My example was that specific user, if you didn't notice.
I send and receive iMessages perfectly fine on my non-iOS devices. It's doable, much more so than running ancient hardware is, but there are reasons I don't bring it up with people who haven't asked.
The PinePhone Pro wasn't a compromise, it was unusable. Maybe that's improved since then, but it was a horrendous experience.
I set the IT policy for my devices. I sleep fine saying I can't install crapware on it. It's my primary business device and that comes with sensible restrictions.
I've previously tried living out of a PinePhone Pro, and if those web apps require much JS at all they're going to be in for a bad time. By benchmarks and your previous accounts, it sounds like the Librem 5 is only going to be worse from there.
But you nod towards a useful point there at the end. I've found I don't need to present ancient hardware to get some entities to provide web apps or other means, I just say something handwavy about my phone being locked down by my employer's IT policy, neglecting to mention that I'm my employer. Bigger orgs aren't worth bothering with, though. You could show an airline an employee a flip phone and they aren't going to have any flexibility on the matter.
I tried Tidal nearly a decade ago, and the audible fluttering effect caused by their audio watermarking totally ruined certain types of music, like choral recordings, strings and such. It was obviously apparent on $20 ear buds driven by any device, far beyond the more stereotypical audiophile gripes.
I opened a support ticket but they never responded. After that it was difficult to take their lossless claims seriously when the labels were providing such garbage source material. Their whole value prop was totally hollowed out.
I don't know whether the labels still impose such horrible practices, but I largely gave up on streaming services after that experience and now focus on keeping good digital archives of my physical library.
You may be unfamiliar with its history. It was, for several years, a GrapheneOS feature. ("Magical" is up to the reader.) After much encouragement from the GOS team, Google, and separately Apple, implemented it years later.
GrapheneOS's implementation of it still remains the most robust. More info:
It's far better to respect people's ability to reach their own conclusions about things. If someone sends me media and tells me in advance what I should think of it, it devalues my estimation of them more than it does of the media in question (which I try to keep an open mind about).
> If it were a small amount of money, it wouldn’t be an issue.
I'm not speaking for or against anyone's views for or against anything here, but it's worth noting that Brendan Eich's $1K donation caused quite the stir.
You can't call comprehensive replies "disingenuous walls of text" and then later complain about a lack of thoroughness when people stop finding it worth the time. You've done it extensively with me and others. That's not an attack or accusation, it's there to see with years of history of you doing the same things to people from casual observers (me) to some of the most qualified participants in the industry.
I'm comfortable with others taking in everything and drawing their own conclusions. That's my only motivation for engaging at this point.
For example, Fairphone has something approaching 200 employees. They're punching well below their weight on the security side, both in terms of hardware and software. Defend them all you want but their approach to security is objectively poor. Repairability and sustainability are good concepts, but not if the device fails at being a decently secure device, which it does. If there's a good reason they can't spec out a better device to be made for them and properly support it, I haven't seen them state it. I wish they would because they've made some pretty neat devices over the years. But a neat device with poor hardware security is an absurd build target to burn finite dev hours on. Something which has been explained to you many times.
Purism, on the other hand, likely can't produce a phone that has security remotely approaching any one of a number of contemporary phone options (beyond just Apple/Google). As you say, they're too small and probably spread too thin. They could stand to dial back their claims to match their reality. They still haven't made a dent on significant issues they themselves flagged more than a half decade ago. Its modem runs on a bus so untrustworthy you probably run a disposable sys-usb Qube on your computer. But that's OK, because you only run trusted software, etc. To each their own.
There's probably that, too, but there exists a long history of "lengthy 'it's not this it's that' explanations trying to display superior knowledge of what the real genuine thing from somebody else's culture is."
It's just human nature and it happens at every level. I've seen, firsthand, primitive villagers in Asia do it about the culture of another village five miles away, I've seen people all over do it about something on the other side of the planet. I don't think it's particularly exclusive to a particular hemisphere.
Again, you're misreading. He stated that security is a necessary condition for privacy, you assumed that he's conflating the two things (he clearly doesn't), then...essentially agreed with his point. It's just totally defective.
My comment, which you accuse of not advancing the conversation, was that your comment was internally incoherent. Like some (not all) of your comments, it sets discourse back significantly and the discussion would be much better off without such things.
