Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
On 25/01/2020 12:53, a wrote: > Does it change anything regarding if > the pinephone is suitable to get > a ported version of replicant? It seems suitable for Replicant. Although not ideal. It will have similar issues to the currently supported phones, like non-working WiFi and Bluetooth, due to the need for non-free firmware. However, it is an improvement: it can run a free software bootloader and has a strong community that is mainlining everything into u-boot and Linux. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
> - the non-free firmware blobs needed for the PinePhone; > - the type of data connections between the main CPU and the chips that > run non-free firmware. Does it change anything regarding if the pinephone is suitable to get a ported version of replicant? pEpkey.asc Description: application/pgp-keys ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
Lukasz Erecinski from PINE64 just wrote a blog post where he explains in detail: - the non-free firmware blobs needed for the PinePhone; - the type of data connections between the main CPU and the chips that run non-free firmware. https://www.pine64.org/2020/01/24/setting-the-record-straight-pinephone-misconceptions/ I've updated the Replicant's PinePhone wiki page with the info from that post: https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/Pinephone signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
Hi there, On Sat, Jun 22, 2019 at 11:10 PM Denis 'GNUtoo' Carikli wrote: [...] > To understand better what is possible or desirable we would need to get > more information on the PinePhone, for instance: > - What chip will it use for the WiFi, Bluetooth? > - What is the modem protocol? > - Is the bootloader fully free software for the A64? > In u-boot, board/sunxi/README.sunxi64 has more information about > that but we also need to look into it. The conversation in https://fosstodon.org/@PINE64/102298904508977317 might be of interest. Best regards, -- Marcos Marado ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
On Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:04:27 +0300 "ni nhar" wrote: > > I would wait until it starts being mass produced. > > That would be one way to deal with the pinephone. > A hesitant > approach. To me the pinephone is a move against > established manufactures. Free software people have > an interest in promoting the phone, assuming it > works. One > part is providing as many software systems and as > fast as > doable. In my opinion there is no hurry to port Replicant to the Pinephone right now unless new developers volunteer to do it: - Most of the current developers are involved in porting Replicant to Android 9 in a way or in another. This is required to get the Pinephone working on Replicant. The first device(s) that will be supported in Replicant 9 will be devices already supported by Replicant 6 and mainline Linux, like the Galaxy SIII (i9300). There are many different reasons for that: - We started working on it this way, and we even got funding for that. - It enables to spot some regressions: we have no automated testing infrastructure yet. So here users testing Replicant 9 might be able to find new bugs that weren't present on Replicant 6. It also enable to test some of the changes on Replicant 6 (I need to do that for the modem protocol code for instance), and even to look at both source code to compare, do graphics performance benchmarks, etc. - The device can easily be bought and many contributors already have them. - Many users probably expect to still be able to upgrade to Replicant 9 on their smartphones. - Wiki Pages, installation instructions, etc already exist for Replicant 6 devices and they are better known. - Adding support for the Pinephone on Replicant 6 makes no sense, as it will be way harder than adding support for it on Replicant 9. A big part of the work done for porting Replicant to Android 9 will be easily reusable for the Pinephone. The same applies to other smartphones and tablets that have good upstream Linux support. - Also the Pinephone is not released yet, and some hardware details might change. It may also have production issues or delays, as manufacturing hardware is hard. Once we have something working on Replicant 9 with the Galaxy SIII (i9300) and/or similar devices, we will very seriously consider looking into the Pinephone, especially if it has been released at that point. If it's not released yet at that point we might also consider trying to get some funding for working on other devices, in a way that enables to reuse the code for the Pinephone and other similar devices, for instance to support their modem, in order to minimize the amount of work required to make it work once such devices are released. In the meantime we plan to have some discussions in the Replicant meeting that will happens this weekend[1] on topic indirectly related to the Pinephone such as: - How to add support for modem that are already supported in GNU/Linux, in Replicant 9. - What will be, in the long run, the minimum freedom requirements for the devices supported by Replicant? - How do we deal with upstream GNU/Linux and Android? Do we use Ofono in Replicant? Do we write librils to interface with lower level libraries? etc. References: --- [1]https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/ReplicantContributorsMeetingJuly2019 Denis. pgpb_W3RS_6eF.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
