Librem 5 Phone, progress reports
-
@divideandsponsor said in Librem 5 Phone, progress reports:
@tera Purism needs to make these applications available for Ubuntu Touch. You guys are supposed to be partners, but I see very little collaboration. what gives?
What gives is that UBports has yet to receive the 2 Librem 5 dev boards that Purism said they were going to send. So until dev boards are actually received work can not proceed from the UBports developers. Hopefully that will change sooner than later.
Best regards,
Steve Berson -
Reply from Purism regarding the Librem 5 dev kits for UBports:
If you are in contact with the UBports developers then can you ask them to get in touch directly via an existing Purism contact? If you are a UBports developer then can you talk to your colleagues and find out what the status is from their perspectives?
My impression is that there are a very small number of development boards, but that most of them are already assigned to third party development groups. For some of those groups, the task of assigning the boards was left to the people in charge of those groups and I don’t know whether there was clarity about who should receive boards.
-
-
I read the May update (as all other updates as well) ... interesting that it seems that they make a mobile version of the MUA
Gearywhich I tested already on my FreeBSD laptop. In general, I think that we're far away from any delivery to us, the backers. -
-
Librem 5 vs Android — Which boots faster?
The tl;dw is that the Librem 5 booted in 13 seconds including PIN entry, and the Android phone in about 45 seconds. Of note, they used an 6 year old, carrier-crippled Android phone (Verizon HTC One) for their comparison, somewhat damning their own cause.
For further comparison, I just timed these phones, with PIN unless otherwise indicated:
- Iphone 7 (3 years old) running IOS 12.3 w/encryption (file encryption, as I understand it): 18 seconds
- Pixel 3a (just released) running stock Pie w/file encryption: 16 seconds without PIN (not set up yet), probably about 19 seconds with.
- 1st gen. Pixel (3 years old) running LineageOS/MicroG Pie w/file encryption: 29 seconds
- OnePlus One (6 years old) running LineageOS/MicroG Pie, no encryption: 28 seconds without PIN, probably about 31 seconds with.
- OnePlus One (6 years old) running OTA9, no encryption: 35 seconds with password instead of PIN, probably about 32 seconds with a PIN instead.
- Nexus 5 (6.5 years old) running OTA 9, no encryption: 48 seconds
- Nexus 5 (6.5 years old) running LineageOS/MicroG Oreo, with "full disk" (actually only data partition) encryption: 66 seconds
The 3a is a mid-range phone. The Pixel and Iphone 7 were flagships of their day. The OpO and Nexus 5 were upper midrange phones.
I don't know if PureOS is running with any sort of encryption in this test. From the video it would appear that if they are, they are using some form of file-based encryption.
Hard to draw any firm conclusions except that the comparison was severely stacked to make the Librem five look as competitive as possible. It wouldn't sound as impressive to say that it beat a three year old Iphone by five seconds.
-
To be fair the specs of Librem 5 is not that great right? but that's still a bad comparison that shouldn't have happened
-
I am struggling to even see the relevance of this comparison. How often do users boot their iPhones? How often do Purism expect it will be necessary to boot the Librem 5?
-
And further more: You can boot Linux in 300ms. If you give it 1 second you also get a simple GUI...
so you have to look very closely here what you get for these 13 seconds... for example which services are running and which not... maybe android also preloads some apps during boot to speed up app launch? I don't know any details neither for the librem5 (maybe they have already started all the services like for calender/contacts, location... but I doubt it) nor for android (maybe @dobey can shed some light), just wanted to say that these figures can be misleading easily. -
@arubislander Well since you ask, I boot up every morning... but 12 seconds or a minute doesn't really make much difference in reality.
-
@hummlbach Not sure what you expect I could shed some light on here.
-
@kugiigi said in Librem 5 Phone, progress reports:
To be fair the specs of Librem 5 is not that great right? but that's still a bad comparison that shouldn't have happened
My thoughts exactly.
Not too bad a result, but absurd test. It would have been better to show that the boot time was comparable to a modern phone, which it is.Of note, the test appears to have been done by Bryan Lunduke, who can be a bit of a showman.
@arubislander said in Librem 5 Phone, progress reports:
I am struggling to even see the relevance of this comparison. How often do users boot their iPhones? How often do Purism expect it will be necessary to boot the Librem 5?
I tend to agree with you and @3arn0wl about the irrelevance. After all, it's not like it's a ten minute server boot either way. Still though, I do appreciate the fast reboots of the Iphone on those rare occasions when I have to do it, and I'm looking forward to the same on the Pixel 3a when I get around to degoogling and microgifying it. It also may matter to some for other reasons:
Notwithstanding the presence of the kill switches, the set of users to whom the Librem 5 appeals might have significant overlap with the set of users who prefer to keep a phone turned off when not in use. From what we have seen so far of the user experience and what we can expect of the app ecosystem at launch, those making heavy use of existing platforms may chafe at the compromises of Phosh. "Leave the phone off most of the time" users already making minimal use of a smartphone might get by just fine, and those users will be booting a lot.
Also, do we know if the phone version of PureOS is using a ro root like Ubuntu Touch and Android? If it instead uses the rw root of a typical Debian system, then perhaps it will also see typical Debian frequent kernel increments and need to be rebooted more often.
@hummlbach said in Librem 5 Phone, progress reports:
so you have to look very closely here what you get for these 13 seconds... for example which services are running and which not... just wanted to say that these figures can be misleading easily.
Very true. While boot time is slightly faster than a three-year-old Iphone or a contemporary midrange Android (and I suspect comparable to a current Iphone or a current Android flagship), given what we know so far of the rather minimal environment of PureOS/Phosh, it seems improbable that it's doing as much in that boot time.
Still, going back to what @kugiigi said, this is on hardware that's quite weak by today's standards.
-
@trainailleur also note that the phone in question is branded Verizon so that would add lots of seconds to the boot time, in this specific case they could at least use a debranded phone ahhh...
The comparison has no sense.
And all of that promoted on the official website ahhh... -
Do they want to make boot time a selling point ? However, there should not have been any blurring in theses comparisons. It looks a bit like an attempt to orientate the thought... And yet i wish the best for Librem 5.
-
@maxinova2001 said in Librem 5 Phone, progress reports:
@trainailleur also note that the phone in question is branded Verizon so that would add lots of seconds to the boot time, in this specific case they could at least use a debranded phone ahhh...
Exactly.
And all of that promoted on the official website ahhh...
Yes, I found that surprising too. When I saw who wrote/filmed it, I wasn't surprised the test was so slanted, but I was even more surprised Purism had it on their website. Lunduke can be entertaining, but he is deliberately sensational and the credibility of his work is often questionable.
-
@trainailleur
It is on the official website because Bryan Lunduke is director of marketing at Purism.🇦🇼 🇳🇱 🇺🇸 🇪🇸
Happily running Ubuntu Touch
Google Pixel 3a (20.04 DEV)
JingPad (20.04 DEV)
Meizu Pro 5 (16.04 DEV) -
@arubislander the interesting thing is that he says that on https://www.linkedin.com/in/bryanlunduke but he isn't listed on https://puri.sm/about/board/ nor https://puri.sm/about/team/ Do you know why?
-
@advocatux Well, I wasn't informed
. But the reason that comes to mind is the he is neither on the board of directors, nor, judging from the site, on the core team... 
-
@arubislander ah, I think that the reason is that he started working at Purism just some days ago (May) and those pages have not been updated yet (?)
-
@advocatux While you are probably correct, I like my reasoning more...
