I'm all in for allowing alternate OSes, don't get me wrong :).
I'm just saying that for most people it's a bad idea, especially regarding Linux.
Linux's security is abysmal because the desktop security model is fundamentally flawed.
Take Flatpak for example. While it is a big step forward in terms of portability, ease of use and security, it is still allows applications to pick their permissions themselves. Even dangerous ones like X11 display server access, full file system access or camera access.
However, there already is a number of secure open source alternative mobile OSes based on Android, GrapheneOS for example.
Also, driver blobs for modems are often out-of-date and insecure. Making the phone drivers fully open source will probably not happen.
If you know what you’re doing, installing a different OS onto can be liberating and good for the environment – most of the time the hardware is perfectly fine, just the software becomes more bloated and slower as the device ages. It’s just - in my opinion - more risky.
I'm just saying that for most people it's a bad idea, especially regarding Linux. Linux's security is abysmal because the desktop security model is fundamentally flawed.
Take Flatpak for example. While it is a big step forward in terms of portability, ease of use and security, it is still allows applications to pick their permissions themselves. Even dangerous ones like X11 display server access, full file system access or camera access.
However, there already is a number of secure open source alternative mobile OSes based on Android, GrapheneOS for example.
Also, driver blobs for modems are often out-of-date and insecure. Making the phone drivers fully open source will probably not happen.
If you know what you’re doing, installing a different OS onto can be liberating and good for the environment – most of the time the hardware is perfectly fine, just the software becomes more bloated and slower as the device ages. It’s just - in my opinion - more risky.