I'm giving up on the Librem 5

[Privacy2]

@fsflover

@Privacy2

My personal experience with amosbatto is

Didn’t I already tell you that I am not interested in discussing @amosbatto? This is not a forum for discussing individuals. Also, you didn’t provide any evidence about his “wrong” behavior, which means you “ are spreading misinformation and/or insults ”. I saw no misinformation in my references. I expect you to retract, rephrase, or apologize.

I don’t care if you’re interested in discussing amosbatto. You brought him up by
linking to his screed of a FAQ. I’ve had personal experiences with him
and those personal experiences have shown me that his writing is not worth my time.

I linked to plenty of discussions with him as a participant. Some of which he was banned exactly because of bad behavior. That’s proof enough. I owe you nothing.

@fsflover

@Privacy2

@fsflover

… but only people who defend Purism get banned.

It’s just not true. You asserted that as a fact, but you’ve offered no proof.

I know that u/amosbatto and u/Adwaitian were banned from the Subreddit and the same happened with someone else (before adwaitian) defending Purism. I offered proofs that people trying to destroy Purism with misinformation get upvoted and not banned on the Subreddit. It seems you are fine with that, aren’t you? Are you fine with the spread of misinformation as long as you agree with its goals? Now, it’s your turn to show us which accounts spreading lies about Purism also got banned (show at least a few), if you want to present a reasonable evidence that I’m wrong.

You asserted “only people who defend Purism get banned”. I showed that your assertion was wrong by giving you an example of /u/jaylittle who was banned at least once (I think twice) for poor behavior toward Purism advocates. i.e. You were wrong. Everything you said, above, is just you deflecting from the fact that you were wrong. Why not just admit that you had nothing to back up your absurd assertion that “only people who defend Purism get banned”?

@fsflover

By the way, the Pine64 subreddit was also quite hateful they say, so Pine64 created their own official (r/pine64official) subreddit.

@Privacy2

I thought that the reason for the pine64official subreddit was due to scams regarding fake-resell of pine64 products and wasn’t due to issues with Purism basing.

What evidence do you have for your assertion?

One example. Now, you should also provide some evidence concerning the “fake-resells”.

You’re confused. It wasn’t the assertion that /r/pine64 had “hateful” comments that I cared about, it’s your assertion that those hateful comments was that reason why pine64 created /r/pine64official . I thought I remembered a different reason so I asked you to support your assertion. You still haven’t.

Your link doesn’t support why /r/pine64official was created. You made the assertion, I was just asking for evidence. You still haven’t provided evidence for your assertion.

It turns out that the answer is addressed in the following thread. ( It was /r/pinephone and they were behaving in a way that was contrary to pine64’s interest by badmouthing pine64 (not Purism) [ " Don’t buy a new pinephone from Pine64’s evil communist factories in China. "] ). https://www.reddit.com/r/PINE64official/comments/fxcipk/psa_refrain_from_using_rpinephone/

@fsflover

@Privacy2

Of course the Pixel 6 will have 5 years of support. To many people that’s

sufficient.

This is only partially true. Yes, you will get the security updates, but AFAIK you will not get feature updates, since the kernel will be very old.

Feature updates? WTF are you talking about? This is the supported life of GrapheneOS on that device. I don’t care about the age of the kernel as long as it is getting security updates. Also, although I don’t particularly care about kernel version, strcat has indicated that the kernel can be updated. You were in that discussion ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30761693 ).

[strcat] The reason for using an LTS kernel branch with 6 years of support from kernel.org is stability. Porting forward the drivers to each new kernel release is entirely possible and isn’t a lot of work when it’s done incrementally. Not that many changes are even required.

…

There are already people who have gotten the mainline 5.15 kernel working with the Pixel 6, but from 5.10 to 5.15 there are a lot of regressions, …

… It isn’t better from a security perspective to use the 5.15 LTS rather than the 5.10 LTS, especially with the additional changes backported by AOSP including security enhancements like mitigations, not just bug fixes. It may be a good idea to move to the new LTS branch once it has matured for 1-2 years, but definitely not months after release.

Discussing “security” of the Librem 5 vs. Graphene you said:

@fsflover

The wording in the latter quote is disingenuous and suspicious.

I disagree. I think that they have been clear. You criticized them for that … and they
created that link to make sure they were clear. It certainly wasn’t “disengenuous”.

Regarding strcat’s quote (also quoted below), you said:

@fsflover

Yes, I read that thread and I still have no idea what strcat wanted to say. Did you understand them?

Who is being disingenuous now? What they said is clear and I think you understand what they said. You simply don’t believe it since you don’t understand how it
can be true. That’s different. And that’s your problem.

I already said that I’m not an expert and I’m certainly not strcat’s keeper. If you want
to understand how it can be true, I suggest you read up on the kernel structure of the android kernel https://source.android.com/docs/core/architecture/kernel (pay attention to the HAL Implementation) and then look at the graphene build structure to see any details in regard to the drivers. Or, as I’ve said before, if you want to question what strcat said, ask him.

But what I will point out is that there is one Purism supporter whose name you don’t want mentioned who repeatedly asserted the opposite and didn’t stop when he was told he was wrong. Burden of proof is on the not-to-be-named supporter … and if he can’t show it, he should stop asserting it as if it’s a fact.