This is probably impossible and also not needed. Choose security through compartmentalization (instead of security through correctness that never works), if you really care about security.
Do you daily drive Qubes? I'd be curious to hear about your experiences. I've been following the project from the sidelines for years, but haven't taken the leap.
I am quite sympathetic towards Tuxedo, and am considering to replace my work laptop (a 6yr old MBP) with one of those when it stops working, but those are Apple and gaming laptop prices, not mass market prices.
> Every attempt since OpenMoko proves the market doesn't care.
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.
How much does Librem 5 cost? Are they able to deliver reasonably up-to-date set of features that general population care? Can you still buy them? Will they deliver in a reasonable amount of time? Will they be able to stay afloat? Can they make enough money to invest in features? Can they support an ecosystem that not only support FOSS but proprietary software too? Can they make contracts with operators to have earlier access to newer tech? Does the cost reflect the value that the customer gets out of them?
The answer for most of those questions is no for both Librem and Pinephone. You cannot even buy Pinephones anymore. This is not nihilism.
> Are they able to deliver reasonably up-to-date set of features that general population care?
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.
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?
Which aren't that great user experience for normal users anyway, with the apps and games everyone else on their friends circle is using, or needed for work.
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.
Why are all commenters on HN ignoring the only smartphone running an FSF-endorsed [0] operating system, Librem 5, and only list everything else? I just can't get it.
Because it was a kickstarter that was run like a scam, was years late to deliver the first device, the hardware was already not good at the start due picking an automotive SOC, the form factor was bulky, and the software was really buggy.
GrapheneOS is a much more practical open source OS to use Linux on a phone.
GrapheneOS is not solving the actual interesting problem (running on an entirely mainline kernel, just like on x86). It's effectively a hardened variety of LineageOS/AOSP, hence entirely reliant on device-specific downstream kernels/BSPs that will never see a feature update.
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.
>GrapheneOS is not solving the actual interesting problem
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.
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.
> 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.
> Linus doesn't release a linked version of the kernel
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.
Because it's prohibitively expensive for something that isn't guaranteed to be a usable daily-driver for most people. Also IIRC the 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.
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.
Most HN users don't know about the alternatives, just like the public. If you say that those who know don't care, I will ask you for some evidence.
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.
> Most HN users don't know about the alternatives, just like the public.
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.
My evidence is simple. Topics about outrageous actions by Apple and Google appear on HN almost weekly. Almost every time somebody in the comments suggests that we should have a third alternative. And practically never anybody, except myself, mentions Librem 5 and Pinephone.
Your "evidence" is nothing more than your own personal anecdotes, and even then they don't support your conclusion. If people keep asking for alternatives, and this crowd obviously knows about the FSF and continually discount your FSF approved suggestions, then clearly they do not care for them.
> Even in the news related to FSF, people didn't mention the Librem phone:
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.
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.
> Now, you made a statement without even anecdotal evidence.
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.
If not, you should seriously consider switching banks (while you can). I suspect that such banks do not take security seriously: Giving control over your phone to Apple/Google is not security.
I assume if you come with money, everything is possible. Also, you don't have to get support from the same company: There is no artificial monopoly in FLOSS unlike with proprietary software.
I could purchase the fully fledged OS X operating system as a consumer for $20, and get customer support for it. Now the OS is free with customer support.
> There is no artificial monopoly in FLOSS
I don't care about that as a consumer. I want software / a computer which works and easy customer support if I need it. People are very willing to pay for that, but there is no such FLOSS offering as far as I know. Because FLOSS developers hate consumers and worship corporate enterprises.
This all seems like enterprise solutions. As a consumer, I shouldn't have to look at a list of consultants, as if I was trying to find support for a heavy industrial machine.
FLOSS or non-FLOSS, there is no real European consumer offering for an operating system. That should be the starting point for people who want a thriving European IT industry.
It could very well be based on Linux or whatever. But consumers need support. They need a phone numbers they can call and an e-mail addresses they can write to.
Focusing on consumers instead of corporate or academia is how Apple became so successful.
But this is US operating system, Linux trademark is registered to US citizen(Linus T.), it is being mainly developed by US companies and complies with US sanction laws.
Works for me with Qubes OS.
reply