2 ms·

Isn't Google (allegedly) already doing this with Fuchsia?

• Natsu 5y ago
  They've done their own version of a lot of things, but then have open sourced what they can to grow the base of people familiar with that tech who can make things with it. I mean, on some level you can try to make your own custom TempleOS for everything, but that only gets you (possibly) reduced scrutiny and hiring issues simply because nobody knows how to use it. But if you're already a target, the reduced scrutiny is probably a bad thing since the good guys won't point out the bugs to get them fixed.
• Dinux 5y ago
  Fuchsia isn't Unix afaik
  • lupire 5y ago
    "Fuchsia implements some parts of Posix, but omits large parts of the Posix model." -- fuchsia.dev
    • spankalee 5y ago
      There is an RFC for full Linux binary compatibility: https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/contribute/governance/rfcs/0082_starnix https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/contribute/governance/rfcs/0...
  • PeterisP 5y ago
    IMHO that's kind of the point; to get a substantially different security posture, it's not sufficient to just rewrite the code but it's also necessary to change the design, and that would not be fully Unix anymore. It would not be enough to provide new, more secure options; and not enough to make them the default - to actually reduce the attack surface, you'd want to remove the nonsecure options, if required, at the cost of compatibility.