We need a real GNU/Linux (not Android) smartphone ecosystem

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Desire for a “real GNU/Linux” phone ecosystem

  • Some want phones to resemble x86 PCs: standardized boot interfaces, easy OS replacement, no vendor lock‑down.
  • Motivation is control, privacy, and software diversity rather than commercial competitiveness.
  • Others argue that Android (built on Linux) already fills this role sufficiently, and reinventing a full mobile stack is wasteful.

Existing projects and current state

  • Hardware: Librem 5, PinePhone / PinePhone Pro, FuriLabs FLX1.
  • OS/distros: Mobian, postmarketOS, UBports, various GNU/Linux phone UIs (Phosh, Plasma Mobile).
  • Sailfish OS and older systems (Maemo/Meego, WebOS, Tizen, Bada) cited as proof both that alternatives are possible and that they struggle to gain traction.
  • Reports: current Linux phones are usable for hobbyists, but often underpowered, power‑hungry, or rough for daily use.

Apps, banking, and hardware attestation

  • Many essential services (banking, tickets, transit, even laundromats) are app‑only and often Android/iOS‑only.
  • Hardware attestation (SafetyNet and similar) blocks rooted devices, custom ROMs, and non‑Google stacks from running many banking/DRM apps.
  • Some see this as the core blocker to any alternative ecosystem; suggested remedies range from legal action to broader regulation.
  • Workarounds (web apps, bridges, PWAs) exist but are incomplete; lack of web equivalents is common.

Android vs GNU/Linux: security and UX models

  • Android’s permission model, SELinux‑based isolation, app lifecycle, and power‑management are praised as superior to traditional GNU/Linux userspace for phones.
  • Critics say Android’s model primarily protects vendors and apps from users, limiting filesystem access, scripting, backup, and background tasks.
  • Some propose “FOSS Android” or hardened ROMs (LineageOS, derivative projects) as more realistic than a completely new GNU/Linux stack.

Hardware, drivers, and standardization

  • Closed drivers, proprietary firmware, SoC diversity, and carrier certification are seen as major structural problems.
  • Suggestions: open drivers, SBSA‑style ARM standards, or even legislation forcing unlockable bootloaders and more open hardware.
  • Others stress the scale of effort: open drivers and mainlining are slow, expensive, and underfunded.

Economics and culture

  • Several comments emphasize that modern mobile OS quality comes from billions in corporate R&D; hobby or crowdfunded efforts struggle to match polish.
  • Some argue mass adoption shouldn’t be the goal; a niche, hackable, freedom‑respecting phone is valuable even without mainstream success.