Sunshine
whaleross
Broadfernweb.archive.org/…/fairphone-6-review-no-longer-co…
Best I could come across. Can’t access the other archive sites atm for some reason.
Wispy2891They decided to paywall the verge for me too
But it’s perfectly visible with noscript
The fun part is that I used to whitelist the verge on my ad blocker because I liked it. Ok, you get nothing, then
Allero
cabbageSince /e/OS is not a security-hardened mobile OS, it is targeting standard industry practices. Therefore, for a given release on month N, our current work-flow is to integrate Android security patches from month N-1. As a result, in the worst case, it will take up to 9 weeks to roll out the latest available security updates.In most cases, it will be much sooner.
An exception is made for 0-day exploits: in this case our policy is to build and roll out a patched version of /e/OS as soon as possible.
/e/OS and security updates
Although /e/OS is not a hardened-security mobile OS, Murena is taking security issues seriously. Therefore we have decided to comment about /e/OS security updates practices and also to answer misleading claims that are posted on the web about /e/OS security. Industry practices First of all, let’s consider security updates policy in the mobile industry: when a security issue is discovered, it is unveiled in an AOSP security bulletin, along with a source-code fix. Then, this fix is integrated by...
A little rant about that, sorry in advance:
The Graphene team seems very busy trash talking /e/OS and Fairphone on social media (at least Mastodon) for not being secure enough.
Their criticism boils down to how nothing except GrapheneOS on a Pixel phone can ever be "secure enough", but they are weirdly aggressive and insistant about it targetting /e/ specifically.
I used to care when I saw their posts as of course I want my phone to be reasonably safe, but the more I looked at it the more it boled down to bullshit.
Furthermore:
- They insist one should buy a Pixel phone produced by Google - avoiding Google is my #1 priority from the start. Clearly my values don't overlap with theirs
- They pretend like /e/ is super dangerous because non-0-day exploits can get patched later. Yet /e/ provides software updates for much longer, while in the past all my phones that didn't break right away have immediately stopped receiving updates. Longer software support = more security.
- Contained apps is not so important if you don't install random bullshit on your phone. I get as much as possible from f-droid, which is very well screened.
- The communication of the GrapheneOS team around this has been pathetic to the point where I have frankly lost trust in the project. I struggle to trust a team I don't respect. /e/OS was started by the founder of Mandrake Linux, and as far as I've seen he seems to have values that align with mine.
- I like /e/OS. It lets me avoid companies like Google, block trackers, and just use my phone free of things I hate and cannot control or understand. For me, that is security.
tranquil_cassowary@cabbage
Hi cabbage! Can't see what you are replying to from my instance, so don't know what "about that" in your first sentence refers to. But anyway, your post contains more falsehoods than correct things. I'll quote every part of your post below and give corrections and accurate information:
> The Graphene team seems very busy trash talking /e/OS and Fairphone on social media (at least Mastodon) for not being secure enough.
You are maybe unwillingly, maybe willingly, heavily misportraying what GrapheneOS does across social media. /e/OS and Murena have heavily attacked and harassed the GrapheneOS team and its founder over the last few years. You also have to look at the personal accounts of the /e/OS and Murena founder, Gaël Duval, to get an overview of that. GrapheneOS responds to shis harassment, which is not really "trash talking" but defending their own project. GrapheneOS most often does this in replies to other people that mention GrapheneOS and /e/OS in the same post/thead and unfairly compare to the operating systems. Sometimes they also make standalone posts, which is in response to harassment and misinformation that has been going on for long. This is a good example of a long-form post explaining using objective facts why this OS is not recommended: https://discuss.grapheneos.org/d/24134-devices-lacking-standard-privacysecurity-patches-and-protections-arent-private
Note that /e/OS started this by sharing misinformation about GrapheneOS on their forum in response to /e/OS users questioning certain security practices by the developers.
> Their criticism boils down to how nothing except GrapheneOS on a Pixel phone can ever be "secure enough", but they are weirdly aggressive and insistant about it targetting /e/ specifically.
Not at all the case, GrapheneOS sometimes even praises other operating systems and devices. They have said many positive things about iPhones and iOS. They also regard the stock Pixel OS on Pixel phonse as relatively secure. If you can't run GrapheneOS, iOS or PixelOS, they recommend sticking to the stock OS of your manufacturer, that is because most other OSes regress privacy and security compared to the factory OSes that ship with them. Regarding targetting /e/OS that has to do with their own behavior (see earlier in my reply).
