It's also one of the few phones to have hardware baseband isolation - making you immune to IMSI catchers and other cellular-based attacks.

It's probably also the only "phone" that can't place phone calls.

Not sure why the downvotes, here - it’s incredibly valid that a phone of this price should be able to place a normal phone call - it also should’ve been a priority for the developers.

The down votes are because it can place and receive phone calls, there is just a bug that doesn't allow audio on the call. EDIT: according to someone below, that bug is fixed too.

In addition, the backers getting the phone now were explicitly told that the software isn't polished yet, and that they are getting beta hardware. The backers were offered also to be allowed to wait for a later batch if they wanted to.

It definitely is not ready to be a daily driver, don't get me wrong. But folks who wanted it early knew that.

That's absurdly pedantic. If it can't use audio during a phone call, then the device is incapable of making phone calls.

That's like arguing you have a functioning heart because it's connected to your veins but can't pump blood.

If you look at another reply, the bug was fixed already.

But to your original comment, I'd argue it's not. Saying it can't make phone calls implies there's a much more severe issue than it apparently was.

It's not fixed. What gives you the impression that it is? No update has been rolled out with a fix.

Please read the other reply to the comment. You'll see where I got the impression then.

Edit: it looks like the person also directly replied to another comment of yours, so I'll add that here:

" > and of course this "bug" hasn't been fixed

You can hear call audio if you use CI images since a few days ago already. Last rough edges are being sorted out right now before finally packaging it all into PureOS."

The "fix" hasn't been distributed out via an update. You can't expect consumers to go pull images off github. You can't call a problem "fixed" when the alleged "fix" hasn't even been distributed or tested by the public en mass.

It's still, quite plainly, ridiculous that they shipped a "phone" which could not (yet) make telephone calls. Even if they fixed the issue in a later software release, the fact remains that they shipped a product in an incomplete, partially unusable state.

Since you didn't read past the first paragraph, I'll repeat it here:

"In addition, the backers getting the phone now were explicitly told that the software isn't polished yet, and that they are getting beta hardware. The backers were offered also to be allowed to wait for a later batch if they wanted to."

Actually this is what they on their FAQ

> Q: If I receive the Librem 5 from one of the first batches, will I have a fully functional phone?

> A: Yes! Even the very earliest batches will be capable smartphone, including a modern web browser and core cell phone functionality.

https://puri.sm/posts/librem-5-batch-faq/

Also, you can already get call audio working if you get latest packages from git or CI.

Ohh good to know! I'm not in any hurry so I will just wait for the official updates.

This isn't hyperbole. The speaker used to not work during voice calls:

> The other [problem] is that call audio isn't routed to the speaker. I haven't personally hit this, I'm just using a data-only SIM and can't remember the last time I actually used a phone to make a voice call.

https://azdle.net/2019/11/comparing-apples-and-gnomes/

> first running 100% free software

That's false, the phone requires non-free software for things like the modem to work.

It does not; from the system perspective it's just a USB-on-M.2 peripheral that works perfectly well with free software such as Linux, libqmi, ModemManager, oFono or fsogsmd.

You don't usually say "printing requires non-free software" just because your USB printer runs some non-free firmware inside, even though it's technically true.

> You don't usually say

Some people (me as well) do. It is very frustrating that we have this legacy thing where any radio devices are ‘protected’ like this.

Sure, but most people don't and saying that without making sure they know what you mean is at best misleading.

Also, counting the modem as making the whole device non-free would require you to count plenty of other things as well, such as microSD cards, accelerometers, audio codecs, SIM cards, even USB-C cables, as all of those things (and more) contain non-free blobs inside. In my opinion it's not a useful stance to hold if you care about freedom - even FSF doesn't do that.

I agree with you but I think it is better that people realise this and then use the device as ‘as free as we can get without making me a hermit’ instead of just hiding it.

The point is - it is truly 100% free at the level that actually matters: the user controlled operating system. This is the point where I feel completely comfortable with calling it "100% free" without further explanation (especially when the last, and I think the only, smartphone to ever reach that level was GTA02 from 2008), just as I am completely comfortable with saying "I made this cake from scratch" without having invented a universe.

What purpose is there for being able to remove the cell modem?

If it's going to run a Broadcom/Qualcomm binary anyway to function, what do you really gain?

Someone who's concerned about this level of eavesdropping I would think shouldn't bother with cellular devices at all?

The only other way to do it is to have an SoC with the modem integrated on chip. The issue with that becomes that the firmware and usually drivers force a certain Linux version (my tablet is stick on Linux 3.10, my phone is on 4.19 and I'd be amazed if it was ever upgraded).

With this way, they can mainline the entire set up and not force non-free dependencies.