Fuchsia overview

"Easily"? Some things can only be shipped as binary blobs. For example, you won't get open source audio drivers that support patent-encumbered codecs like Dolby Atmos.

Windows has a stable binary ABI which means that my drivers don't go stale when Microsoft pushes out a minor rev to the NT kernel. Windows does its updates and my peripherals [mostly] work just fine.

everything in userspace == high security. programs, software won't clash like they do on *nix, windows due to isolation. same benefits of snaps | flatpaks. but now you've a microkernel which is 1. fast 2. easy to patch 3. stable ABI something Linux doesn't have.

I've responded to the CLA / licensing issues in a separate sibling comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365535); this comment is to respond to the rest of your post as it's a separate topic that's important in its own right.

> The OP makes the point that Google will find a way to use public contributions for Google’s own profit.

That's an opinion on motivations, not a statement of fact, so I am not agreeing or disagreeing with that. My comment was only about CLAs and open-source licensing, and what each of them enables you to do (or not) with someone else's source code, and how your contributions may be used by others after you submit them, not a statement or response to their opinion.

> The sheer size of the response above, let alone content, is what creates the tone of “talking past the customer” which is what has alienated so many people from Google. The problem I’ve repeatedly experienced in Google open source and as a Google Cloud customer (contract with Google FDEs on-site) is that Googlers just don’t listen. You can’t trample the customer with your own narrative no matter how correct and elegant it is.

I'm sorry you've had negative experiences in the past, and I'm sorry to read that my response on the distinction between CLA & open-source licenses came across as not listening or talking past the customer — that was not the intent at all.

If you're open to it, I'm happy to chat with you separately (you can easily find me on Twitter or LinkedIn and send me a message) whether you want to discuss this topic, or your other experiences with Google open-source projects, or Google Cloud, and I can try to help, or just listen. If not, that's fine, no worries.

> You can disagree, but you can’t deny the feelings of others. It just doesn’t work that way.

I'm sorry that came across as not listening; my comment was only to clarify the notion of CLAs and how they relate to open-source licenses, without delving into business goals and future roadmaps (which I have no visibility into, nor control of, in this case).

Everyone is entitled to their opinions or feelings on how a company might or might not use open-source software or their motivations for open-sourcing (or not) of a project, and I'm not here to debate, explain or defend any company's decision in that regard. Again, my comment was limited to the scope of what a CLA brings to an open-source license of a project.

Apart from the unfortunate sounding name, for this to be relevant on android phones or watches, it needs to simply work with the 2+ million apps out there. Just posix compatibility is insufficient - apps rely on Linux implementation behavior.

I wouldn't say Linux has better hardware support than Windows. When your hardware is properly recognized and supported by Linux than yeah, I do feel it operates much better, more stable and have more knobs. However, not all hardware works at all.

For example, as of now, the hardware sensors on my x590 board are not recognized.

LED control is not a thing, even on most old/established boards (you can argue if LEDs are nice or ugly, but if they are there I want to control them).

Even enterpriseish devices, like Lenovo's X1 laptops, that are CERTIFIED by both Red Hat and Ubuntu, have limited hardware support at best. Fingerprint scanners on 3 year old models are still not recognized, and there seems to be zero will from synaptic to ever support it. Sleep states were terrible for a long long time, finally fixed in a fashion that requires different firmware for optimal sleep performance on Windows or another one for Linux.

So no, my experience is that still hardware vendors are not giving me as a Linux user the support and value for the good money I pay for their products. Obviously they don't deliver the expected level of support any reasonable consumer would expect, and most probably won't deliver it in the future either, since they get away with it so easily.