4 ms·
> That can be seen as much as a downside as an upside, because it makes life a lot easier for hardware manufacturers to ship more binary blobs Which is essenti
by fragileone 5y ago
> That can be seen as much as a downside as an upside, because it makes life a lot easier for hardware manufacturers to ship more binary blobs
Which is essentially the point of this approach for Google, to exert greater control.
- hutzlibu 5y agoOr just convinience. When the goal is, to support a broad range of devices - and the vast majority of hardware manufactors are not into open hardware - it is probably easier, to convince them of supporting Fuchsia by writing firmware and drivers - if they do not have to deal with the GPL and the kernel driver integration, like it is the case with linux. They just write their driver once against a stable API. That makes things easier. And google are not driven by free software ideals - but rather buisness pragmatism. But I don't see this design choice as an attack on free software.
- ac29 5y agoI dont know about that. The Linux/GPL model has had mixed success in the embedded space - most vendors still ship their code as binary blobs making it difficult or impossible to update the LInux kernel, which has security and other implications. But, there have been some vendors embracing the open source model to some extent at least, and a lot of third party work in supporting upstream kernel development of drivers. I dont think it would be fair to call Fuchsia a step backwards in this respect - vendors that ship closed source binaries for Fuchsia are almost certainly shipping closed source binaries for Linux as well.