We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your device. No root access, remote control by apple and google, all wrong.
And in what concerns the mainstream desktop/laptop market, macOS Linux VMs, WSL, ChromeOS, versus GNU/Linux OEM devices, proves most people doesn't care either what they can get at regular computer stores, otherwise GNU/Linux configurations would not be online only at very specific shops.
OpenMoko & friends are selling devices which basically only run Firefox, and sometimes make calls as well. The only people interested in that are diehard FLOSS enthusiasts, which means they have to use ancient hardware because new stuff doesn't have open drivers, which means that even if you ignore the app ecosystem they compare incredibly poorly to mainstream smartphones. No wonder they keep failing.
Interestingly, the desktop/laptop market is heading the other way. The move to cloud SaaS products means a decent number of people now only need a browser. What's keeping a lot of people on Windows is often literally one or two applications. Valve's push for Proton is the perfect example of this: the Steam Deck is providing a huge incentive to fix those last few bugs keeping a game from running on Linux, and with the way Microsoft is screwing up W11 it is now ironically the gamers who are moving to Linux.
What you are seeing in "regular computer stores" is mostly irrelevant. That market is basically dead. Corporate gets its machines directly from Dell/HP/Lenovo, PC enthusiasts mostly get custom builds, and casual people stick with smartphones and tablets. In-store PC sales is now reduced to a university student's Google Docs machine - and Microsoft is doing a pretty good job bribing the manufacturers to push Windows there.
Most of them have no clue that something like System 76 or Tuxedo exists in first place.
Likewise on corporate world, I have long moved into Windows/macOS as official desktops for the last decade, GNU/Linux is only available on VM or servers, and usually it is the cloud provider's own distro.
Those customers where IT allowed the use of GNU/Linux desktops, it was with zero support from them, it was up to us to deal ourselves with any issues preventing our work, and to deal with upper management, in case it impacts delivery.
Until SteamDeck gets rid of its dependency on Windows as source, it is pretty much irrelevant. Games developers will keep using their Windows workstations, while a community smaller than Switch, will get those games thanks to Proton.
And it remains to be seen for how long Microsoft will tolerate Steam, or use their weight as OS vendor, and one of the biggest publishers.
Mobile GNU/Linux might end up in a similar situation if projects like Waydroid[0] can be well-integrated into the system, or if the mobile hardware becomes powerful enough to run it well.
[0]: https://waydro.id
At least for mean almost everything has moved into the browser except, Whatsapp, maps, and music
I'm pretty sure my Linux desktop version of Signal runs great on small screens.
It's because people like you are constantly repeating this mantra of security nihilism [0], instead of spreading the word about true alternatives existing today, Librem 5 and Pinephone.
Security not only matters, we are still far away from the same liability as in other industries.
GNU/Linux also had as baseline what other UNIXes were capable of, and even that had to grew for ACLs, NSA's LinuxSE, and containers.
The answer for most of those questions is no for both Librem and Pinephone. You cannot even buy Pinephones anymore. This is not nihilism.
It doesn't matter. We are not on a mainstream website, we're on HN. You and me can use it as a daily driver (I do). Nothing becomes mainstream and usable by public at the launch (except things advertised by the big tech of course).
> This is not nihilism.
Did you read the linked article? It's not about getting to 100% security/freedom without any effort. This is about giving up, as you did.
> How much does Librem 5 cost?
Yes, it's expensive. If you can't buy it, you can help in many other ways, e.g., by spreading the word or contributing to the free software.
> Can you still buy them?
Yes: https://shop.puri.sm/shop/librem-5/
> Are they able to deliver reasonably up-to-date set of features that general population care?
It doesn't matter. It can provide you with the main features you may need and add something you can't get anywhere else, https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/docs/community-wiki/-/wikis/F....
Further development can deliver most required features to the public, too, https://puri.sm/posts/closing-the-app-gap-momentum-and-time/.
> Will they deliver in a reasonable amount of time?
Yes, 10 working days, according to their website, https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/
> Will they be able to stay afloat?
It doesn't matter: The phone runs the mainline kernel and not locked down, it will be able to receive all updates even without Purism. You can install any other OS, too.
> Can they make enough money to invest in features?
Seems like no, because virtually nobody knows about them, even on HN. And, again, it doesn't really matter.
> Can they support an ecosystem that not only support FOSS but proprietary software too?
Why?
> Can they make contracts with operators to have earlier access to newer tech?
This is pure nihilism. Only Apple and Google can do that, so we're all doomed, right? However Purism have been trying, not without some progress, https://puri.sm/posts/breaking-ground/
> Does the cost reflect the value that the customer gets out of them?
Probably yes, https://source.puri.sm/Librem5/docs/community-wiki/-/wikis/F...
Typed and submitted entirely on my Librem 5.
Sure you can. The Pinephone Pro is discontinued, sadly, but regular Pinephones are able to be purchased, I just double checked the PINE64 store:
https://pine64.com/product/pinephone-beta-edition-with-conve...
