> I am not sure why there's so much negativity around Fuchsia.
Easy: this is not the future we want. We don’t trust google. We don’t want an OS designed to further their goal of total control and surveillance capitalism.
It’s hilarious. I’ve been around long enough to remember people not trusting IBM and heralding Microsoft as the underdog with bright principles. Then it became Google being the white prince on a unicorn telling Micro$oft to eff off. For about a decade now we’re collectively in Not Trusting Google mode.
“It’s all just a little bit of history repeatin’.”
But given that's open source shouldn't it be a bit better? If I don't agree with some parts of the OS I can fork the project and remove some stuff. Given that's open source you don't have to fully trust Google, you can check things yourself. I know I'm probably bring native, but I am hoping to see some changes in the space.
MIT means it's only open source for as long as Google feels like it should be (and only the parts they want to keep open). Older versions will still be around to fork from, but maintaining a fork of an OS is a pretty large task.
Android is also open source, and is notably very difficult to simply fork and do your own thing and then actually use the thing, unless you happen to be a handset maker.
My OS entirely driven by Google? No thanks, they're making enough of a mess of the web (and Android lately, TBF).
But that is a matter of licensing, not design (which I underdtand to be things like the capability system or the micro kernel). I'd prefer a Copyleft license too, but 1. it is not a suprise that Google is not interested in that 2. even with Android they are able to restrict the user.
“It’s all just a little bit of history repeatin’.”