[spankalee]

Fuchsia is a much more secure and updatable platform. It'd be wonderful if there was a Pine-like for Fuchsia, especially if they can use open drivers.

[ocdtrekkie]

It will definitely be more secure, but probably drastically less open, since there won't be any GPL code underneath for people to demand copies of.

Fuchsia, once it reaches the level of polish required of proper Google products, will be as closed as iOS. And security will be the justification for it.

[spankalee]

The Fuchsia code itself is open, and while a vendor could make changes and not release them, a project like Pine wouldn't do that. That would indeed be a major motivation to use a Pine-like over other vendors.

[ocdtrekkie]

> The Fuchsia code itself is open

For now. It doesn't yet have all of the proprietary bits added in, nor has it been shipped to OEM devices using mobile device hardware. Most of the proprietary Google bits of Android are proprietary by choice, there's no way Google is going to be any more open with Fuchsia.

[CameronNemo]

Pine does not contribute device drivers, the SoC vendors and groups like Linaro&Collabora write them primarily.

Hopefully SoC vendors and IP vendors release the source for their device drivers.

[zepto]

Just like Darwin, the open source kernel of iOS…

[testific8]

pine64 and purism are lot smaller than qualcomm and the like. They don't have that type of leverage.

[testific8]

I disagree. Fuchsia will eliminate the need for the hardware vendor to supply open-source drivers. In this regard, it is a major step backwards in security and upgradability.

[goodpoint]

> Fuchsia is a much more secure

Secure from what? One of the major risks in the mobile phone threat model is surveillance carried by the vendor, the OEM and so on.

Closed source drivers, OS components and apps are themselves the attack vector.