Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google’s not-so-secret new OS

techspecs.blog

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 561 posts

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#271

Post by [deleted] »

throwawaydbfif wrote: post #131
cwp wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Give me a break. It's just as accurate to say "Dart is an open standard, Javascript is owned by Mozilla". There may be valid technical, pragmatic or moral reasons to prefer Javascript, but this is just FUD. (See http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecm... )

Really? Google's once rosy history with open source project isn't looking too friendly these days. And yeah ECMA is a totally open standard with committee members from all sorts of companies and backgrounds. Dart is not. I don't care if JS is slightly worse, as least I know that for now and the foreseeable future I won't be paying a google tax to use it. After the open source community "stole" mapreduce and hbase goo…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#272

Post by trollsonson »

linuxkerneldev wrote: post #219
sangnoir wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I seriously doubt the Linux kernel is anything but a minor contributor to Android's update problem The Linux kernel is at the very heart of Android's update problem - not because of "modularity" but because it lacks a stable ABI. Because of this, Android requires handset makers and SoC manufacturers like Qualcomm to provide updated drivers; these parties are perversely disincentivized to do so as they would rather…

> The Linux kernel is at the very heart of Android's update problem - not because of "modularity" but because it lacks a stable ABI. What are you referring to when you say the Linux kernel ABI is not stable? I ask because the A in ABI means application, and Linux has maintained a consistent ABI for decades. I have a suspicion that you're trying to suggest that in-kernel interfaces be kept rigid and unchanging to sati…

Of course, your comment goes ignored, and the "ABI" discussion continues as before :)

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#273

Post by fauigerzigerk »

michaelmrose wrote: post #249

It was unfortunately obvious that the writer had insufficient tech chops when use the phrase "a post-API programming model" But pressing on how somehow manages to blame the lack of updates to android phones on the modularity of the Linux kernel. The joke of course being that linux is monolithic and googles new OS is a microkernel ergo more modular. The quote is "...however. I also have to imagine the Android update p…

>The only way they can get more of your money is to sell you a new phone which they hope to do between 1-2 years from now.

Right, but they will never get my money if they don't deliver timely OS updates for the old model.

You're right of course that this issue has absolutely zero to do with Linux.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#274

Post by fuck_google »

nostrademons wrote: post #246
resoluteteeth wrote: post #12

Is this an actual plan of Google as a company, or is this some sort of Microsoft-style war between divisions where the Chrome team has just decided on its own that the future is based on Chrome and Dart? Also, considering the way that the ARC runtime for Chromebooks was a failure and had to be replaced by a system that apparently essentially runs Android in a container, will it really be possible for a completely dif…

Dart is part of Ads, not Chrome. Chrome didn't want them, while Ads Frontend is heavily dependent upon them. Aside from Google+ (which was pushed directly by Larry and grudgingly integrated-with by the rest of the company), Google hasn't really had plans "as a company" since the mid-2000s. Big companies (other than Apple under Steve Jobs) don't actually work like that; once you've got a product-focused org chart and…

Are you saying that big companies shouldn't have company-wide plans or that big companies tend not to have company-wide plans (because of poor leadership)?

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#275

Post by pathsjs »

mtgx wrote: post #244

It would be a real shame if Google wasted this once in a decade or perhaps once in multiple decades opportunity to not have an OS written in a language other than C++. Also, it would be mind-boggling if they didn't actually fix the update problem this time, and if it wasn't a top 3 priority for the new OS.

Too many negations, I can't parse. Do you want an OS written in C++ or not? :-)

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#276

Post by Merovius »

michaelmrose wrote: post #249

It was unfortunately obvious that the writer had insufficient tech chops when use the phrase "a post-API programming model" But pressing on how somehow manages to blame the lack of updates to android phones on the modularity of the Linux kernel. The joke of course being that linux is monolithic and googles new OS is a microkernel ergo more modular. The quote is "...however. I also have to imagine the Android update p…

> It was unfortunately obvious that the writer had insufficient tech chops when use the phrase

That's a direct quote from the linked page. Unless you are suggesting that the authors of fuchsia have "insufficient tech chops".

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#277

Post by netheril96 »

throwawaydbfif wrote: post #56
resoluteteeth wrote: post #12

Is this an actual plan of Google as a company, or is this some sort of Microsoft-style war between divisions where the Chrome team has just decided on its own that the future is based on Chrome and Dart? Also, considering the way that the ARC runtime for Chromebooks was a failure and had to be replaced by a system that apparently essentially runs Android in a container, will it really be possible for a completely dif…

I would say that Google is trying to replace JavaScript with dart in any way they possibly can. The reason is simple, JavaScript is an open standard, dart is owned by google. Their reasons that "dart is better" is the typical google koolaid before they attempt a market takeover. As we've seen over and over with Android, chrome, and AMP especially. Google loves to make glass house open source projects you can't touch.…

If Dart ever became the real thing, it must be supported in not just Google Chrome, but also Firefox, Edge, Safari, etc. At that point Google will lose its control.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#278

Post by regularfry »

sangnoir wrote: post #191
paulfurtado wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like RHEL/CentOS, couldn't Google maintain a stable kernel ABI throughout a given android major release such that manufacturers could write a driver once, and have it continue working for the lifetime of that major android release?

I'm sure they could. Although it seems they would much rather move away from the Linux kernel altogether. Who knows what sort of ABI stability timescales they are aiming for in the replacement kernel.

The pertinent question is how Google think they're going to convince Qualcomm to write drivers for their new OS, and not just have exactly the same problem they have now. Qualcomm probably quite like the current arrangement where they get to deprecate everyone else's gear on their own schedule.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#279

Post by xorcist »

username223 wrote: post #155
scott_karana wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You missed the biggest difference: Chrome is the same everywhere.

So were Java Applets with AWT. Users hated that, so Sun tried PLAF, a half-assed emulation of each platform. That didn't work either, so Applets died. If Chrome manages to provide better versions of most applications on most platforms, it may win. Otherwise, people who use those applications will hate it with the heat of a thousand Suns, and it will go the way of the Java Applet.

Users will say the software looks "different" but what they really mean is "ugly". The UX differences is not always a problem. See: Winamp.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#280

Post by quanticle »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #233
quanticle wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have my doubts. Hiroshi Lockheimer, the SVP of both Android and ChromeOS stated, "There is no point in merging them. They're both successful. We just want to make sure that both sides benefit from each other," referring specifically to rumors at the time that said that ChromeOS and Android were merging. http://bgr.com/2016/12/13/android-chrome-os-merging-google/

I suspect this is true, in that Fuchsia is simply a potential replacement for both... not a "merge". But bear in mind, marketing voices like Hiroshi's job is to promote and sell people on the existing product... right up until the day they decide to officially announce something else. So, even if they were presently 100% focused on merging the two OSes, Hiroshi's job would be to convince you they aren't as not to ris…

    But bear in mind, marketing voices like Hiroshi's job is to promote and sell 
    people on the existing product... right up until the day they decide to 
    officially announce something else.
Absolutely. I'm reminded of how Steve Jobs claimed that Apple was absolutely, 100% committed to PPC... right up until he announced the first Intel Macs at Macworld in 2006. And Apple, at that point, didn't even have OEM partners to worry about.
Post reply on HN