No, they are very much an experiment at the moment.
> Does the cost reflect the value that the customer gets out of them?
Also no, for what they are they are vastly overprices. It makes much more sense to buy an old device that an run Lineage or PMOS.
There is https://postmarketos.org/
Maybe 2026 will be the year of Linux on mobile phone.
And yeah, you can even buy phones with a non-android linux pre-installed, e.g. from pine64. But they come with all kinds of "for early adopters" warning labels. Deservedly so, in my opinion.
Considering the ongoing DRAM and SSD crunch, I won't hold my breath.
GrapheneOS is a much more practical open source OS to use Linux on a phone.
BTW, hardware support on postmarketOS "community" class devices has seen some nice improvements as of late. Once these improvements meaningfully stabilize (avoiding the risk of regression/breakage; there's been some of that even in the recent testing for the 2025-12 stable release) it's quite possible that some "community" devices might finally reach "main" class, marking them as OK for daily-driver use. Something to watch for as we approach 2026-06.
Consumers don't care how interesting the developer's problems are. They want their own problems to be solved and GrapheneOS does a better job of that.
>running on an entirely mainline kernel
Google already did that work years ago. Android will work on a mainline kernel. Just like with x86 the mainline kernel needs to support the hardware e you want to use though.
While Google is allowing that.
> Just like with x86 the mainline kernel needs to support the hardware e you want to use though
Librem 5 runs on all free drivers. This is why it will never be tied to an old kernel. This doesn't work with GrapheneOS.
And while Linus allows Linux to be open source. A benefit of open source is that you can fork it if upstream decides to stop development or go closed source.
>This doesn't work with GrapheneOS.
GrapheneOS can use free drivers too. It literally is using Linux.
Linus can't close the kernel. He would need to ask all contributors for a signed agreement for that. This is the benefit of GPL.
See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46177148
> GrapheneOS can use free drivers too. It literally is using Linux.
Except there is no device with free drivers that it supports. They just refuse to support Librem or Pinephone without a good reason. (I strongly disagree with their "security" arguments.)
> A benefit of open source is that you can fork it if upstream decides to stop development or go closed source
Android is already semi-closed (see this submission). Are GrapheneOS developers forking it? (No)
That's not how it works. GPL only prevents old versions from becoming closed source. If Linus added code to the kernel which required a $100k license to redistribute then people could no longer freely distribute the code of the kernel. People could not freely distribute compile kernels because they would need that license. GPL doesn't magically make all licensing issues go away. He could also make a required kernel module that was not GPL licensed that Linux could require to operate.
>Except there is no device with free drivers that it supports.
Having a working system providing competitive value to others is much more important.
>They just refuse to support Librem or Pinephone without a good reason.
The good reason is that those devices can't provide industry standard security.
This is false, https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
> Having a working system providing competitive value to others is much more important.
I don't consider dependence on Google as "working for the users".
> The good reason is that those devices can't provide industry standard security.
Obeying Google is not "security", even if it's the industry standard.
>I don't consider dependence on Google as "working for the users".
Why not? They work more for users than other organizations that you would try and replace them with.
>Obeying Google is not "security"
I don't know what you are referring to.
Linked to what? Any new change in it must become open, which is the whole point of "viral", copyleft GPL license, in contrast to permissive ones.
> They work more for users than other organizations that you would try and replace them with.
They put their users in dangerous dependence on Google. This is not what I would consider more useful than alternatives. It may be more useful in the short term, since it still works, but in the long term it's dangerous. In this sense it's not much different from good proprietary software like MacOS.
> I don't know what you are referring to.
GrapheneOS didn't completely fork Android. They still follow Google's development strategy, which only benefits Google and not users.
See my other reply concerning this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163
> hardware isn't quite worth the price tag in-and-of-itself
> We need a third alternative, based on freedom with your device.
We does not refer only to HN users, and there is no implication as such.
The default assumption is that 'we' refers to the general population.
However, even if I'm charitable and go with your assumption that 'we' referred to HN users, I will confidently say most HN users also don't care about FSF approval.
> See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46569163
You like to post a lot of HN links without ever giving an indication of what they point to. As a habit, I don't waste my time clicking random links that people post without context.
In my linked post I explain why the public doesn't matter at this point of time. Also I explain that the public doesn't need the alternative before it works flawlessly, i.e., before it becomes popular among technical users.
That's a rather ridiculous assumption on your part. As a tech-literate crowd, it's quite likely they are aware of them, if for no other reason those alternatives make the front page semi-frequently.
> If you say that those who know don't care, I will ask you for some evidence.
As soon as you provide evidence for the premises for your argument. As my position is simply saying yours is false, the onus is on you to support yours.
> "we" are aware of the problem and care about the freedom.
Sure, maybe, but caring about freedom isn't the same as caring about FSF approved software.