Hi ni nhar, Writing that email to pine64 is a good first step. Then, if you get positive feedback, you can start looking for a developer that is willing and skillful to do the port. You do not have to act as a middleman forever, you just have to do the bridging and connect people. I am stressing this part, because, perhaps harder than getting the funds, is finding the right person, with the skill and perseverance to take the porting work to fruition. Depending on what's already available, porting Replicant to a new device can be a really long and hard task. As GNUtoo pointed out in a previous email, there are many unknowns with the way that pinphone's hardware works, and that must be addressed once the porting effort starts for real: Wifi/BT firmware, modem protocol, cameras firmware, etc. You are indeed correct. Hosting a crowdfunding campaign outside Replicant's of FSF's website would be a bad move. Try to follow GNUtoo's pointer about Snowdrift and check if there is a crowdfunding solution compatible with Replicant ideals. You can surely ask FSF for support while organizing the crowdfund, specially on how to deal with the funds. Though, do not expect FSF to do the heavy lifting. FSF only employs a minimal amount of staff. Projects under its umbrella are pretty much independent and must fend for themselves. You will have to dedicate some time to plan, write, organize and run the crowdfunding campaign yourself (I bet that at least a few people from Replicant's community would help you). I have only minor contributions to Replicant. Regards, David On 21/07/2019 13:04, ni nhar wrote: > > > >> Thank you for not dodging when facing criticism. > > >> I actually believe they will be more than happy >> to provide a phone or a >> devboard. > > Maybe. > On armbian's forum a person I believe is the chief of > pine64 has given away soc computers for > free. > >> I see that you have a deep interest on getting >> Replicant support for the >> pinephone. > > Not in pinephone. In getting a new replicant phone > available for > people. Do you know a better option than the > pinephone? > >> If that's so, I believe that there is nobody >> better suited >> than yourself to take on the task. > > I disagree. Because I do not have the technical > skills, there are better > people to approach pine64. If none of you are > prepared to > email the chief of pine64 I can do it. But I will > tell him about my > limited knowledge on the matter. Then he may get > piqued asking himself, why doesn't a qualified > person from replicant > write me? > >> If you feel that you do not have the >> necessary technical skills, you can always do the >> following: > >> 1. Ask around and find a developer that is willing >> and skillful to take >> on the porting effort. > > How can that be effective having me as a > middleman? > >> 2. Create the crowd funding yourself to fund the >> development effort. > > I can look into how to plan a crowd funding. I can > ask fsf if > they want to contribute? Fsf has the required > software and knows how to organize > a crowd funding. One version I like is when a > main sponsor declares he will double paid amounts > up to > a set limit. It motivates people to pay and > ensures the > main sponsor only has to pay if people show > interest in a given crowd funding. > >> I >> bet you will get the consent from the Replicant >> project to use their >> name on the crowd funding page. > > That is irresponsible if you say replicant would > endorse a crowd funding outside their > own or fsf's website. And I would want people to > ignore such an endorsement. You do > not know if the money gets stolen. The crowd > funding must either be on fsf or replicant's > website. Receiver of > the money should be a cashier in fsf. > >> On a personal note. I wouldn't focus my time and >> attention on pinephone >> right now. Mostly because it is still a promise >> and not an actual device >> people can buy. As you can be seen at: >> https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ >>> This item is not yet available for purchase from >> the PINE64 store. > > It is a valid consideration. > >> I would wait until it starts being mass produced. > > That would be one way to deal with the pinephone. > A hesitant > approach. To me the pinephone is a move against > established manufactures. Free software people have > an interest in promoting the phone, assuming it > works. One > part is providing as many software systems and as > fast as > doable. > > >> However, if you >> believe that pinephone will be successful, then >> please give it a push. >> GNUtoo already did the initial review and it seems >> to fit most (if not >> all) Replicant requirements. > > I suggest I write the chief of pine64 an email. > Telling him > replicant is interested in the phone. But reluctant > because of the early stage the pinephone is in. > I can ask him if pine64 would be interested in > cooperating about devising a strategy > regarding
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
> Thank you for not dodging when facing criticism. > I actually believe they will be more than happy > to provide a phone or a > devboard. Maybe. On armbian's forum a person I believe is the chief of pine64 has given away soc computers for free. > I see that you have a deep interest on getting > Replicant support for the > pinephone. Not in pinephone. In getting a new replicant phone available for people. Do you know a better option than the pinephone? > If that's so, I believe that there is nobody > better suited > than yourself to take on the task. I disagree. Because I do not have the technical skills, there are better people to approach pine64. If none of you are prepared to email the chief of pine64 I can do it. But I will tell him about my limited knowledge on the matter. Then he may get piqued asking himself, why doesn't a qualified person from replicant write me? > If you feel that you do not have the > necessary technical skills, you can always do the > following: > 1. Ask around and find a developer that is willing > and skillful to take > on the porting effort. How can that be effective having me as a middleman? > 2. Create the crowd funding yourself to fund the > development effort. I can look into how to plan a crowd funding. I can ask fsf if they want to contribute? Fsf has the required software and knows how to organize a crowd funding. One version I like is when a main sponsor declares he will double paid amounts up to a set limit. It motivates people to pay and ensures the main sponsor only has to pay if people show interest in a given crowd funding. > I > bet you will get the consent from the