The last news I read on this, the Librem 5 was slated to launch in April of 2019. Is this still the case? Is it usual for an ambitious project like this to be doing this sort of development (i.e. core dev, not polish) within 6 months of release?
I'm really looking forward to this phone and will almost certainly move over if there is are decent mail, Whatsapp and Signal clients. Despite the cost and early adopter pains I'm likely to face :)
This phone is basically a Gnome Phone, so mail client will be Geary, which is decent enough. The anbox project is able to port Android apps into GNU/Linux. Though last time I tried, not very stable and crash very often. Whatsapp could be installed. Hope at release the project could be more stable and able to port to Librem 5.
I really worry about the sustainability of this company? Is it a sustainable business model? How secure will your phone be if they can't afford to pay developers or go under? Who do I contact if there is a hardware issue? So many questions.
Also why do they have 'Buy now' links that take you to their kickstarter page, where you can 'pre-order' a phone that may or may not ship in Q3 2019? Seems a little shady. Also price jump of $800 for a compatible 24"monitor and a keyboard + mouse is insane...
Does anyone think this has any market appeal outside of its kickstarter audience?
The point of the Librem 5 is not to make the most popular possible phone, it's to make a better phone than what is currently available.
Markets only matter to capitalists. Real hackers share with each other to make things happen that markets do not comprehend. Whether this project will be a success, only time will tell, but it has nothing to do with the market.
>The point of the Librem 5 is not to make the most popular possible phone
That's a strawman of GP's words. "The most popular" is absurd, but "minimally viable" is not particularly since security in a major Librem selling point and security is an active process, not a one-off. In turn sustainability matters, and for a hardware project that requires significantly more capital then a pure software project. It's not at all unreasonable to question that or attacking the company, Librem should have good answers there regardless.
>Markets only matter to capitalists. Real hackers share with each other to make things happen that markets do not comprehend.
What a ridiculous load of bunk. The Librem is not powered by good intentions and hacker ethos it's powered by silicon manufactured in an expensive capitalist fabricator, battery which is the same, etc. Ongoing development will need some capital, as will repairs and replacements and infrastructure. Nothing like a huge company but it's there, and it's rightfully utilizing the wider world.
"Real hackers" are hacking, they're doing cool stuff utilizing things for purposes beyond what was intended, pushing the limits in ways not imagined perhaps even by the original designers. Sometimes this has no wider effect beyond a subsect, sometimes it subverts markets, sometimes it creates entire new markets. It's symbiotic with the wider world not cutoff from it! This can be true of not just tech but even law. When RMS and co worked out copyleft, they didn't just rage against the sheer existence of IP and seek to destroy it all or somehow fruitlessly deny that it existed, they hacked it to their own ends instead.
> When RMS and co worked out copyleft, they didn't just rage against the sheer existence of IP and seek to destroy it all or somehow fruitlessly deny that it existed, they hacked it to their own ends instead.
You mean like people who per-ordered the Librem5, because it's a practical cause they believe in, instead of just raging in the semi-frequent HN threads how awful Android is?
>You mean like people who per-ordered the Librem5, because it's a practical cause they believe in, instead of just raging in the semi-frequent HN threads how awful Android is?
Can you explain what point you're actually arguing against here, or in sibling posts you've replied to? That's a good example of using the market to achieve a good goal, which is just what should happen. That's not an argument that "markets only matter to capitalists."
A product like the Librem5 is currently not viable to manufacture by any known OEM in the smartphone market, just as it wasn't viable for a company to develop a free-software UNIX, so RMS had to come in and start it even if it wasn't necessarily "market viable" at the time.
People sometimes do things out of passion, precisely because the markets would not support their ideas, at least initially.
So, it is not known at present whether the Librem5 would prove viable at all, but Purism are doing it despite this and there are people who pre-ordered are trying to make it viable, despite there being no guarantee that they'll get security updates or even a viable product at present.