You admit to holding a preconceived notion that he thinks security and privacy are the same things, which might have something to do with why you consistently fail to interpret some of even the simplest comments. You'd already reached your conclusion about him and didn't truly read his comment, but responded to your preconceived notion of it as soon as you saw the slightest opening. You do that a lot. It doesn't advance discussion.
You're in the second half of your first decade doing exactly the same thing here year after year with an absolute litany of people, including multiple elite developers who are doing incredibly difficult and important work, highly qualified people whose opinions you completely disregard repeatedly. Searching this site for your old threads shows a certain imperviousness of thought. You already have your talking points and you're not budging from them.
Which is fine, some people are just like that, and I'll continue to weigh in on high-traffic threads to make sure you don't harm important projects with your usual comments, but engaging directly with you is as tedious as it is pointless and I won't be doing that much.
I'm not sure what your motives are, but either way there's no upside to doing anything beyond making sure casual readers of high-traffic discussions won't see your more defective comments go mostly unchallenged (as many others have already wisely moved on from engaging with you).
We don't assume bad faith 'round these parts, so I have to ask a genuine question: Have you been diagnosed with any reading and/or learning disabilities? His comment was straightforward, clear, and three brief sentences long, yet you got something out of it that completely wasn't there.
You ask the same questions again of the same audience, year after year after year, either misunderstanding or totally disregarding the numerous simple, clear and direct answers you receive.
You can't simultaneously claim (incorrectly) that they're incapable of shipping secure hardware while claiming that they intend to ship a secure and private device. (Maybe Fairphone 7 will be the one.) Even if that is is their intention, they're doing a good job keeping it a secret, as their site's main traffic drivers talk solely about environmental ethics and the climate.
Several companies are shipping devices with worthwhile hardware security, and the standards are fairly well enumerated at the link I provided. If Fairphone's intention is to ship reasonably secure hardware then they're failing miserably at it. Same goes for their choice of OS.
Again, that link wasn't for you. You've been told all this stuff for many years. It's for anyone who trips over the thread without already knowing the sheer tonnage of misleading and often downright factually false statements you continually dump in these threads.
There is plenty of it in ancient literature, both Western and Eastern. Humans' fundamental attachments remain more or less remain recognizable over time and place.
There is, though, something especially cheap about how it is mostly done today. At least we got treasures like the Cantongqi/Sandōkai out of it in the past. (Or maybe I just committed exactly the same error by invoking the Sandōkai.) I'm sure it was done similarly back then, but likely mostly in actual conversation.
Maybe enough of today's commented noise will filter down to a small number of some particularly astute internet comments which will be studied in the year 3226, but I doubt it. Today's best thinking is still found in books and articles. Which has always probably been true, but it used to require some additional amount of work to hear foolishness.
The Pixel tablet is a mere 3 years old, and still supported, for whatever that's worth. I don't use a stylus but I believe it supports USI2. I'll rock mine as long as I possibly can.
I know you're already aware of this because it's been provided to you before, but for the folks reading at home, here are the device requirements: https://grapheneos.org/faq#future-devices
I made the same mistake after being burned by the PinePhone, buying a heavily discounted Pixel 6 to test various Android forks, which eventually included GrapheneOS. I quickly knew I'd found home upgraded to a 9 Pro XL.
It's complicated. The Tensor G2 Pixel tablet was a solid device, and you can still buy it new from Google (with no choice on color or size in my country), but production has been discontinued and the two direct generational successors were canceled, in sequence. First it was skipping a generation, then it was canceling it entirely. The rumored "Pro" version also appears to have been axed.
I've used mine daily since it came out, and it's a great experience. I'd recommend picking it up for anyone who wants GOS on a larger screen. An iPad it isn't, but my iPad Pros have sat almost totally dormant since I got it years ago.
It lacks horsepower compared to the latest Pixel Pros, but that hasn't been a practical concern in anything I've done with it so far.
I send and receive iMessages perfectly fine on my non-iOS devices. It's doable, much more so than running ancient hardware is, but there are reasons I don't bring it up with people who haven't asked.
The PinePhone Pro wasn't a compromise, it was unusable. Maybe that's improved since then, but it was a horrendous experience.
I set the IT policy for my devices. I sleep fine saying I can't install crapware on it. It's my primary business device and that comes with sensible restrictions.