> They insist one should buy a Pixel phone produced by Google - avoiding Google is my #1 priority from the start. Clearly my values don't overlap with theirs
They are not uniquely against Google. Avoiding Google is not the goal of GrapheneOS. Achieving privacy and security while retaining usability compared to mainstream OSes is the goal. They are not uniquely wanting to protect users against Google. Many companies have privacy-invasive practices and it wouldn't make sense to overfocus on Google. There are even companies that handle privacy and especially security much worse than Google. Because GrapheneOS doesn't want to overfocus on Google specifically, they have nothing against users deciding to install and use Google apps. They only want Google to be treated as others if users decide to use it. This is evidenced in how they handle sandboxed Google Play, they just want those Google apps, if users decide to install them, to be treated the same as any other user-installed app. This is different from other Android OSes that treated Google Play as priviliged instead of regularly sandboxed.
They also don't insist on you buying one. Other phones just happen to not meet the hardware requirements which are listed on the FAQ on their website: https://grapheneos.org/faq#device-support
> They pretend like /e/ is super dangerous because non-0-day exploits can get patched later. Yet /e/ provides software updates for much longer, while in the past all my phones that didn't break right away have immediately stopped receiving updates. Longer software support = more security.
They don't give longer software support. /e/OS is constantly lagging behind Android releases. They also lag behind on the (incomplete/partial) backports of security patches to older Android releases and on browser engine patches. Note that many of these patches despite being called "security" patches are also privacy patches.
Also, if devices are EOL, you can't properly support the device, even if you are giving software updates to it (which /e/ would give out way too late). Device support by a manufacturer delivering firmware and driver patches are needed for proper security. And, even if a device is still supported in that way /e/OS has historically failed to deliver those firmware and driver patches.
The founder of divestOS has made multiple publications about these update problems in the past. They were harassed heavily by /e/OS in response which is one of the main reasons why they stopped their divestOS project. Luckily, some of this stuff is archived or still available:
- https://codeberg.org/divested-mobile/divestos-website/raw/commit/c7447de50bc8fadd20a30d4cbf1dcd8cf14805a0/static/misc/e.txt
- https://web.archive.org/web/20241231003546/https://divestos.org/pages/patch_history
- https://web.archive.org/web/20250119212018/https://divestos.org/misc/ch-dates.txt
- https://infosec.exchange/@divested/112815308307602739
GrapheneOS has also offered some extended support to devices after they've gone EOL because of the drop of support by Google, but has always been honest about the fact that this isn't complete support and is less secure. They've always pointed out to users that this is a "stopgap" to give users time to move towards a fully supported device. This extended support is also completely going away because Pixels have much longer support time since 6 series (5 years) and 8 series (7 years).
> Contained apps is not so important if you don't install random bullshit on your phone. I get as much as possible from f-droid, which is very well screened.
Sandboxing is a standard Android feature. It's not unique to GrapheneOS. GrapheneOS does harden the Androiid sandbox though and has a compatability layer to teach Google Play apps to also run within the sandbox, instead of running priviliged. Containing apps in a sandbox is important, it's the basis of making sure malware doesn't escape to more priiviliged levels within your phone.
F-Droid isn't a good app source for having security. They don't screen their apps properly at all. They just build and sign the apps themselves on outdated and poorly secured infrastructure, often lagging behind on the upstream app updates.
> The communication of the GrapheneOS team around this has been pathetic to the point where I have frankly lost trust in the project. I struggle to trust a team I don't respect. /e/OS was started by the founder of Mandrake Linux, and as far as I've seen he seems to have values that align with mine.
Sad you lost trust when people communicate accurate information in a honest way. The founder of /e/OS acts as an immature bully on social media and heavily mismarkets his OS and uses this mismarketing in order to obtain funding from several institutions trying to support software projects. If those are you values, okay.
> I like /e/OS. It lets me avoid companies like Google, block trackers, and just use my phone free of things I hate and cannot control or understand. For me, that is security.