In essence, this phone is probably non-market viable at present, but there are people who are per-ordering anyways, in order to eventually make it viable for the wider market i.e. taking practical steps for a cause they believe in. Such causes are not a good fit for "markets" in general.
doesn't seem less dismissive than the comment you're replying to. Getting a consumer product that isn't increasingly exploitative does, in fact, require good intentions and hacker ethos.
Blowing it off as if there is some perfectly rational market solution for things like individual security and choice has yet to be demonstrated.
I created an account HN just to say that this is the worst example of gate keeping I've read. The original poster has legitimate questions regarding the security of a purchase in this device. Do "real hackers" have unlimited funds and don't have to worry about $800 purchases on still-virtual products?
> Do "real hackers" have unlimited funds and don't have to worry about $800 purchases on still-virtual products?
No, but you can invest in a product you believe in. We all understand it's an investment, not a guarantee. This phone is about the user being in control of their phone, if you don't care about that, or are not willing to invest, either wait until it comes out or get another smartphone.
The pre-order is for free software enthusiasts, not the general public.
As for the security, the company has previous experience shipping hardware, so I'd say it's better than your average hardware Kickstarter, but it isn't Apple and that's not the point.
They sometimes invest in products they believe can make an impactful change, perhaps with money others spend on partying and what-not, so what's your point? Nobody's forcing you to pre-order this.
At some point reality kicks in and if the thing is not economically viable, it won't work, long term.
"Real hackers" should pay more attention to economics and to quote the anonymous guy, "gatekeep" less, if they don't want to be stuck in a box forever, whining about the "evil" Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.
The goal is to make it viable by developing enough of an ecosystem around it for it to be desirable by a wider audience. Accoutring to your approach, we wouldn't have free software at all, because it flies in the face of conventional economics. Someone with a little more vision had to prove it works, despite all the naysayers.
> if they don't want to be stuck in a box forever, whining about the "evil" Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.
If supporting a real hardware platform that is independent of "evil" Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. isn't taking practical steps to not be stuck with them, I don't know what is.
Markets do matter because they dictate if the company exists to support the people who have purchased their product. Will a Real Hacker spend unpaid time to fix security bugs in this phone, then also host this for free and distribute?
This is one of the things that stood out to me at the launch of this phone: using a site that clearly copies the Kickstarter design language, but on a non-kickstarter page, has always felt shady. The assumed guarantees Kickstarter makes are not present. (It was not clear if they would issue refunds if they failed to make the minimum threshold, for example).
I agree with your opinion if the Kickstarter design being copied too closely, but they are far from the only ones doing this. Other crowdfunding sites are virtually indistinguishable from this page too.
Security-wise it will depend on the distro. Under Gnome /KDE it will be flatpak responsible for sandboxing. So it doesn't depend (too much) on Purism. On the hardware side they put way more effort (at the price of perf maybe ?) than other manufacturer to avoid backdoors.
We don't know, and will not know for a few years. Maybe it is sustainable, maybe not.
They are realistic unlike many who have tried similar things before. This is something they have going for them: realism in their expectations creates realism in their budgets and aims. In turn this means that they can reach their goals. They might not overturn Samsung as the #1 seller of phones in the world, but if they sell enough to the types of people who want the features they are selling they can still remain useful long term.
Note that the company has been delivering computers for a while. This is more complex than what they have done before, but it is just a step in a direction they have been going. There is a good chance they will remain a company even if the phone itself fails.
The decision to develop the first GNOME phone while also developing a hacker-friendly privacy-respecting physical device is going to be the death of this project.
I don't understand why they didn't just focus on the hardware, make it very hackable for the community to develop the GNOME (or any other) OS for it.
Isolate the baseband from the application processor and all the other privacy-respecting hardware decisions, land all the changes required for a mainline kernel to support everything upstream, and release it with AOSP running on it.
Then invest in the community to replace AOSP (and sell more of your hardware to said community as it grows).