Even in the news related to FSF, people didn't mention the Librem phone: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45589096
> Your "evidence" is nothing more than your own personal anecdotes
Do I have to list all recent smartphone-related discussions for you? I participated in most of them. https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=2&prefix=false&qu...
I see that you're not interested in further discussion and prefer to just dismiss all my arguments.
Because people don't care. It isn't good enough for most peoples needs. You only push it because of your hyperfixation on free software, but most people balance caring about free software with other concerns.
> I participated in most of them.
And you think that makes your evidence not anecdotal?
> prefer to just dismiss all my arguments.
I'm saying your evidence is poor and your reasoning is shoddy and explained why. I'm not dismissing out of hand or for no reason.
> Because people don't care.
Now, you made a statement without even anecdotal evidence. I received quite a few upvotes for that comments, indicating that people do care. Nobody said they didn't care. Yes, it's anecdotal evidence.
>> I participated in most of them.
> And you think that makes your evidence not anecdotal?
It might be anecdotal. You are free to count how many other people commented on Librem 5 yourself and disprove my claim.
Kind of...as I said rpeviosuly your evidence actually supports my point, but even if you disagreed, I'm refuting your positive claim, not making a positice claim of my own. The onus is on you alone to support your claim.
> I received quite a few upvotes for that comments, indicating that people do care. Nobody said they didn't care.
Sure - the point was most people don't care.
> You are free to count how many other people commented on Librem 5 yourself and disprove my claim.
Pretty easy, just look at the ratio of votes in the last 10 threads you advocate for those phones in, where you maybe get 2 or 3 which is very low compared to the amount of comments and commenters, and then look at the amount of comments you get expressing a negative opinion. You get more negative and neutral feedback combined than positive feedback, indicating people don't care generally or if they do, it's to disagree with you.
This is what the evidence shows.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21656355
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25142405
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053872
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25504641
Even not very well-written or globally relevant articles on the topic of mobile freedom attract a lot of attention:
> I do not have a particularly strong trust for the (modern) FSF, so their validation adds nothing, IMHO,
Most upvoted reply says:
> having FSF validation doesn't prove anything but rather may be detrimental,
The second link no one is discussing the FSF certification at all, one guy mentioned it in passing and every other hit for 'fsf' is from your username.
Third link only hits for 'fsf' are from your username.
Final link 'fsf' returns no hits.
I think you are conflating interest in an open source and/or free phone with something FSF approved. My claim above was that most people don't care about an FSF approved phone, and your links here don't show otherwise.
I agree there is an interest in an open alternative to Android/iPhone, but that doesn't require FSF approval.
FSF certification is just one way to indicate freedom. People may not care about it but they do care about freedom.
You kept trying to defend that, if you had clarified earlier and asked why people were ignoring FLOSS phones, my response would have been different.
I'm currently working on an OS image for the Hackberry devices, maybe it'll get some traction. [1]
Note, not impossible: You can always carry cash to avoid phone-based bank payments (which would be needed at e.g. my local farmer's market, where nobody has a card payment terminal), some taxi services (Yandex Go for example) provide a web view with some of the features, you can open map services in the browser ...
But for the browser-based cases the experience will be even worse than the standard app experience, and friction is overall much higher.
As a result, only a very small fraction of nerds are committed enough to buy and use these devices. You then have a chicken&egg problem about getting a third option to work.
The only way this has been done semi-successfully in recent years is Huawei's HarmonyOS - and they did it by way of a) already being an absolutely massive phone company, and b) keeping around an expensive Android-compatibility core for many years.
Users - there is a broad scope of users. For sustainable eco-system you need also user interest and support of such.
Developers - that sounds funny. I know. But you need enough leverage to get apps or services to be open.
Companies/Software - a modern mobile device takes place in almost any interaction. Commuting, payment, banking, grocery shopping, social messaging, doom scrolling.
Biggest hope for the future is ensuring PWA becomes standardized enough. That way the OS lock-in could be reduced.
Well, you're right, however badly I don't want to admit it. Google broke that cycle once with Android. I'm sure that Apple would have too, even if they were not the first mover. And there's no question that their wealth and influence had a massive role in it - something an open platform cannot match realistically.
But the current situation is simply untenable anymore. I want out, no matter how many others don't care for it. The open platform has to be just functional enough (including app support, even as PWAs), for us to break free from this duopoly. Just like how Linux and BSDs are on desktops. I'm able to do everything on it from work to netbanking. I would hate it really badly if I was forced to use Windows or MacOS these days.
We never had one on desktop; no real issues. Hardware attestation is primarily in the interest of the vendor, not the user. The user relies on chains of trust. This is how the world works.
My worry is one fine day Microsoft, Samsung Apple, and Google (rest of SV Media companies like Netflix etc) will join hands in bringing security and force a ChromeOS or macOS type totally- we decide everything for you.
With Nitrokey's open source firmware plus quite a bit CS education (specializing on cryptography) you can check whether their implementation quality is good. However, that is a lot of effort which will probably result in also requiring a third party certification.