91–100 of 172 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe my phone runs a 64bit ARM with eight 2.3ghz cores and has the same amount of ram as the base Acer model?
The i5 has 2 cores, different memory bus setup, cache setup, etc. If you're saying it has the same rough level of horsepower, that makes sense. Not at all the same architecture though.
:)
Sounds kind of like the rebirth of plan9
Maybe they can get that artist to do a mascot for Fuchsia.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sends a positive signal to a group of people who really don't matter - the very small minority of users who like open source and aren't already placated by AOSP existing - but a negative one to people who do - their vendors. Fuschia is designed so that driver sources don't need to be available, and we can still upgrade the kernel. This is better than doing exactly the same thing as before which didn't work . It so…
Let me restate that: "GPLing Fuschia sends a negative signal to vendors that don't want to release the source for their drivers." That is fine. Any hardware that is released should come with full source code for its drivers. Vendors that are unwilling to comply, should not be releasing hardware. Since it would be infeasible and restrictive to legally enforce, we can just forbid them to use our popular open source ker…
This is naive and you know it. In reality, what would happen is 3-4 years from now, once the lawsuit has run its course, maybe vendors would need to publicize their binary sources, but given that much time they might just develop in house solutions.
So I'm not clear what the puropse of fuchsia is. I understand it's an os which may replace android or chomeos but why the move away from linux based systems? Both are open source platforms.
>open source platforms Part of the motivation is certainly to get away from the GPL requirements of using Linux, so that Google and its partners can release products to users that have proprietary modifications to the kernel, without giving those same users access to the source code of the kernel. That would of course be a disaster for user autonomy and freedom, but why should Google care about that... Edit: This isn…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then why is it not licensed under the GPL, like Linux?
The real answer is because the people involved believe the licenses they are using are even more free. IE they do not subscribe to the FSF's ideology. It's their software, so they get to choose. It's like arguing NetBSD should use the GPL license. As for why it generally doesn't make sense to use the GPL for this: Even the FSF doesn't think GPLv2 is the right license for linux? GPL'ing linux hasn't prevented any of t…
It hasn't eliminated the problem, but it has worked in some cases to the benfit of the vendors and customers.
For example the open source Wifi router community sprung up from one such effort :
So I'm not clear what the puropse of fuchsia is. I understand it's an os which may replace android or chomeos but why the move away from linux based systems? Both are open source platforms.
Linux is a disaster security-wise (look at how massive things like grsecurity are) and that won't change anytime soon. Android has inherited all of that and it's by far the shittiest mobile OS out there in terms of how easy it is to own. It makes sense that Google would like to move away from Linux given how important mobile security is and will become in the future. They certainly have the resources to get it right,…
Then why don't you try? Google has $200,000 USD waiting for you to exploit a fully patched Pixel. Or are you too rich to make it worth your while? If you're going to say something that silly at least have the technical prowess to walk the talk.
So I'm not clear what the puropse of fuchsia is. I understand it's an os which may replace android or chomeos but why the move away from linux based systems? Both are open source platforms.
Patches for these largest features weren't accepted into mailine - they're not really fully fit for a general-purpose kernel and Google's and Linux kernel teams differ in opinions if they're even required and how they should be implemented. As such, it probably makes sense for Google to use their own, fully internally developed, kernel which is built from ground up to handle IPC, security and mobile chips in the way Android/ChromeOS expect it to.
My take is that Fuchsia is Google's attempt to unify their mobile ecosystem under one proprietary OS like Apple does with iOS (yes, yes I hear you, "But Darwin is OSS..." try making that into iOS though...): which is a good move for Google.
fuchsia and all it's components are licensed under BSD 3 clause, MIT, Apache 2.0