> I don't understand why they didn't just focus on the hardware, make it very hackable for the community to develop the GNOME (or any other) OS for it.
Probably because the "do everything yourself hackerz" are not the only target audience.. This company has a history of selling quality laptops with their PureOS distro on it, while also supporting the ability to put on other distros for those that want to.
The OpenPandora came out with a fairly good OS to start out with, and they have continually supported it, so it has still been useful even 7 years after it was released. If it wasn't for the fact that I can no longer find it, I have no doubt that I would still be using it. I am a supporter for the Dragonbox Pyra, and I am hoping it will have the same support.
I cannot say that I regret buying my Novena (as I learned a lot from it), but I rarely use it. I have to manually update the kernel and bootloader myself, and it is stuck on Linux 4.4, as the support and community just aren't there to help. I was able to figure out how to update it to the newest Debian, but there is no official support for it, so I imagine most folks are still on the previous version. As it stands, it marginally functions, but if I need to use a laptop again heavily, I will simply just buy a new laptop.
I relate these two stories because I think the Librem 5 will need to show that it has a polished software stack day one to gain traction and grow a community. The Open Pandora was successful in that, and that allowed the creator to make two iterations of the Open Pandora and create the Pyra.
The Novena did not have that nearly has much, and as a result, I am very doubtful that there will be a Novena + 1, and frankly after seeing the support it got, I am hesitant to purchase any other products made by Bunnie.
None of the devices you mentioned were polished physical products competitive with their contemporaries, while also costing significantly more.
What the community needs is a compelling physical piece of hardware with first-class upstream driver support for everything and relatively modern specs.
We can iterate on the userspace as a community. But there won't be a growing community if you don't sell us a compelling open piece of hardware to run it on. We can't easily iterate on the hardware as a community, this is the part puri.sm should focus on delivering.
Sell us a modern device that respects our privacy and ability to replace boot loaders and run mainline kernels. Give use first-class driver support for everything included from the GPU to the cellular modem and cameras and all the APIs necessary to speak with them.
It just seems like a total disconnect from the reality of mainline kernel support for smartphone hardware, to be off in la-la land working on a GNOME phone OS before delivery. Pavel Machek's talk from 10/22/2017 [1] comes to mind as representative of the state things are in, in mainline.
I'm far more confident in the GNOME/free software community's ability to write dialers, messengers, email and photo apps than its ability to quickly bring up low-level support for such hardware and develop the new kernel APIs where things like V4L2 fall short.
"None of the devices you mentioned were polished physical products competitive with their contemporaries, while also costing significantly more."
I would actually argue the Open Pandora was a polished physical product. It worked incredibly well when it just came out.
"What the community needs is a compelling physical piece of hardware with first-class upstream driver support for everything and relatively modern specs."
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the Librem 5 folks trying to do just that? They chose an imx8 because it has really good upstream support, and then they can add upstream support for the peripherals.
>I don't understand why they didn't just focus on the hardware, make it very hackable for the community to develop the GNOME (or any other) OS for it.
This. Why do they insist on a mobile GNOME interface from scratch instead of building on more mature mobile UI frameworks like Qt5/Plasma mobile? Are there some deep philosophical differences? Qt already has a lot of experience with touch interfaces.
Their area of expertise is making a pretty linux distro for their custom laptop line, that's why.
I agree with you and GP. Every dollar invested into gnome is a waste IMO. Make the hardware, make it easy to build an image from source for it, and then focus on the gnome portion.
42 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 68.8 ms ] threadI'm really looking forward to this phone and will almost certainly move over if there is are decent mail, Whatsapp and Signal clients. Despite the cost and early adopter pains I'm likely to face :)
It's not usual to be doing a project like this at all. How many such projects can you point to? So nobody knows.
Apps like Signal that are open source will likely be available.
Also why do they have 'Buy now' links that take you to their kickstarter page, where you can 'pre-order' a phone that may or may not ship in Q3 2019? Seems a little shady. Also price jump of $800 for a compatible 24"monitor and a keyboard + mouse is insane...
