117
Google's assault on F-Droid has begun (techhub.social)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/technology@hexbear.net
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/45946938

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I don't have extensive knowledge off the top of my head. I usually take a look only when existing device dies. See GrapheneOS devices list and a bit further down the page there is a table of expected EOL dates. Most other similar ROMs have the same list. LineageOS being the exception with much wider support. I beleive that some compromises have been made to allow that but can't elaborate more than that. There are zillions of nerds debating online about it. Same caveat about bootloader locking applies in any scenario.

IME the best thing is to make sure the device can be returned for any reason, and plan to attempt install ROM asap upon arrival so you have enough time to send it back if unsuitable.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

    Similar boat here. Just did the whole song and dance catching back up at the end of last year.

    Your prudence in making it clear that people should get something they can return is appreciated. I was taking it for granted that refurbishers provide warranties but that's not true everywhere.

    Might edit my comment to highlight that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 4 months ago (1 child)

    Well they will provide a warranty on their work generally. If it's different than advertised, not working etc, then you should be able to send it back. But warranty on the customer buying the wrong thing because they didn't know is a lot to ask for, especially if they are the ones paying for shipping. A large company can afford that, or a vendor who is specialized can give precise info on what they are selling and are prepared to back that up.

    But I really don't understand why these ROM devs are not more clear about this requirement. They are fully advertised as "all you need is a pixel phone" which is false. I think a lot of the user base is wealthy enough to go to the google store and buy a new phone in cash. It is the only explanation. The forums have frequent threads of people who are having problems installing due to this.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    But I really don't understand why these ROM devs are not more clear about this requirement. They are fully advertised as "all you need is a pixel phone" which is false. I think a lot of the user base is wealthy enough to go to the google store and buy a new phone in cash. It is the only explanation. The forums have frequent threads of people who are having problems installing due to this.

    Yeah for real. I was just trying to confirm whether my belief (apparently, not knowledge) that carrier locking and irreversible e-fuse bootloader locking a phone like the Pixel would be a violation of consumer law here. We did have some major changes ages ago, but its been years since I've personally had to worry much and its still ambiguous grey area stuff with irreversible e-fuse protections altering / downgrading trust attestation and widevine support etc being common.

    I'm off on this tangent to say "oh, wow I see what you mean" because I'm done with this search, the results are an endless repetition of "pixels are always unlockable."

    I didn't end up editing my post cuz I realised your warnings start far enough up the chain to be visible. I appreciate this conversation though cuz I am guilty of believing and promoting the "pixels are worth the cost but you don't have to pay google for one" line without hesitation in the past.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent