I wonder if @postmarketOS could pull off something like what [I WRONGLY THOUGHT] @GrapheneOS is doing, where they get a phone maker to sell just one model of phone who's hardware is verified to work well with the operating system preinstalled.

This way, they have a single reference platform to target and some support for getting hardware working, even if only in the form of documentation. They also get some funding from purchases.

I mean, it's probably a bit "chicken and egg" as hardware makers need to see potential sales and potential sales come from users seeing a daily driveable end unit, but maybe, just maybe, something like this could be the next step after getting a single phone fully working.

#PostmarketOS #LinuxMobile #MobileLinux

@Blort You mean, like PureOS?

@Blort @postmarketOS We're working with Motorola and Qualcomm to improve their hardware, firmware and drivers to meet our requirements. Our minimum requirements are only the starting point for GrapheneOS support. There will be continued work on improving security.

We're working with Motorola on porting GrapheneOS to those future devices too. That includes includes implementing features including hardware memory tagging, the hardware-based portion of our USB port protection and a lot more.

@Blort @postmarketOS @GrapheneOS I always thought that reference platform is OnePlus 6 :-).

@Blort @postmarketOS No money is currently changing hands between us and Motorola. We haven't made any decision to have devices sold with GrapheneOS have any premium which would go towards funding GrapheneOS. It's definitely an option but not necessarily the way we're going to go. We may prefer having devices with it preinstalled at no additional cost. Getting additional funding isn't currently a goal of the partnership. We would rather have them assign more developers to work on it than that.

@Blort

Yes. Buying a phone from @purism makes also some money to flow towards the #MobileLinux ecosystem and software development.

The #Librem5 phone improved software wise a lot over the years. I use it as my daily phone for nearly four years.

@dos

@GrapheneOS how did you end up partnering with Motorola anyways? I don't want to criticise anything here, I'm only still hoping to see GrapheneOS on Fairphone some day. I'm well aware FP so far didn't meet your standards and I can see why you can't lower the bar here. But Motorolas devices so far didn't meet your standards either, and you help them changed that.
Is partnering with FP in a similar way thinkable to guide them towards a FP that has everything needed for proper GrapheneOS support?

@Az1m0th @GrapheneOS It was Motorola Mobility that reached out to the GrapheneOS project to propose a collaboration, previously, GrapheneOS’s own proposals for collaboration had not come to fruition, given this, Motorola Mobility’s proposal was a golden opportunity, and GrapheneOS was certainly going to accept it.

Fairphone will never be compatible with GrapheneOS. Fairphone has chosen to support and collaborate with for-profit companies that attack the GrapheneOS project (Iodé and Murena). Fairphone has made its own choice and taken a path completely opposite to that of GrapheneOS; they are also opposed to improving the security of their devices.

@Xtreix @GrapheneOS Yes, I think to pass up such an opportunity would've been a grave mistake. As I said: I'm not criticising.
I read the discussion about unified attestation & I do think centralization IS a problem.
But: Unless Fairphone itself made statements attacking GrapheneOS that I don't know of, I don't see how supporting Iodé and Murena rules out a collaboration with gOS. So far FP couldn't build what gOS requires, so they couldn't partner with gOS.
But if Motorola can ask, so can FP👍

@Az1m0th @Xtreix Fairphone's products are inaccurately marketed as providing a level of updates, long term support, privacy and security which aren't provided. Fairphone has a close partnership with Murena and has participated in their extensive false marketing of their products. That includes Murena extensively misleading people about GrapheneOS and attacking our team for years. Fairphone made a misleading corporate speak statement to the media supporting them. We will not work with them.

@Az1m0th @Xtreix Fairphone is a brand selling devices designed and manufactured for them by an ODM. They do very little engineering themselves. They can't meet our requirements in practice so there's no opportunity that's being missed.

Fairphone has chosen to continue closely partnering with Murena despite what they've being doing to GrapheneOS. Murena's leadership has been heavily engaging in absolutely vile personal attacks on our team with fabricated stories and spreading harassment content.

@Blort Yeah, so, this is actually something we're working towards. we recently decided on new requirements for the "main"-category, for devices which we think of as "reference devices" (or basically if someone asks "which device should i buy", we can just point them to that): https://docs.postmarketos.org/pmcr/main/0009-new-main-device-category.html