You don't avoid Google with /e/OS. It uses MicroG and microG connects to Google services and runs as a priviliged app. Also, AOSP is largely written by Google employees and /e/OS is based on AOSP.. Mike Kuketz, a privacy and security researcher, has covered this usage of Google services. In addition to that, he also covered how /e/OS tracks users via their update client and has also talked about the patch delays I mentioned earlier: https://kuketz-blog.de/e-datenschutzfreundlich-bedeutet-nicht-zwangslaeufig-sicher-custom-roms-teil6/
Note that /e/OS also adds many things on top of AOSP which signficantly hurt privacy and which probably don't align with your values at all. For Speech-to-Text, /e/OS sends user data to OpenAI without consent: https://community.e.foundation/t/voice-to-text-feature-using-open-ai/70509
Google offers to do this locally and Apple does it locally by default. GrapheneOS is currently working on the development of its own STT which will also be private.
From my understanding, /e/ is indeed less secure than AOSP due to patches being slower. Being somewhat de-Googled might make it more private, but that isn’t the same thing as more secure.
I think the main thing here is that Graphene thinks it’s irresponsible when people describe other ROMs as “secure” or “hardened” when they realistically aren’t, especially when they’re running on hardware that doesn’t really support high levels of security from 3rd party ROMs (this is a large part of why GrapheneOS only supports Pixels). Many phones don’t support locking the bootloader with 3rd party OS, and many don’t even have a secure element. Many also don’t have great track records with keeping kernels and firmware up to date. In all of these cases, you can’t really make strong guarantees about the security of the device with any 3rd party OS, including /e/.
Being somewhat de-Googled might make it more private, but that isn't the same thing as more secure.
I would say this depends on how you perceive threats. For me the one risk I am worried about is surveillance capitalism, and I want to be safe from that above all else. I don't care about locking the bootloader because local threats is not a concern for me. I just don't want any data on my phone usage to end up with capitalists. For me that is safety, as nobody else has any interest in or capacity to spy on me.
If I was a target of Russian or American intelligence officers I might see it differently of course, but in that case I would probably be reluctant to use a phone much at all.
ozoned
Bob Collins
Sanctus
JustEnoughDucksWell, the audio problem is not going to be worse with 2.0. USB 2.0 can deliver 480Mbps. Audio data rates are in Kbps. Even at 192kHz, 24 bui studio recordings it is only 4.6Mbps. Stereo audio is easy from a digital perspective. Also, USB 2.0 is MUCH less susceptible to bad hardware design, bad cables and dongles, and bad shielding. A single twisted pair at low speeds and minimal negotiation is much simpler and almost never drops. In a joystick design I did, I had a 20cm long untwisted pair in testing and it never dropped at all.
USB 3.0+ (and especially external display capabilities) is an order of magnitude more noise sensitive, impedance variation limited, and susceptible to bad design. If you use a non, twisted cable, it won’t even negotiate USB 3.0 and will only work with 2.0.
That being said, USB 3.0+ for large file transfers and an external monitor desktop mode would be so much better, but I guess not many people use those.
Usb needs power. That means electricity that means more ftighin climate change.
Headphone jacks are smarter, clearer, and better for the environment
Usb head phones are trick. But hey. Who cates. Its the apocalypse
ChaoticNeutralCzechThat’s a miniscule amount of energy and when compared to the internal DAC and loss in analog cable with 32 Ω impedance, it might be the same, give or take a few microwatts – negligible compared to other appliances and HVAC. The durability and frequency of buying a new pair is more important if you’re into the environment.
The audio quality for either is more correlated with physical build quality than whether the length of wire is susceptible to noise and own losses (where the USB has an edge). Some headphones have terrible impedance matching and awful drivers no matter the interface they use.
And the “smarter” point: Depends. Support for multiple buttons is hit-and-miss either way. As for audio from non-phones, you might have driver issues for digital or need a line level amplifier for analog.
I prefer the jack because of compatibility with all other hardware and more physical resilience: I don’t want to wear out or dislodge my phone’s charging and data port whille running with headphones.
Do you think headphone jacks don’t use electricity?
I have accubattery on my phone. During the past 3.5 years with it, I have charged 2 143 031 mAh. That is at 3.7V average, 7.93kWh over 3 years.
An dongle jack usually had a chip that uses ~1mW. A headphone alone still has to power the headphones, which is between 0.25mW and 1mW.
That would take 1 000 000 hours in order to have a difference between 1kWh and 0.25kWh ( approximately 0.23€ difference), that is over 114 years of straight listening. That is the same difference of running your oven for about 40 minutes, once.
That is a very dumb hill to die on for the environment. That is about 0.001s of energy consumption of a billionaire.
You’re over analyzing. Wasn’t comparing it to s anything cept blur-tooth and wireless wich do use more.
