221–230 of 235 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't be so sure about Go. Anway, I found certain remarks somewhat irritating in this respect. I'm happy if it turns out I misunderstood something.
Go is listed as a language https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/development#languages
>Fuchsia aims to provide drivers with a binary-stable interface. In the future, drivers compiled for one version of Fuchsia will continue to work in future versions of Fuchsia without needing to be modified or even recompiled. This approach means that Fuchsia devices will be able to update to newer versions of Fuchsia seamlessly while keeping their existing drivers. This is a massive step back for open source. The fa…
I think your take on this is very wrong. An open source driver written once will work for all future versions of Fuschia. Right? That reduces the effort for open source developers enormously. Most security flaws come in above the driver level. Right? Being able to update the OS, despite the hardware manufacturer's laziness , is a huge boon for everyone. Fuschia is open source. Drivers written for one Fuschia (say, th…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Linux Foundation has a misleading name: it's essentially the Megacorporations Linux User Group. It wants whatever its member companies want. It does not really want to promote Linux or, say, enforce the GPL.
I agree with what you said, however what is even more adding to the confusion is that the Linux Foundation is Linus Torvalds' employer...
If I was Linus, I might also avoid raising a stink because the Linux foundation does a few things that need to be done, and the damage it is doing might be less bad than what happens after discrediting it.
It's been 4 years and it's still being developed? Apparently android v1/v2 was released about 1 year later after the first iPhone. It doesn't seem so easy to make a new OS/kernel. The linux kernel is not perfect, but at least it works well, it's mature, and developers know how to work on it.
I'd say they learned a lot from Android, the use cases and problems arising from supporting such a giant project on so many different devices (and non cooperating vendors). So it's not a surprise they're taking their time. I imagine there must have been a long and in-depth analysis at Google of Android and other operating systems before Fuchsia came to be, considering the money they're going to spending on it.
AFAIK Android was a quick hack and the ecosystem, if you know anything about it, you know it's a mess.
I was trying to find out from that site who's behind this and if that information is in there it must be really well hidden. Apart from other concerns, I'm not going to touch an OS from a group that doesn't clearly state who they are.
It's GOOG's GPL-less replacement for the Linux kernel, made so they can control the phones even more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think your take on this is very wrong. An open source driver written once will work for all future versions of Fuschia. Right? That reduces the effort for open source developers enormously. Most security flaws come in above the driver level. Right? Being able to update the OS, despite the hardware manufacturer's laziness , is a huge boon for everyone. Fuschia is open source. Drivers written for one Fuschia (say, th…
As a developer of a Fuchsia fork, I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, not all components are opensource ATM, (like the khadas VIM2 bootloader), but at least they are available.
I'd love to see a list of the problems you have with Fuschia or how Fuschia is being managed. Maybe as a new top-level post on HN?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think a nice example that could help clarify the situation is the CLA that Canonical uses; if I remember correctly they reserve to themselves the right to change the license of community contributions.
Looking at the Canonical CLA [1], you're right that it allows Canonical the right to relicense contributions under any other license: > 2.3 Outbound License > Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. [...] However, please note that my origi…
It was an example of a case where a CLA could have caused what was imputed by the original comment.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's GOOG's GPL-less replacement for the Linux kernel, made so they can control the phones even more.
Do you actually believe a company such as Google would constrain themselves with GPL (which is pretty much _socialism_) on a product that will possibly bring hundreds of billions in revenue?
And it's still logical of me to criticise the idea on principle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looking at the Canonical CLA [1], you're right that it allows Canonical the right to relicense contributions under any other license: > 2.3 Outbound License > Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. [...] However, please note that my origi…
It was not directly a reply to that case, it was meant to say that even if the license was GPL so that a proprietary fork was forbidden, a CLA could make it so that only the owner of the project is allowed to use your contributions as proprietary. It was an example of a case where a CLA could have caused what was imputed by the original comment.