store." Cancelled after one year.
Exactly the fate I wish upon closed ecosystems. The only question is why iOS is different. I am inclined to say it's the brand status that overpriced luxury goods have that draws rich people initially, making it lucrative and perhaps even a tad prestigious to be there, but surely it's more than that?
iOS was a new SDK from the start.
iOS existed before the Microsoft Store. The apps developed were brand new. No backlash from a new SDK and platform.
Windows RT is closer to iPadOS though. For iPadOS, apps just worked since it’s based off of iOS.
The Microsoft Store only supported a new half-baked SDK that limited what applications were capable of. Developers already had Win32 apps and rewriting them with the new SDK seemed pointless just to support what seemed like a needless limitation.
PCs happened by accident.
Before the PC, people had TVs - devices not for creating, but for passively consuming content made by big corporations and the state. And we had games consoles - devices not for creating, but for playing games made by a medium-sized company, with strict approval by a huge company (who want a cut). Strictly censored to be age-appropriate, naturally. Pirate radio? Straight to jail.
Before that people had newspapers - media for passively consuming, intended for mass readership, written at the behest of rich newspaper barons with certain political opinions they're keen to push.
And after the PC, we have smartphones - devices not for creating, but for consuming content feeds, curated by big corporations, with rich owners with certain political opinions they're keen to push. A huge company eager to take a cut. A tiny screen, and a keyboard that puts curly braces three keypresses deep. Can't even debug a web page without connecting to a PC. And soon to be strictly censored to be age-appropriate.
The PC is really the outlier here.
Saying that I think the situation in the smartphones today is less about the business model and more about control and surveillance.
Alongside newspapers we had 'zine culture and mail-order pamphlets.
There has always been the option to contribute - the Apple iPhone is quite possibly the first exception.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-access_television https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_television_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swindon_Viewpoint https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_television_in_Austra...
They also blur the line between "computer" and "console", since the NES is practically the same architecture as many contemporary "computers". Homebrew games existed, and weren't that far out of reach. Homebrew has existed on pretty much every console ever.
PCs weren't an accident in any way. They are a direct descendant of "home computers". That's why they were called "personal computers" in the first place.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47935853#47943179
GrapheneOS is probably more secure also.
No, it's not. Try to run a completely free OS on you hardware (like Replicant) and watch the lack of camera, GPS and more.
Related discussion for other: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47942070
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.
> it lacks proper updates
This is FUD.
> isolated radios
They are isolated with USB. This might be slightly weaker than IOMMU, but for me the benefit of freedom is worth it. There is no shared memory.
> it lacks proper updates, isolated radios, and any form of hardening
FUD and false information. Please stop this.
> The kill switches are also useless if your device is fully compromised
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.
> since speakers are essentially just microphones in reverse
Librem 5 speakers do not support this.
> 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.
"quite easily" strongly depends on what exactly you are doing. For example, if I use Firefox with NoScript, then it is not very easy.
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
> Adding an extension that can access all your browsing data doesn't seem very secure either.
This is not just a random extension but and officially recommended one, https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/recommended-extensions-.... It's also regularly verified by the community. I trust it as I trust Firefox.
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.
Also, I do not recommend Librem 5, when somebody asks for a secure device. I mention it, when somebody asks about alternatives to the duopoly, a possibility to have a full, general-purpose computer in a pocket allowing you to tinker with it, or wants to run GNU/Linux baremetal. Such people aren't the audience of GrapheneOS anyway.
And I'm not against GrapheneOS. I never said it was less secure than Librem 5 for typical tasks. 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.
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.
> 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.)
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.
Indeed, if you use the kill switches in a stupid way, you get no benefit from them. I use them whenever I want to be sure that I can't be tracked or listened to, either because of a potentially compromised device or closed modem that can connect to towers without my knowledge. In other words, they are a proactive feature. I can get 100% privacy whenever I want, independently on any software, which in principle might always get secretly compromised one way or another. Even the amazing, secure GrapheneOS!
How can you be sure your modem on GrapheneOS doesn't send your location to the mothership all the time, even in an "airplane mode"?
Instead of loading firmware in sensible manner like GrapheneOS or desktop Linux distros with the linux-firmware package, they keep PureOS "free of blobs" by having the bootloader inject all of the blobs into memory in an extremely shady manner. Since when was having the bootloader tamper with system memory about freedom and openness?
