At the risk of wanting this to be something that it's not - what's the reasoning behind not targeting Precursor towards running (embedded) Linux? With a little more RAM it seems like the specs would make it a great fit for Linux, which might allow for a broader ecosystem of use cases?
Is there something I'm missing that means developing a new OS (https://github.com/betrusted-io/xous-core/) works better for Precursor? Keen to understand the rationale, cause I think I'm probably missing something here!
edit: There's a good explanation on the CrowdSupply page - seems like it's in order to make it a more secure platform:
> Simplicity addresses the reality of only having 24 hours in a day. Even though the full source code for the Linux kernel and Firefox is published, nobody has the time to personally review every release for potential security problems; we simply trust that others have done a good job, because we have no other choice. Precursor rolls the clock back to the early 2000’s, when mobile computers were powerful enough to be useful for single tasks, while simple enough that individuals or small teams could build them from scratch. But don’t worry, despite its simplicity, Precursor’s computational capability exceeds that of the Palm Pilot series. It’s more on par with a Nintendo DS: sufficient for core security tasks such as authentication, instant messaging, crypto wallets, and even end-to-end encrypted voice calls.
This is something that worries me about this project. Is the focus more on hackability, or security/inspectability? The messaging is unclear, and this decision looks like a big sacrifice of the former for the latter. I'd maybe be interested in this device but only for the purposes of DIY messing around, I'm nowhere near so worried about security I wouldn't trust the linux kernel.
This project is definitely security-first. That being said, we're defining "hackability" as "empowerment to hack". For example, this is one of the few platforms where you can hack the CPU itself by adding new instructions to it.
If you flash Linux onto a device like this, the constant stream of discovered and fixed Linux security holes is bound to eventually bite you without frequent & robust OTA update regimen that requires staffing. It's not really a "jury's still out" type of question: https://www.cvedetails.com/product/47/Linux-Linux-Kernel.htm...
(Not that it's an easy with a simpler software stack either of course but you can have a fighting chance at least)
Is there something I'm missing that means developing a new OS (https://github.com/betrusted-io/xous-core/) works better for Precursor? Keen to understand the rationale, cause I think I'm probably missing something here!
edit: There's a good explanation on the CrowdSupply page - seems like it's in order to make it a more secure platform:
> Simplicity addresses the reality of only having 24 hours in a day. Even though the full source code for the Linux kernel and Firefox is published, nobody has the time to personally review every release for potential security problems; we simply trust that others have done a good job, because we have no other choice. Precursor rolls the clock back to the early 2000’s, when mobile computers were powerful enough to be useful for single tasks, while simple enough that individuals or small teams could build them from scratch. But don’t worry, despite its simplicity, Precursor’s computational capability exceeds that of the Palm Pilot series. It’s more on par with a Nintendo DS: sufficient for core security tasks such as authentication, instant messaging, crypto wallets, and even end-to-end encrypted voice calls.