Point was the needlesness of wireless over wired. Guess I didn’t articulate it well
So it still supports audio out via USB alt mode?
I’m not talking about only audio, video over USB-C is also nice to have.
To be fair I don’t use it that often, but considering that I could never use wifi display streaming on e/os, I’m really happy I have it.
So it still supports audio out via USB alt mode?
I’m not talking about only audio, video over USB-C is also nice to have.
To be fair I don’t use it that often, but considering that I could never use wifi display streaming on e/os, I’m really happy I have it.
The fairphone 5 actually did extremely well if you look at MKBHD’s camera competition in 2024. If you don’t care about having very over-saturated, over-sharpened, images that pop on social media, then it is actually very competitive (except for with the pixel beating everyone). Miles better than a HMD global or Samsung A-series camera. It looks better than the Samsung S series and daylight iPhone in many shots.
I think the 6 has a similar camera
lnxtx (xe/xem/xyr)Is this a real complain or I'm too obtuse to understand this as a running joke?
I mean there have been usb c to 3.5 for quite a while now.
It’s a real complaint to an extent; The real issue is that the jack itself isn’t enough, to be worth anything it needs a good DAC behind it and there have only been a handful of phones ever that have had that. So the jack complaint itself is mostly a meme as yeah, the USBC splitter option would sound just as good as most jacks built in.
🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 I really do want it because I hate being forced to buy superfluous shit that didn’t need to exist to get the same functionality I had previously. I’m also not getting a new car every friggin’ year so I still drive something without bluetooth (I also can’t just get a new radio for it) and would rather listen to my own playlists than ads on the radio.
The acceptable compromise would be packaging a 3.5mm to USBC jack with the goddamn phone. If the real reason it’s not there was because of space in the device, this practice would be standard.
I really do want it because I hate being forced to buy superfluous shit that didn’t need to exist to get the same functionality I had previously
This is the same enegry as complaining about a new car not being able to play your old tapes.
Since this is obviously impractical, do you suggest buying a new car to fit the phone, then?
You came to the point of absurdity. If the car runs, and phones easily supported it through a technology that stays highly relevant and widely used, then why is it changed?
It’s not that 3,5mm jack is outdated by any means.
UnityDeviceThey said to people “we’re taking away functionality from you, but it’s a good thing, as now we can sell you the new stuff and you won’t have a choice - make sure to argue with people that don’t agree,” and most people obeyed for whatever reason.
ReluctantZenA data rate of 352kbps for aptX and 576kbps for aptX HD is hardly cd quality.
Those are compressed bitrates of the full 1.4mbps of a cd. Aptx hd is near lossless. You’d have to be a serious audiophile to notice the difference. Which case, are you going to be listening from your phone with its shitty DAC?
You’d have to be a serious audiophile to notice the difference
Sure, I didn’t say otherwise. It’s enough for most people. A compressed bitrate is just not lossless. But again, for use with Spotify, which most do and isn’t more than 320kbps, it’s plenty. But that doesn’t negate that it’s still not better than wired.
your phone with its shitty DAC? Totally depends on your phone, just like your BT headphones/earbuds. Not all phones have shitty DACs.
You drew a comparison between tape and cd, one of which is clearly superior. That’s just not the case between wired and BT. Both can be together in one device.
You drew a comparison between tape and cd, one of which is clearly superior. That’s just not the case between wired and BT. Both can be together in one device.
Quality wise, tape can be pretty close to CD. But most tape decks were shit. CDs were largely adopted because of convenience, not their audio quality. The majority of people only care about convenience.
That’s just not the case between wired and BT. Both can be together in one device.
With added cost for a feature few use.
Expensive tapes can come close to CDs, but generally tapes are noisier (outside of just the tapedeck), have a worse dynamic range and frequency response and they degrade over time. And indeed it’s not all about sound quality. CDs are more convenient in quite a few ways while not really sacrificing quality and affordability and that does help a lot.
The only convenience BT adds is not having wires, which is valid, but that’s about it. In case of headphones and earbuds, BT also has inconveniences like batteries, BT pairing bs, more latency, worse mics and generally being way more expensive than a decent pair of wired earbuds.
With added cost for a feature few use.
Barely any cost. Phones are more expensive than ever. A headphone jack is not going to make much difference compared to the price increase of decent BT headphones/earbuds. And the reason few use it anymore is because everyone was forced to move to BT (or a dongle, which also sucks) due to phones almost collectively dropping the jack.