Hacker News Reader

Comment by no-reply | Hacker News Reader

GOS has minimum hardware requirements and most of the available smartphones don't meet them

This is a contradiction. There is nothing "minimal" about a requirement that excludes every device but one. Also some people (me) value independence from Google more than the highest degree of security (which relies on Google hardware).

> Also some people (me) value independence from Google more than the highest degree of security (which relies on Google hardware).

The requirements are indeed minimal. I have no problem with your valuing independence from Google, but please don't misrepresent GrapheneOS' requirements as the highest degree of security because not even they have said that. They have actually mentioned wanting to be more involved in the hardware/firmware side to implement more pro-user changes.

They are mostly basic requirements that Android OEMs should be embarrassed not to meet in 2026.

> This is a contradiction. There is nothing "minimal" about a requirement that excludes every device but one.

I don't get your logic. Requirements are a choice. It's very easy to create requirements that exclude every device but one.

Example: "It has to be the Samsung Galaxy S23". Done.

Now you can disagree with those requirements, but that's completely different from saying that the requirements are wrong.

I disagree that such requirements are minimal. Nothing prevents running GrapheneOS on a device with lower requirements. It's a questionable choice by the developers restricting the choice for users.

(I agree with you in spirit, namely that GrapheneOS' standards are clearly beyond what most vendors are willing or able to do and a compromise or support of users who want to port the OS might be fitting for the current situation, but notice that the person you replied to never said "minimal", they said "minimum". I'm not a native english speaker but I believe your reading is a value judgement along the lines of "not much work" (in this context) whereas they probably intended it like a statement of fact regarding what the requirements are.)

Aren't requirements defined as the set of minimal constraints that are needed for something to be deemed acceptable by those who define that set?

Again, requirements are not laws of physics. As the author of a project, I am free to make up my own requirements, and when something doesn't meet them, then I am free to reject it because it does not meet my requirements...

If you go to a bank and they refuse to lend you money because you don't meet their requirement, you will have a hard time convincing them that their requirement are wrong and that they should instead replace it with yours :-).

It is not the job of GrapheneOS to lower their standards and deplete their resources supporting every phone under the sun. We already have LineageOS for that. I would rather not be snarky but I don't understand why people keep blaming GrapheneOS instead of the OEMs. Almost every single time.

I don't think that there is anyone to blame.

GrapheneOS has requirements that result in only the Pixels being supported. LineageOS has other requirements that result in most phones being supported.

I may wish that more devices met the requirements of GrapheneOS, because I like GrapheneOS and their requirements, but I find it very weird to with GrapheneOS changed their core vision. What makes GrapheneOS is those requirements.

You are not independent from Google if you purchase an android device from another manufacturer. You're then having your data sent to both Google and that manufacturer, resulting in far worse privacy overall than with just Google, not to mention worse security at hardware level. If you don't want to "support" Google, just buy any used Pixel 6 to 10 series.

I use Librem 5 as a daily driver. It has no dependence on Google.

Sure, you're free to use whatever you want. So am I. I want GrapheneOS :-).

That's like saying Tulip blocked the installation of Vista because they didn't install enough RAM to run it

The OS makers don't have to go out of their way to support a device they don't want to (that's the beauty of open source passion projects), but it's also not like any manufacturer (that allows bootloader unlocking or ships an unlocked bootloader) is blocking GrapheneOS or anyone else from doing it, which the quote implies in my reading (maybe other people read it differently)

> That's like saying Tulip blocked

I agree, but you are the one who talked about "blocking". I did not :-).

You called it a problem coming from the manufacturers. That implies they actively thwart it (woa, another new word! It's crazy how language works). But they don't actually have a problem with it; some of them are actively publishing the info needed for alternative OSes to work on their hardware and GrapheneOS needs only take it if they want to, but they don't. Who has a problem with whom here?

Again, not saying GrapheneOS is doing something wrong. Nobody's under an obligation. Just that, if someone wants to argue that one party is making a problem out of the situation, I don't find it fair to assign that label to every manufacturer on the planet besides google

Would it work if I said "the ball is in the manufacturers' court"? Or would you complain that we're not talking about tennis?

Did you genuinely not understand my point, or are you just usually annoying and condescending with language?

> thwart it (woa, another new word! It's crazy how language works)

This is condescending.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com