by handedness | 2026-03-04 14:40:50+00:00
If you feel like you can't get a reasonable reply from anyone on a given subject, it's possible that the subject matter is purely indefensible and everyone but you is wrong about it, or it's possible that there's one constant in all this which you're overlooking.

Anyway, in terms of laptop/desktop security, Apple's doing the best job of anyone on that front at present and is still moving in the direction of improvement. Overall, modern Pixels running GrapheneOS are still the most resistant to a variety attacks, compared to just about any consumer device with any practical value.

Most laptop/desktop hardware architecture is wildly vulnerable in some specific ways that Pixels and iPhones just aren't, and no amount of OS enhancements built on that foundation will fully overcome its limitations. Your refutation to that is typically, "But, Google." I get it. I'm no fan of Google, but their architectural chops on modern Pixels is excellent.

Suggesting in the next breath that people look at the Librem 5 or PinePhone while criticizing the security of GrapheneOS makes me think you might just be completely out to lunch on this one. The Purism project is just not a serious security project in so many ways, and while I appreciate the appeal of hardware switches, the rest of their approach makes the hardware switches and domestic supply chain option and shipping protocols little more than security theatrics. The Librem 5 is so easily compromised that the switches are practically a necessity, I suppose, because the hardware and the software (from the OS to device drivers and--gasp--closed blobs!) just isn't trustworthy. With the clever rhetorical games they play to overstate the reality of the device it's difficult to place any trust in them.

'You shouldn't use this device because Google drove the architecture,' just isn't as compelling to me as, 'you should use this device with outdated drivers, no secure element, no sandboxing, and no IOMMU, no hardware resistance to attacks, baseband isolation that's literally an all-or-nothing affair,' and so on, is a terrible followup recommendation which completely undermines credibility.

You're citing hypothetical weaknesses as a reason to dismiss GrapheneOS while advocating devices with numerous demonstrable weaknesses. The Librem 5 not only isn't very resistant to attacks, it's highly vulnerable to attacks. And then you complain when serious people stop engaging with you. (Not being a serious person, I persist.)

As a former PinePhone user, it's a wonderful effort and I love that they're doing what they're doing, but the device and its software is just completely lacking in security to any real degree. Which is fine, because that isn't the device's reason for being, but we shouldn't overstate its position, which you continually do.

All that said, I genuinely think if you take the time to really fairly understand the situation, you'll find value in GrapheneOS as a project. Whether or not it's for you is another matter, but the only reason I'm bothering to quibble with a faceless stranger on the internet over the issue is because I think the project is one of the most important consumer-device security projects of this era, and I massively hope it succeeds. The planet will be better off for it if it does. And yet, every single time it comes up you make the same lazy dismissals of it, ignore substantive responses, then invariably play the victim when people eventually tire of playing your game.

A broader ecosystem of supported devices is something I very much hope for, and am excited to seem take the step into working directly with one OEM, and I hope for more. The virtualization aspects of their roadmap are exciting, and I expect they'll bring great upstream contributions to whatever hypervisor they choose, as they have for AOSP. Their talks of targeting a laptop which meets their hardware requirements is incredibly exciting, and here's hoping it's a ThinkPad, which seems genuinely possible now.

All this is the most compelling alternative to something like Apple, which, while great at leveraging the advantages of being the behemoth in the market, is too inherently motivated in its pursuit of commercial outcomes to be something I'm likely to want to use.

I lack any real hope that you'll come around on this one, but if you're going to play the game of linking to prior discussions to settle an argument, at least I now have a comment to link to, too. Thanks for fueling my future efficiency.