Put Fuchsia and Android green on a color wheel. I dare you.
Heh. As a young kid, "pink and green" was how I'd describe how I felt to my parents when I was nauseous.
(they still 'bring that up' 40+ yrs later)
Fuchsia, a new operating system
61–70 of 175 posts
Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system
#62Well, if it takes off, it'll have the side-effect of getting more people to be able to spell 'Fuchsia' correctly...
Easy to remember if you know that fuchsia is named after a German botanist by the name of Leonhart Fuchs. (Lionheart Fox, how badass is that name?)
It's a hell of a lot classier than the mnemonic I currently use: "trying to spell fuchsia really 'fucks ya'"...
Thanks!
Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem isn't marketing. It's culture. While there are many benefits to free and open source software it encourages a take-it-or-leave-it attitude where software is released that's user unfriendly, full of bugs, and has little to no documentation. If someone dare ask about a problem they are having, often the closest thing to help they receive is "Why didn't you just use [esoteric Linux command]? Are you an idiot…
Maybe the cultural problem is actually that people like you expect open source projects to be like companies except that you don't have to give them money? Most open source code is written by someone because they want it and then they release it so others can see the code. Of course there's a take-it-or-leave-it attitude... why would they care if you take it? They don't get anything if you take it, you taking it was…
That's a huge problem. Some times we end up shitty solutions to problems because the people who wrote the software do not care to fix its bugs and there's a lack of investment in creating better solutions because the free, open source solutions exist. Just look at the state of version control software.
Other times we end up with a good, expensive commercial product and a free, crappy open source product with a huge gulf in quality and price between. Examples: Photoshop and GIMP, MS Office and OpenOffice.
Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system
#64Would someone most kindly provide a VM?
It's fairly easy to build one on Mac and Linux.
Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system
#65Would someone most kindly provide a VM?
It's fairly easy to build one on Mac and Linux.
Not sure why I'm being down voted here.
Its nontrivial to build it. I see the developers saying it's got a beautiful UX, and I'd love to play around with it, but Not everyone can devote as much time.
Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
There doesn't seem to be much point to that benchmark clause. If it's GPL the source is effectively mine to do what I like. I could make a trivial change to the source (or not perhaps), and call the result a FreeRTOS derivative and publish my derivative's benchmarks.
No, you couldn't because it's not GPL. It's a license that is nearly identical to the GPL, but slightly different. I think that added restriction actually makes it GPL incompatible, and disqualifies it from being an actual open source license.
I guess it depends on how you interpret this clause:
> Linking FreeRTOS with other modules is making a combined work based on FreeRTOS. Thus, the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License V2 cover the whole combination.
Does this mean the combination (which could be a trivial combination) can be licensed under the pure GPLv2, or is it just an explanation of the consequences of "combined work", and "the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public License V2" is actually intended to mean the modified version thereof?
Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system
#67> It is good alternative to commercial offerings like FreeRTOS [1] FreeRTOS is GPL with an exception for static linking making it effectively free if you make no modifications. There is, however, an onerous clause prohibiting the publication of comparative benchmarks. [2] [1] https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/HEAD/docs/mg_and_... [2] http://www.freertos.org/license.txt
> FreeRTOS is GPL with an exception for static linking making it effectively free if you make no modifications. There is, however, an onerous clause prohibiting the publication of comparative benchmarks. [2]
This is why I don't like the GPLv2 and wish more people would switch to the GPLv3. Section 6 of the GPLv2 implies that you can remove the restrictions you mentioned from the license, but section 7 and 10 of the GPLv3 make it clear that such restrictions would not be binding and could be removed by recipients of the software.
Also, "effectively free if you make no changes" doesn't make sense -- free software requires you to have the freedom to make changes to the software.
But as far as I can see, clause 2 is very broad (what is a "competitive purpose"). I consider that to be an "additional restriction" under section 6 and as per the license terms they've given us, I'm allowed to ignore that restriction. Otherwise they've modified the license and must not call it the GPL. In addition, if that term is actually binding it would not classify in my book as free software.
Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
There doesn't seem to be much point to that benchmark clause. If it's GPL the source is effectively mine to do what I like. I could make a trivial change to the source (or not perhaps), and call the result a FreeRTOS derivative and publish my derivative's benchmarks.
No, you couldn't because it's not GPL. It's a license that is nearly identical to the GPL, but slightly different. I think that added restriction actually makes it GPL incompatible, and disqualifies it from being an actual open source license.
> No, you couldn't because it's not GPL. It's a license that is nearly identical to the GPL, but slightly different.
Then they actually are not allowed to call it the "GNU General Public License" (or in fact, they are not allowed to modify the license terms). It's the first condition in the license text of the GPL, I'm surprised their lawyers didn't notice that little chestnut.
Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system
#69>> It seems like the intention is to use Flutter [1] as the UI layer.
Flutter already ready for use? If Flutter is not ready for use then how it can be used?
Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system
#70Some useful bits from IRC: [16:21] Why's it public (mirrored to GitHub even) but not announced or even documented what it's for? [16:22] ocdtrekkie_web: the decision was made to build it open source, so might as well start there from the beginning [16:22] ocdtrekkie_web: things will eventually be public, documented and announced, just not yet [16:23] currently booting reasonably well on broadwell and skylake NUCs and…
Hmm, Travis Geiselbrecht of NewOS, Danger and BeOS fame and Brian Swetland of BeOS fame as well? Interesting.
I was just think of the BeOS connections too.. very interesting indeed.