Replicant > project to use their > name on the crowd funding page. That is irresponsible if you say replicant would endorse a crowd funding outside their own or fsf's website. And I would want people to ignore such an endorsement. You do not know if the money gets stolen. The crowd funding must either be on fsf or replicant's website. Receiver of the money should be a cashier in fsf. > On a personal note. I wouldn't focus my time and > attention on pinephone > right now. Mostly because it is still a promise > and not an actual device > people can buy. As you can be seen at: > https://www.pine64.org/pinephone/ > > This item is not yet available for purchase from > the PINE64 store. It is a valid consideration. > I would wait until it starts being mass produced. That would be one way to deal with the pinephone. A hesitant approach. To me the pinephone is a move against established manufactures. Free software people have an interest in promoting the phone, assuming it works. One part is providing as many software systems and as fast as doable. > However, if you > believe that pinephone will be successful, then > please give it a push. > GNUtoo already did the initial review and it seems > to fit most (if not > all) Replicant requirements. I suggest I write the chief of pine64 an email. Telling him replicant is interested in the phone. But reluctant because of the early stage the pinephone is in. I can ask him if pine64 would be interested in cooperating about devising a strategy regarding replicant. > David Are you a replicant programmer? ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
> Then we should crowd fund getting you a pinephone. there are already funds for this sort of purchases so I'm sure we can use those if a developer willing to do this work appears. Then let us crowd fund paying the software programmers. ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
> IMHO, before spending Replicsnt funds on buying this device, someone should first ask the vendor if they are willing to sponsor a phone to a Replicant dev willing to take this task. Not if pine64's financial records show that pine64 has little to give. Then we should not strong arm them. If you are knowledgeable about free software compatible hardware, you are well advised to be skeptical if a company says it will manufacture a phone emphasizing on privacy. Maybe that is the reason why replicant people seems to be reticent about the pinephone. Pine64 say they are about free software. Likely not like replicant who says free software or nothing. Unlike purism I am not aware pine64 is deceptive when they say they want to forward a free software agenda. Apart from selecting hardware which can boot on free software and supports modem isolation pine64 wants to build a phone which can be disassembled with a screwdriver. And has modem, wifi, microphone switches. These features probably does not make designing the phone easier and I see no other reason to make them other than have people getting control over their phone. Replicant is a languishing piece of software. If a person agrees, that android and iphones in principle are unacceptable due to non free software, the moment you suggest to them, they should get a used phone, being a replicant phone, they are gone. To me the pinephone is replicant's option to become relevant for more people. I do not understand why replicant is not communicating with pine64? Why hasn't replicant declared the pinephone a top priority? Which phone would be better? Why is replicant not preparing a crowd funding such that both phone and programmers can get paid? If it is because of lack of resources then do a high value crowd funding. If the goal is not reached, then we have proven to ourselves that a new replicant phone is not important. ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
Hi, IMHO, before spending Replicsnt funds on buying this device, someone should first ask the vendor if they are willing to sponsor a phone to a Replicant dev willing to take this task. Just as Necuno did. It is quite on the interest of these vendors to have support on multiple OSes. Sponsoring a phone, or even better, a devboard, shows at least a minimum commitment from their part. Such relation will come handy when the time comes to ask for documentation and other technical info. Regards, David On July 16, 2019 6:11:45 PM GMT+01:00, "Joonas Kylmälä" wrote: >Hi, > >ni nhar: >> > > Does it make the pinephone suitable for replicant? >> > It looks way more suitable than the phones >> already supported by >> > Replicant. >> >> Then we should crowd fund getting you a pinephone. > >there are already funds for this sort of purchases so I'm sure we can >use those if a developer willing to do this work appears. > >Joonas >___ >Replicant mailing list >Replicant@osuosl.org >https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
Hi, ni nhar: > > > Does it make the pinephone suitable for replicant? > > It looks way more suitable than the phones > already supported by > > Replicant. > > Then we should crowd fund getting you a pinephone. there are already funds for this sort of purchases so I'm sure we can use those if a developer willing to do this work appears. Joonas ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
> > On pine64's forum I wrote this post > Do you have a link to that? https://forum.pine64.org/showthread.php?tid=7567=3 You ought to read https://www.pine64.org/2019/06/06/june-2019-news-pinephone-pinebook-pro-and-pinetab/ The article mentions several software systems. postmarketos maemoleste luneos ubuntutouch sailfishos To prevent double work, you ought to coordinate with them. > > Does it make the pinephone suitable for replicant? > It looks way more suitable than the phones already supported by > Replicant. Then we should crowd fund getting you a pinephone. ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
