>I never heard a thing like Debian 12 being tied to one specific model of laptop etc
Purism does this, though not to a specific device. For the products they sell they have their own custom fork of Debian.
>if people can upgrade and install any software they want, that reduces incentive for them to buy a new phone every 3 years
You are going to be limited by the support of the BSP even if you can install any software you want. You will end up stuck on old software which may not be properly maintained especially if the OEM has moved on to supporting newer products.
>If phones were like laptops or desktops, you'd just install the Android 13 on your phone when Android 12 was outdated etc.
Google has been making efforts to make it easier to upgrades parts of Android without involving the OEM. Later versions of Android may not me compatible with older hardware as minimum specs change and architectures are dropped. For phones with unlocked bootloaders you can flash Android 13 on your phone if someone creates a compatible version of it.
>If I don't have root shell then I don't own the device. Simply. Its a useless brick and toy.
UNIX is not the only way operating systems can be designed. Considering everything that isn't UNIX as being useless is an ignorant mindset.
>As I said, its not Android the piece of software rather the manufacturers who hate users
Then what's the point of this argument if you agree AOSP is a fine way to have an OS with Linux on a phone.
>They don't provide drivers generically either as blobs or sources.
This same issue would exist if you wanted to use Linux with a different userspace.
>Why is it again, when you have two computers and you can generally install and update anything on one and can't do shit on the other?
I don't understand what you are getting at.
>is active malice where even rooting or providing you the bootloader is often cryptographically locked down.
The bootloader being locked down isn't malicious considering it lets the system prove that malware hasn't compromised the boot process. In computing if malware is running first there isn't much the system can do the detect it's existence. It will have the upper hand in the cat and mouse game. If a normal person buys a ACME brand phone, but a malicious actor unlocked the bootloader and installed malware into the OS, that user will never realize they were pwned until they encounter software that is a step ahead in the cat and mouse game and the malware isn't able to hide its existence. A user having root is also problematic because it compromises Androids security model. If a banking app saves an access taken to your phone it is relying on the security of Android that no one is able to steal this taken. If the a user is able to get root they could bypass this and steal the token and commit fraud.
> The bootloader being locked down isn't malicious considering it lets the system prove that malware hasn't compromised the boot process.
It's actually the opposite - it lets the system prove that the unwanted spyware by Google has compromised it.
> If a normal person buys a ACME brand phone, but a malicious actor unlocked the bootloader and installed malware into the OS, that user will never realize they were pwned until they encounter software that is a step ahead in the cat and mouse game and the malware isn't able to hide its existence.
Well this just shows how far has Google gone with its bundled spyware. People use unlocked devices because even being less secure is better than not being in control and having spyware installed on your phone...
> A user having root is also problematic because it compromises Androids security model.
> If a banking app saves an access taken to your phone it is relying on the security of Android that no one is able to steal this taken. If the a user is able to get root they could bypass this and steal the token and commit fraud.
Oh what a beautiful example. Since my bank allows me to use the website and me being able to see all their cookies is not a problem for me, I think this example is kinda impractical.
But worry not - I have a different example:
If an adware vendor called Google bundles its spyware into your phone they rely on the security of Android that the user is not able to uninstall this crap. If the a user is able to get root they could uninstall this and then Google would be unhappy.
The very point is that you can also do what the malicious actor did, just reflash it with a clean image. And if even then the manufacturer has hidden malware code somewhere else, then at that point its moot, you need to find another manufacturer.
>>if people can upgrade and install any software they want, that reduces incentive for them to buy a new phone every 3 years
>You are going to be limited by the support of the BSP even if you can install any software you want. You will end up stuck on old software which may not be properly maintained especially if the OEM has moved on to supporting newer products.
If I am able to install current Debian on a laptop it does not matter if its a 20 year old laptop, I have the newest apps from the repositories and I can build/obtain via other repos newer versions if I want. Its not the OEMs responsibility its the software and distro community's responsibility under the sane system where users control their machine. And being able to install a current OS on that hardware is a matter of having the drivers available either by someone reverse engineering it in case of hostile/dead manufacturer or the manufacturer making it available in a form Linux kernel devs can mainline it or otherwise make it work with their distro for the phone.