Oh, and they even have the audacity to market this as the "firmware jail" as if it is any more contained than the linux-firmware package too. Truly impressive stuff.
You will have a point when your Google phone runs Replicant. Now this is just empty words, i.e., FUD. Which blobs are running on the Librem 5 CPU? Which blobs are running on GrapheneOS CPU?
Both the Pixel and Librem 5 have firmware baked into the SoC that is executed.
On GrapheneOS, the firmware is signed and updated along with the OS.
On the Librem 5, the firmware for Wifi/Bluetooth is stored on a NOR chip, which is read from and mounted into the OS by the initramfs into /lib/firmware.
Not-withstanding the above, Librem 5 components such as the USB controller, touch screen controller, radios, battery, etc simply have closed-source firmware baked in (stored on some flash chip on these components), but it doesn't mean that they are not there or in use.
In both cases, components either do not get proper firmware updates from the OS, or they are too old/low quality to get any firmware updates from the vendors to begin with. Storing firmware on the component is also a less secure approach than having signed firmware loaded by the OS, as it now means that these components have persistent storage which can be attacked.
Aside from all of the above, they also use a dedicated CPU core to run firmware blobs for things like memory training.
In essence, what the Librem 5 has achieved is shuffling proprietary firmware storage around instead of eliminating their existence or execution. It is not any more "free" or "open" than anyone else while also being less secure.
Also, Librem 5 has "proper" firmware updates (whatever that means). Please do not spread false information.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47953726
It is exactly how it works. Read the actual code for yourself: https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-fw-jail/-/blob/pureos...
If you can't read code, here is the marketing material: https://puri.sm/posts/shipping-new-sparklan-wifi-cards-with-...
If you don't know that the firmware for components/peripherals can either be uploaded to them by Linux or just stored on some flash chip on the component, read: https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/developer-library/refer...
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.
> 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.
And the firmware for Bluetooth/Wifi is loaded in by having the initramfs read it from the NOR flash, mount it in /lib/firmware, then it is business as usual like a desktop Linux distribution.
It's not something special. It's just a hackjob. They shuffle the files around and made it much harder to update.
https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/librem5-fw-jail/-/blob/pureos...
https://puri.sm/posts/shipping-new-sparklan-wifi-cards-with-...
Read the code posted above.
Unfortunately, not in my country.
> Sent from my Librem 5 running GNU/Linux.
Can I buy a Librem 5 here in Brazil? (Unless it has ANATEL certification, which I doubt it has, buying online from outside the country is not an option, since it will be rejected by customs.)
I see what you did there... and agree completely. If you don't have root, it's not yours. All my Androids (none from this decade) are rooted and I plan to keep them that way.
So yeah, the society has largely accepted this. PC is the exception.
All modern devices are appliances, not computers.
They perform the specific functions that they were programmed to perform, and do not allow arbitrary execution of calculations on the underlying hardware.
Many people, mostly folks who adopt the Apple ecosystem, see this as a positive thing that allows them to delegate undifferentiated decisions on security and ways of working to the vendor.
I am one of those people and hope that Android remains open so that people don't expect Apple open up their hardware, which will result in fragmentation.
That's the thing. You may have bought a device that was meant to perform a task but after some time the company decides that now it should do a different task. I think that's what stops making you the owner. You can't really choose what to do with it.
Why? And how does that bother you?
Separate from computers and phones locking down devices is a much wider issue, usually it is only implemented to reduce liability of the manufacturer or to allow for planned obsolescence.
I am not arguing you need to like where this has led, but you have people in sibling comment threads here arguing we need to push back on things assuming you will use a phone when the whole revolution has been getting most of the world online by making phones widely available.
On the topic of Windows, it took lawsuits to allow OEM's and users to remove IE.
Open choice will always be an uphill battle.
Due to this the equipment manufacturers where never incentivized to have a "open" ecosystem for the CPU+modem combo. That's why there is no OS war on a per device basis, most phones supports 1 OS officially.
Why is this acceptable for phones but would not for the case above?
I know a lot of people don't care, and that's ok, but we should root for an open choice for the users.