Does anyone think this has any market appeal outside of its kickstarter audience?
Markets only matter to capitalists. Real hackers share with each other to make things happen that markets do not comprehend. Whether this project will be a success, only time will tell, but it has nothing to do with the market.
That's a strawman of GP's words. "The most popular" is absurd, but "minimally viable" is not particularly since security in a major Librem selling point and security is an active process, not a one-off. In turn sustainability matters, and for a hardware project that requires significantly more capital then a pure software project. It's not at all unreasonable to question that or attacking the company, Librem should have good answers there regardless.
>Markets only matter to capitalists. Real hackers share with each other to make things happen that markets do not comprehend.
What a ridiculous load of bunk. The Librem is not powered by good intentions and hacker ethos it's powered by silicon manufactured in an expensive capitalist fabricator, battery which is the same, etc. Ongoing development will need some capital, as will repairs and replacements and infrastructure. Nothing like a huge company but it's there, and it's rightfully utilizing the wider world.
"Real hackers" are hacking, they're doing cool stuff utilizing things for purposes beyond what was intended, pushing the limits in ways not imagined perhaps even by the original designers. Sometimes this has no wider effect beyond a subsect, sometimes it subverts markets, sometimes it creates entire new markets. It's symbiotic with the wider world not cutoff from it! This can be true of not just tech but even law. When RMS and co worked out copyleft, they didn't just rage against the sheer existence of IP and seek to destroy it all or somehow fruitlessly deny that it existed, they hacked it to their own ends instead.
You mean like people who per-ordered the Librem5, because it's a practical cause they believe in, instead of just raging in the semi-frequent HN threads how awful Android is?
Can you explain what point you're actually arguing against here, or in sibling posts you've replied to? That's a good example of using the market to achieve a good goal, which is just what should happen. That's not an argument that "markets only matter to capitalists."
People sometimes do things out of passion, precisely because the markets would not support their ideas, at least initially.
So, it is not known at present whether the Librem5 would prove viable at all, but Purism are doing it despite this and there are people who pre-ordered are trying to make it viable, despite there being no guarantee that they'll get security updates or even a viable product at present.
In essence, this phone is probably non-market viable at present, but there are people who are per-ordering anyways, in order to eventually make it viable for the wider market i.e. taking practical steps for a cause they believe in. Such causes are not a good fit for "markets" in general.
>What a ridiculous load of bunk.
doesn't seem less dismissive than the comment you're replying to. Getting a consumer product that isn't increasingly exploitative does, in fact, require good intentions and hacker ethos.
Blowing it off as if there is some perfectly rational market solution for things like individual security and choice has yet to be demonstrated.
No, but you can invest in a product you believe in. We all understand it's an investment, not a guarantee. This phone is about the user being in control of their phone, if you don't care about that, or are not willing to invest, either wait until it comes out or get another smartphone.
The pre-order is for free software enthusiasts, not the general public.
As for the security, the company has previous experience shipping hardware, so I'd say it's better than your average hardware Kickstarter, but it isn't Apple and that's not the point.
"Real hackers" should pay more attention to economics and to quote the anonymous guy, "gatekeep" less, if they don't want to be stuck in a box forever, whining about the "evil" Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.
> if they don't want to be stuck in a box forever, whining about the "evil" Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc.
If supporting a real hardware platform that is independent of "evil" Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. isn't taking practical steps to not be stuck with them, I don't know what is.
This whole hacker - economist/businessman dichotomy is harfmul to the evolution of open solutions, be them software or hardware or both.
Markets do matter because they dictate if the company exists to support the people who have purchased their product. Will a Real Hacker spend unpaid time to fix security bugs in this phone, then also host this for free and distribute?
That's how the vast majority of free software was developed for a very long time indeed.
Most major open source projects face corporate sponsorship. Or provided by universities.
Just going to point out that they implemented their own crowdfunding type page and aren't using Kickstarter at all.
