“Proof” that Fuchsia will replace Linux for Google
techspecs.blog
techspecs.blog
> @chrismckillop: Slow news week? http://www.cnet.com/videos/googles-mysterious-new-project-fu... … #Fuchsia
> @gavkar: @chrismckillop heard Travis was involved. Is the purple in pink + purple the purple we know?
> @chrismckillop: @gavkar Yes and Yes (in spirit). The Pink part is also a reference to the Taligent project. You should come help. :)
Here's the URL without the disqus tracker: https://twitter.com/chrismckillop/status/765438910658772992
If this ever happens, it would probably be an extremely slow, well thought out (hopefully), well documented (also hopefully) rollout.
Besides I'm sure a lot of developers wouldn't be happy that their domain knowledge just went flying through the window. Even if that is a risk inherent in the job.
Apple supports iOS on two platforms (32-bit and 64-bit A-series). Microsoft who has been in the OS business much longer than than Google only have resources to support Windows 10 Mobile on a handful of carefully chosen Qualcomm chips.
So basically the only way this could work is if Google would create their own SoC and mandate Android vendors to only use that SoC. I don't think Samsung would like that too much.
Google has not collaborated with the Linux community.
OTOH, why is Google developing the Fuchsia? It is clearly more than a hobby project.
But popping up with a completely new platform API without any backwards compatibility would be very bold and risky. There would have to be a good compatibility story there.
Also there is talk in the article about a POSIX layer. Now that's easier said than done. But it is Google we are talking about so they certainly have the manpower and resources to try.
Samsung has its Tizen OS (previously Bada) for 6 years as alternative ready. If anything happens with Android that Samsung doesn't like the could ship new devices simply with Tizen and kiss Google good bye. It allowed them to get better agreements. I wonder why Samsung waited that long, they had a near monopoly around 2012 with Android devices, now several new chinese players entered the market.
Samsung TV and Gear, and some phones run already on Tizen and some older on Bada. (Tizen is Linux based, it's history is complex and some involvement was also from Intel and Nokia (before the MSFT inside job)).
If I had to choose between Android+Fuchsia and Tizen+Linux I might as well give Tizen a try. I am very impressed by their new watch, which IIRC runs Tizen.
And btw: Tizen is also based on Linux. You don't build that easy a Kernel replacement.
And then I read the article and see that it is a bunch of speculation and making inferences from puns.
The new kernel is MIT/BSD... Welcome to Tivoization all over again.
I get the need for a better kernel, the gnu+linux kernel is out of control at over 14mil+loc, but why not put that effort into making a minix3 style microkernel that's gpl, or fix hurd?
I wish people understood the dangers of BSD style licenses, I hope this fails, the last thing we need is another proprietary OS on a device they built on the backs of the FOSS community but doesn't give back in a meaningful way.
We don't need another OSX, or android apps on your PC, we need someone with the money and will to fix the future of GNU!
If you want this fixed, get someone with the money and the will to end the copyrightability of software. Or find a different solution to let users have control over their computing even when they don't have control over the OS - there's no fundamental reason why this should require legal solutions, as opposed to, say, cryptographic ones.
This means all the work of the OSS community is 'free' for corporations to take.
Note: this is clearly sarcasm, and it pains me that I need to put this here, but some won't get it.
In any case, even AGPL does not require you to create a pull request, you only have to make the source available to your users, i.e. everyone who connects to your patched server.
This wouldn't retroactively change already released code however.
If Google builds this kernel from the ground up and chooses to license it MIT, how is any binary derived from that "built on the backs of the FOSS community?"
There's nothing to keep, Android already doesn't use the GNU userland. They built their own libc (bionic) and the commands are all using busybox, IIRC.
1) Linux doesn't prevent tivoization, either; it uses the GPLv2, whereas anti-tivoization language was introduced in the GPLv3.
2) If Google wanted to make this proprietary, they could've made this proprietary. Why bother releasing it under an absurdly-permissive license if they wanted it to be proprietary?
"I wish people understood the dangers of BSD style licenses"
I wish people understood the dangers of copyleft licenses, particularly strict ones. The same exact rules preventing reuse in proprietary products apply to other FOSS projects as well. The GPL's "compatibility" with other FOSS licenses is a one-way street.
BSD-style licenses are literally as free as you can get (short of a license that's functionally equivalent to a public domain dedication). Any other license adds restrictions and reduces freedoms. Absolutely nothing about this project indicates "proprietary"; the license choice indicates the exact opposite.