Long-term (1-2 years or so), keep an eye on Fuchsia. Nobody yet knows what Google's intentions are with this project relative to Android (which has a staggering installed base, btw, and is going to stubbornly stick around like a slightly less terrible Windows Mobile 6); right now it's just a research project. But it can apparently scale from tiny IoT sensors to ARM phones to x86 PCs.
Also, downvoted to 0 is one downvote. Hardly worth getting upset over, there are plenty of people who downvote everything to try to move their post further up, and you're not going to get an explanation from them. All complaining will do is invite further down votes from people who don't like to see complaining.
The thing is that fixing security bugs in old Androids just isn't that hard. I'm not talking about making Samsung upgrade their Galaxy S3 (a five year old phone) to Nougat (which also isn't that hard, Cyanogenmod (before it was LineageOS) did it, and the hardest part (back porting kernel features) is done by a very small team IIRC), but fixing bugs shouldn't be so much work.
The issue is that there is almost zero benefit for Samsung to bother.
So how will Fuchsia help?
Maybe now Google will contractually obligate companies using Play services to upgrade for X years?
How long will X be?
Based on Google's own history, I doubt it's going to be longer than 2 years since "flagship release".
Now this made sense when you got free phones every two years, so must people just upgraded then (why not?) But now that you actually lay out $800 on a flagship phone, people are holding on too their phones for much longer (and there's not much of a reason to upgrade, unless you're playing heavy games, SGS3 is perfect).
But we may actually lose something: If Samsung/Qualcomm can close source their kernel, it's going to be tough to build your own "Fuchsia." So even if you're an expert and shop smartly, you'll still be at the mercy of your phone manufacturer (see Motorola and their promise).
I read a linked article on here recentlyish that made an interesting note about the impact of Google being an advertising company: Android is Google's effort to create a defense moat by blasting a 100-mile crater around their ad properties. They can't turn Android into Broadway or a popup factory, but they can carefully court the DoJ (who fired the antitrust case at Microsoft in the 90s) and creatively push the boundaries.
Looking at it that way, Google have little incentive to rock their own boat.
There's also some interesting ponderation to be had considering why Android BSP propagation/vendor branding works the way it does in light of the above. Absolute device control (aka a flagship device) is likely only an option for Google (and Microsoft, thinking about it!) because of the competition; in fact now I wonder how fine the line is that Apple's skating (although I imagine the competition is what keeps them going as well).
In any case, I see Fuchsia as Google's equivalent of Microsoft Singularity. I'm trying to figure out what kind of point they're making by developing it in the open; they've likely gone through a hundred similar initiatives internally, as did/have Microsoft. Although now I think about it, Google do seem to have some practical business/real-world targets to hit with this (IoT is the likeliest actual hit) so maybe they're just publicizing it for that reason.
Regarding the openness of the kernel, all I can do is hope like mad that the kernel generally stays open on production devices (in "end-user" mode), or that there's some sort of developer option (and hardware, if necessary) available. And I can only hope like mad that Google figured out and appreciate the massive value of an open device, and don't do anything monumentally stupid. Fuchsia has an open repository, at least, which is a very nice start.
Maybe not directly - my guess is that they want to get rid of the Linux kernel: the Linux driver model leaves Android upgrades held hostage by OEMs and SoC manufacturers who are incentivized against old phones getting OS upgrades (planned obsolescence).
With Fuchsia, Google has a clean slate and can choose to have 'write-once' drivers with a stable driver interface across kernel/version upgrades.
Writing once-off proprietary drivers for Linux is equally easy, no more, no less. Proprietary Linux drivers have the added downside of not supporting later kernel versions.
With mobile, as things are, you're guaranteed to have a bunch of proprietary drivers. With the Linux kernel, all the modules need to be the same version of the kernel because you can't guarantee that the interface hasn't changed. Contrast that with Windows, where the same driver file will install and work with a wide range of actual Windows kernel versions.
If Fuschia provides a stable driver interface, then it would mean that my 5-year-old phone doesn't need to also use a 5-year-old kernel to interface with its closed-source drivers. It'd be a big win, overall.
That seems like perfect being the enemy of better. The realistic options aren't "stick with current model of closed drivers locked to specific version of open kernel" and "force hardware manufacturers to produce open drivers". That second one isn't going to happen. The best you'll get is an open shim and a closed blob.
It's a retreat. It could have happened. The ground was ceded when closed source drivers were allowed to be willy-nilly linked into the kernel with impunity, a clear GPL violation.
The Free Software initiative requires bravery and confidence. The idea is that if you establish a large enough base of viral software, people will eventually have no choice but to become a part, or be put at great disadvantage. And it worked. Linux is everywhere. The only places it didn't work, are the places we were too cowardly to press the advantage.
Stallman was right. You cannot compromise. Once you start paying the Dane-geld, you'll never get rid of the Dane.
I'd agree if it wasn't Google we are talking about. With the Open Handset Alliance they certainly would have the power to force hardware manufactures to produce open drivers.
I agree that they'd have the power to do it. I don't think they have the motivation, though. It's a clear win for the customers, but a lot of work on their part that I don't think would translate directly to numbers on earnings reports.
> Nobody yet knows what Google's intentions are with this project relative to Android
Pretty sure one of the effects will be total inability to port Linux drivers to the platform in order to install different operating systems. Not saying that this is easy today, but still some degree of compatibility allows the creation of jailrooted environments.
A 100% OSS alternative to iOS and Android sadly won't be here anytime soon, surely not from the big players.
Fuchsia is not an answer to this question. It's exactly the same as Android. Android is technically open source as well.
Also, Fuchsia will never be an distribution or branded OS on it's own. It might replace the Linux kernel is some bigger operating systems. Could replace Linux in android or chrome but I doubt it'll be fully new standalone OS.
because quite frankly it's a change of kernel from linux god kernel to a mach type kernel, the android api on top does not change and in fact is the same android api
https://lwn.net/Articles/718267/ / https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14002386
EDIT: This just got downvoted to 0, unsure why...