> How secure will your phone be if they can't afford to pay developers or go under?
It runs ARM Linux so I assume you'd just have to switch distros.
They are realistic unlike many who have tried similar things before. This is something they have going for them: realism in their expectations creates realism in their budgets and aims. In turn this means that they can reach their goals. They might not overturn Samsung as the #1 seller of phones in the world, but if they sell enough to the types of people who want the features they are selling they can still remain useful long term.
Note that the company has been delivering computers for a while. This is more complex than what they have done before, but it is just a step in a direction they have been going. There is a good chance they will remain a company even if the phone itself fails.
My guess
I don't understand why they didn't just focus on the hardware, make it very hackable for the community to develop the GNOME (or any other) OS for it.
Isolate the baseband from the application processor and all the other privacy-respecting hardware decisions, land all the changes required for a mainline kernel to support everything upstream, and release it with AOSP running on it.
Then invest in the community to replace AOSP (and sell more of your hardware to said community as it grows).
Probably because the "do everything yourself hackerz" are not the only target audience.. This company has a history of selling quality laptops with their PureOS distro on it, while also supporting the ability to put on other distros for those that want to.
The OpenPandora came out with a fairly good OS to start out with, and they have continually supported it, so it has still been useful even 7 years after it was released. If it wasn't for the fact that I can no longer find it, I have no doubt that I would still be using it. I am a supporter for the Dragonbox Pyra, and I am hoping it will have the same support.
I cannot say that I regret buying my Novena (as I learned a lot from it), but I rarely use it. I have to manually update the kernel and bootloader myself, and it is stuck on Linux 4.4, as the support and community just aren't there to help. I was able to figure out how to update it to the newest Debian, but there is no official support for it, so I imagine most folks are still on the previous version. As it stands, it marginally functions, but if I need to use a laptop again heavily, I will simply just buy a new laptop.
I relate these two stories because I think the Librem 5 will need to show that it has a polished software stack day one to gain traction and grow a community. The Open Pandora was successful in that, and that allowed the creator to make two iterations of the Open Pandora and create the Pyra.
The Novena did not have that nearly has much, and as a result, I am very doubtful that there will be a Novena + 1, and frankly after seeing the support it got, I am hesitant to purchase any other products made by Bunnie.
What the community needs is a compelling physical piece of hardware with first-class upstream driver support for everything and relatively modern specs.
We can iterate on the userspace as a community. But there won't be a growing community if you don't sell us a compelling open piece of hardware to run it on. We can't easily iterate on the hardware as a community, this is the part puri.sm should focus on delivering.
Sell us a modern device that respects our privacy and ability to replace boot loaders and run mainline kernels. Give use first-class driver support for everything included from the GPU to the cellular modem and cameras and all the APIs necessary to speak with them.
It just seems like a total disconnect from the reality of mainline kernel support for smartphone hardware, to be off in la-la land working on a GNOME phone OS before delivery. Pavel Machek's talk from 10/22/2017 [1] comes to mind as representative of the state things are in, in mainline.
I'm far more confident in the GNOME/free software community's ability to write dialers, messengers, email and photo apps than its ability to quickly bring up low-level support for such hardware and develop the new kernel APIs where things like V4L2 fall short.
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/10/21/181
I would actually argue the Open Pandora was a polished physical product. It worked incredibly well when it just came out.
"What the community needs is a compelling physical piece of hardware with first-class upstream driver support for everything and relatively modern specs."
Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't the Librem 5 folks trying to do just that? They chose an imx8 because it has really good upstream support, and then they can add upstream support for the peripherals.
This. Why do they insist on a mobile GNOME interface from scratch instead of building on more mature mobile UI frameworks like Qt5/Plasma mobile? Are there some deep philosophical differences? Qt already has a lot of experience with touch interfaces.
I agree with you and GP. Every dollar invested into gnome is a waste IMO. Make the hardware, make it easy to build an image from source for it, and then focus on the gnome portion.