Live data from Hacker News

Fuchsia, a new operating system

github.com

171–175 of 175 posts

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#171
post #114
post #56

I'm calling it now: this is for augmented reality displays and similar. You want an RTOS for loss and predictable latency. And current GUIs aren't really suited to 3D environments you can walk around inside. This is Google's next Android, with a low latency rendering pipeline for the next generation of mobile devices.

Wouldn't that be nice after Google has affirmed again and again that Java would be the only supported way to develop Android apps, even though they keep Dart funded internally... Hey, I'll bite. Let's see.

Brian has been talking about how much he hates Java, its programming model, event loop, and everything else about it for many years, to anyone who will listen. Tastefully chosen for the augmented reality, self-organizing, and real-time use cases, the building blocks: UI, rendering, and app framework, all this looks like what he would create for the next generation of connected devices, of which phones are just a momentarily important example. Without Andy Rubin shoving a tech stack down his throat, I would add. I am somewhat disappointed by the DART choice, but overall really excited to see what this turns into. Great that it is open source for now, but this is Google, so you know where that will go.

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#172
post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what the FSF's opinion on it would be. Since they don't call it the GPL (I must've skipped over that part) then they might be in the clear -- though they're still modifying the license text by prepending restrictions to it that make the rest of the license text contradictory.

I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net.

I emailed RMS. His response was that he will investigate it. If it becomes a thing there'll probably be a post on HN describing what went down.

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#173

Earlier 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.

I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net. [so…

I emailed RMS. His response was that he will investigate it. If it becomes a thing there'll probably be a post on HN describing what went down.

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#174

Earlier 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 think that added restriction actually makes it GPL incompatible, and disqualifies it from being an actual open source license.

I can't see any way that this license could be considered Open Source by the Open Source Definition[1], as that benchmarking clause is almost certainly going to trip over the "no field of use restrictions" bit.

[1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#175
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net.

I emailed RMS. His response was that he will investigate it. If it becomes a thing there'll probably be a post on HN describing what went down.

Thanks for response cyphar, and thanks for taking an action. And glad to hear RMS reads email and even replies, I'd think one would need to chase FSF's legal advisers to bring up this matter.
Post reply on HN