Hi, On Sun, 23 Jun 2019 12:43:29 +0300 Joonas Kylmälä wrote: > I think it is more lack of contributors. Also the fact that I think we > have not had anybody yet receive payment for working on replicant so > nobody knows how to do it. As far as I know, there has been only > reimbursements of costs for something like a development phone. Reimbursements were done for several phones and tablets. For instance it was used to buy Replicant compatible devices to the at the time current Replicant main developer, to enable that developer to make a new release. If my memory is good, it was also used to buy new devices to port Replicant on. Some part of the fund was also used to reimburse travel and accommodation costs to go speak to several conferences. This enabled to spread the messages about issues encountered with mobile devices, with the goal of finding new developers. On my side I didn't use any money of that fund yet. Denis. pgpIEdQpzhgL7.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
Hi, ni nhar: > You say, likely there are several new phones > which have the replicant required hardware modem > isolation and therefore qualifies > for getting a replicant version? > Those phones do not get a replicant version > because of lack of money to > get replicant ported? That would be a new piece of > information for me. I think it is more lack of contributors. Also the fact that I think we have not had anybody yet receive payment for working on replicant so nobody knows how to do it. As far as I know, there has been only reimbursements of costs for something like a development phone. Joonas signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
Thank you. > So as everybody were busy working in that direction, nobody worked to > add support for more recent devices. You say, likely there are several new phones which have the replicant required hardware modem isolation and therefore qualifies for getting a replicant version? Those phones do not get a replicant version because of lack of money to get replicant ported? That would be a new piece of information for me. > To understand better what is possible or desirable we would need to get > more information on the PinePhone, for instance: > - What chip will it use for the WiFi, Bluetooth? > - What is the modem protocol? > - Is the bootloader fully free software for the A64? > In u-boot, board/sunxi/README.sunxi64 has more information about > that but we also need to look into it. I want to ask the pinephone team these questions in order to determine if the pinephone can become a replicant phone putting the required work, modem isolation and difficulty into the calculation. Can you write an exhaustive list of questions I should ask the pinephone team? > And as I understand, the PinePhone is not yet released, so some things > may change between the prototypes and the final device. I think it's > important for the Replicant project to review the PinePhone once it's > released. I prefer if we could start now to investigate if the pinephone is a viable candidate to get a replicant version. ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
Thanks. > So assuming that the pinephone hardware gets supported in upstream > Linux[2], some work will still be needed to support it in Replicant: My understanding is replicant can run on any android phone. Correct? The reason why replicant is only available for a few old phones is because you have a modem isolation requirement about replicant. Does the pinephone meet the modem isolation requirement about replicant? If that is the case and the pinephone becomes a functioning phone of quality, I see no reason why replicant should not make the pinephone a priority. What other options about a new phone does replicant have? Once on replicant's irc paulk wrote, they had contacted fairphone in order to advice fairphone on how to pick a cpu with modem isolation, such that the phone would get applicable for a replicant version. Fairphone rejected. Still if the pinephone's modem does not meet replicant's modem isolation requirement, should replicant not contact the pinephone team and offer them their advice? ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
Re: [Replicant] replicant make comment on the pinephone
On Wed, 19 Jun 2019 22:49:10 +0300 "ni nhar" wrote: > > https://www.pine64.org/2019/06/06/june-2019-news-pinephone-pinebook-pro-and-pinetab/ > > Comment on the pinephone. Is it for > replicant? We are currently porting Replicant to Android 9[1]. So while the port will be first made for the Galaxy SIII (I9300) and similar devices. It will use a kernel that will be closely based on upstream Linux. Once this is done, that work could be used by anyone to add support for other devices that use an upstream Linux kernel. So assuming that the pinephone hardware gets supported in upstream Linux[2], some work will still be needed to support it in Replicant: - First, someone will need to adapt the work done for the Galaxy SIII to the pinephone. This shound't be a huge amount of work, especially if we document well things along the way. - Then someone will need to add support for its modem in Replicant. Depending on which component makes sense to reuse it could be a lot of work. We will need to see if it's possible to reuse GNU/Linux modem support component in the future to make that easier. Does someone knows which protocol is typically used with the Quectel EC25? Is it AT or QMI? If it's QMI, then adding support for the Galaxy SIII 4G (i9305) would enable to also easily add support for the pinephone. If it's AT, we'd need to look more into the details. The GTA04 could also be interesting to support and this smartphone has an AT modem too. It would also be interesting to find more about how the modem works as it runs GNU/Linux on one of its processors[3]. References: --- [1]https://redmine.replicant.us/projects/replicant/wiki/Porting_Replicant_to_Android_9 [2]See the following status for the A64: https://linux-sunxi.org/Linux_mainlining_effort [3]https://osmocom.org/projects/quectel-modems/wiki/EC25 Denis. pgpbL1Rexvz0K.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Replicant mailing list Replicant@osuosl.org https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