>>As I said, its not Android the piece of software rather the manufacturers who hate users
>Then what's the point of this argument if you agree AOSP is a fine way to have an OS with Linux on a phone.
Again I repeat the reason why people want Linux on the phone is so they can own and control the phone. So it does not matter if their choice is Debian or AOSP or anything else, and the practical reality is that this need is 99% unfulfifled in current market.
The very point of the bootloader being not locked down means its irrelevant who did what to it in the past, you can wipe and install a clean install of Android (or any other OS) on it. It won't prevent manufacturer from having hidden code and overrides elsewhere of course, but then its the manufacturer at this stage whos hostile, not resellers.
People are able to use asymmetric key encryption on non-locked down devices alright, so thats total bs. The exact mechanism and os design does not matter the end question is do you control your phone? Can you wipe it and install software of your choice? And since Android is based on a linux kernel, root access is one aspect of having the "master key" to your phone. Its not enough, the full step is not only a root shell but having enough information available to reinstall anything you want on it.
>>Why is it again, when you have two computers and you can generally install and update anything on one and can't do shit on the other?
>I don't understand what you are getting at.
Manufacturers at this stage haven't yet been able to strangle general laptops and desktops to the stage of mobile phones yet. So people are still thankfully able to wipe and reflash them, install and upgrade oses as they wish etc.
If Purism had to do some modifications to get Debian to work on their phone thats not a problem, the problem would be if they make it impossible for others to do the same with another Linux etc ie making it impossible or placing roadblocks to install other oses on their devices.
AOSP generally isn't the problem, as I said, but the question of "is it the year of the Linux phone" the answer is still no, because practically almost all real smartphones available are user hostile and locked down. The very point why people want Linux on the phone is so they can install any os or software they want to install without the manufacturer or google etc placing roadblocks. So my tldr is AOSP could be considered merely an unconventional Linux os but its moot unless you have the "master keys" to your device ie a root shell, unlocked bootloaders etc.
Purism does this, though not to a specific device. For the products they sell they have their own custom fork of Debian.
>if people can upgrade and install any software they want, that reduces incentive for them to buy a new phone every 3 years
You are going to be limited by the support of the BSP even if you can install any software you want. You will end up stuck on old software which may not be properly maintained especially if the OEM has moved on to supporting newer products.
>If phones were like laptops or desktops, you'd just install the Android 13 on your phone when Android 12 was outdated etc.
Google has been making efforts to make it easier to upgrades parts of Android without involving the OEM. Later versions of Android may not me compatible with older hardware as minimum specs change and architectures are dropped. For phones with unlocked bootloaders you can flash Android 13 on your phone if someone creates a compatible version of it.
>If I don't have root shell then I don't own the device. Simply. Its a useless brick and toy.
UNIX is not the only way operating systems can be designed. Considering everything that isn't UNIX as being useless is an ignorant mindset.
>As I said, its not Android the piece of software rather the manufacturers who hate users
Then what's the point of this argument if you agree AOSP is a fine way to have an OS with Linux on a phone.
>They don't provide drivers generically either as blobs or sources.
This same issue would exist if you wanted to use Linux with a different userspace.
>Why is it again, when you have two computers and you can generally install and update anything on one and can't do shit on the other?
I don't understand what you are getting at.
>is active malice where even rooting or providing you the bootloader is often cryptographically locked down.
The bootloader being locked down isn't malicious considering it lets the system prove that malware hasn't compromised the boot process. In computing if malware is running first there isn't much the system can do the detect it's existence. It will have the upper hand in the cat and mouse game. If a normal person buys a ACME brand phone, but a malicious actor unlocked the bootloader and installed malware into the OS, that user will never realize they were pwned until they encounter software that is a step ahead in the cat and mouse game and the malware isn't able to hide its existence. A user having root is also problematic because it compromises Androids security model. If a banking app saves an access taken to your phone it is relying on the security of Android that no one is able to steal this taken. If the a user is able to get root they could bypass this and steal the token and commit fraud.