Google's Fuchsia Open-Source OS To Begin Accepting Community Contributions

[dev_null]

I see the future in minds of google managers: only browser in the world, only OS, only company ... only planet

[Raploz]

Perfect! I like Linux but it's just not a good fit for phones. The lack of updates on Android is a real issue. If they manage to come up with a system that can be updated independently of OEMs it will be a big win for all users.

[Jabberwocky]

How is it closed source? It's 3-clause BSD.

Take VSCode for example. The source is licensed under "MIT License". If you try to compile it yourself you will find that many addons stop working like remote development. Missing out on productivity and convenience moves many will move back to the proprietary versions with built in telemetry/spyware. Here's an issue for it https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-...se/issues/1925 It's a clever way of making money out of an semi-open-source-program. I'm okay with them doing that, but they should not be barging about being open source when they are only using it for their own agenda.

By contributing to projects that seem open source then you could still be contributing to a proprietary/commercial program like VSCode. I don't want to start a flame war, but this is one of the reasons why people are so passionate about GPL and similar. Personally I think it's okay as long as you are aware that you are improving a semi-open commercial product without getting paid.

That said, VSCode is just an tool and there are alternatives. I will still use proprietary applications, but when it comes to hardware or operating system I try to stick to something that is open source, follows open development methods and is not owned by a company with a monopoly or one with investors that demand high ROIs.

I don't know if Fuchsia will follow the same broken path as Android or VSCode, but just being licensed as 3-clause BSD to the public would not prevent it from following that path. If you give up your rights on your code the entity owning it can decide to make it or parts of it proprietary without asking you or paying you.

[stalkerg]

Perfect! I like Linux but it's just not a good fit for phones. The lack of updates on Android is a real issue. If they manage to come up with a system that can be updated independently of OEMs it will be a big win for all users.

it's not a Linux issue, it's just OEMs companies don't want to invest into drivers developers, also Android OEMs interesting selling new devices only and not support older (just because they not control Google Play store and ad for long term income).
All this can be changed if Google change business model but... you know. )

[hsci]

They want total control to reimagine Linux from the ground up, even if that means reinventing the wheel.

I'm afraid yes. Hopefully Google doesn't gain support from the community or manufactures. We all learned that Google is not the good guy, neither Microsoft, Apple or Amazon. All of them want money and use vendor lock-ins to get more.

What we have seen is, that Android largely ships with closed source drivers, closed source addon UIs, closed source Google Apps and most prominently closed source PlayServices. The PlayServices are the big lever of Google for the usual vendor lock-in in combination using and upload all data onto their servers. Most people don't recognize, that Google is working hard pushing out GPL3 and all GNU Userland. That's why Android is not Linux (GNU/Linux) but Google/Linux. I don't say that Googles technology is unreliable. But using technology and devices while they are actually harmful is bad.

A major advantage of Fuchsia is better support for closed source drivers? No thanks
I remember that the original Android founder left the company, because Google failed to require open drivers.

Linux improves constantly, especially file handling and control groups recently. A interesting point is that Linux is stubborn about open drivers. And they succeed! We have nowadays great drivers from Intel, Atheros and especially AMD. The only big company refusing to collaborate is Nvidia. It is good that major technology companies and small ones support GNU and Linux and that no company is lonely in charge like Google for Android.

[Zico]

1st. Free software has never been in the corporate interest.

2nd. Google, Redhat, etc. have many GPL-friendly products. In the end, everything goes to $$. Of course, These Corporations make a significant contribution to the development of Linux, but also destructive. Google may have supported the development of an existing Linux system, but the $$ philosophy won…

3rd. I say NO to corporate products, I say YES for donations to free software and their developers.

[bug77]

So many languages and they're only just starting!

I doubt it's all OS, though. There's usually a hefty amount of tooling involved as well.
Though I'm not opposed at all to using the right tool for the job.

[chocolate]

a) This is "open source", permissively licensed software. No end product will carry original source code with it: everything in the hands of the user will be proprietary, closed source, with added telemetry/spyware. This is practically the Android development model invading kernel space. The result: a device that runs 100% on proprietary software. This is reason enough to throw any kind of s**t at this pathetic attempt.

b) This is made by the same autistic, malevolent, pathetic people behind Android that would "go out of their way to replace GPL software", according to their very own documentation (look it up). They are totally shameless about it.

c) The reason for (b) and (a) is that they actively encourage a bad development model on the device manufacturer's side. In the end, they don't care about end user rights, nor do they care about continued support. They want everything to sort of work on their OS so that they can sell more products with it preinstalled and consequently control more and more users via their proprietary stack.

d) Believing that this will let device manufacturers support the OS for longer, due to Fuchsia's old-fashioned "microkernel" nature, is completely idiotic. They don't have any incentive to do so now that they ship proprietary drivers with Linux and they won't have any incentive to do so in the future when they ship proprietary drivers for Fuchsia. No matter what Google says, manufacturers want to sell new devices continuously, and a good way to do so is to make their users feel stupid for not upgrading from an "old" device that is not receiving any updates. Proprietary drivers will support the device that ships with them, and nothing more: you won't be able to extract new proprietary drivers from a new device and expect them to work with an older device that has a similar SoC (i.e. an SoC in the same family). The rest of the OS will be upgradable, if Google keeps their promise, but security holes in drivers won't be patched. Hence, the situation will be exactly the same as it is now: you buy an Android smartphone that the community is supporting via the likes of LineageOS, you put a new ROM in it, Android itself gets a new major number, but the kernel and the drivers are still old.

e) Contributors (read: simps/slaves) give all rights to Google.

[curfew]

Well there are a few problems that Google is wanting to solve with Fuschia and from what I read here is the summary of them

1. A microkerrnel like design where proprietary drivers can sit in userspace. A lot of smartphone drivers (particularly Wi-Fi) are closed source and this has caused a lot of issues with Linux's GPL, i.e. because of this phones cannot independently update Linux kernel from the drivers.

GPL is a legal issue; kernel drivers are a technical matter. They are not related. If the drivers can be distributed with the kernel, then all issues with GPL have already been resolved in one way or another. The problem with kernel updates and drivers is likely an ABI problem. The drivers do not work with a newer kernel without recompilation, but closed-source drivers can only be compiled and distributed by the vendor, so Google has no power over that.

[curfew]

Take VSCode for example. The source is licensed under "MIT License". If you try to compile it yourself you will find that many addons stop working like remote development. Missing out on productivity and convenience moves many will move back to the proprietary versions with built in telemetry/spyware. Here's an issue for it https://github.com/microsoft/vscode-...se/issues/1925 It's a clever way of making money out of an semi-open-source-program. I'm okay with them doing that, but they should not be barging about being open source when they are only using it for their own agenda.

---

I don't know if Fuchsia will follow the same broken path as Android or VSCode, but just being licensed as 3-clause BSD to the public would not prevent it from following that path. If you give up your rights on your code the entity owning it can decide to make it or parts of it proprietary without asking you or paying you.

That's the problem: you are spreading FUD without slightest effort to investigate or backup your own claims first. We can safely disregard such claims as bullshit before you show us the evidence.