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

401–410 of 561 posts

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#401

Post by sametmax »

frozenport wrote: post #263
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.

It's written in C. There is little beyond syntax that a different language can offer because a modern OS cannot afford features like garbage collection. Indeed, this was one of the research aims of MS's Singularity project.

They could have written it in Rust. No garbage collection, more security guaranties. Easier to contribute to the code properly.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#402

Post by atoponce »

dep_b wrote: post #391

So in the near future billions of devices will no longer be running Linux anymore? That would be quite a blow to the OS in terms of chances of dominating operating systems that are being used by end users. Or will they simply fork it and strip it down until only the parts they really like will remain?

This is also a concern of mine. What will this mean for rooting devices? Will it still be root, or will it be "root" as it an iOS jailbreak?

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#403

Post by discordianfish »

sametmax wrote: post #398

Google could have taken firefox and improve it to make it better, but they created something new. Now instead of improving the linux stack and the gnu stack (the kernel, wayland, the buses, the drivers), they rewrite everything. They put millions into this. Imagine what could have been done with it on existing software. They say they are good citizen in the FOSS world, but eventually they just use the label to promot…

Everybody's modern linux stack is built on 40 year old design and assumption. While it's remarkable how well these work so many years later, I welcome that somebody like Google tries something new.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#404

Post by sametmax »

macintux wrote: post #17
pier25 wrote: post #9

We definitely need a universal OS for all our devices and I really believe Google is in a great position to get us there. It would really surprise me if Apple got there first. Tim lacks vision and will keep on milking iOS even if the iPad Pro is a failure as a laptop replacement. Windows is still king in the desktop space, at least as far a user base goes, but it's terrible on tablets and phones. MS has all the tech…

You may "definitely need" a universal OS but I'm far from convinced I do. I don't buy that a finger and a mouse/trackpad pointer are equivalent input devices. One obscures the display and is imprecise. The other, well, isn't. I'm fine with a different server OS than desktop. I see no compelling reason why I need a single OS for all of my personal devices.

The UI can adapt to the input devices, that not an OS concern.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#405

Post by geodel »

pjmlp wrote: post #339
TeMPOraL wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bump it to 3-4 years then. Bloated manufacturer updates combine with bloat in most popular applications and the regular web bloat to make the phone unusably slow after few years. Between that and fragility of smartphones (mechanical damage, water damage), most people are bound to replace theirs every few years anyway.

> Bump it to 3-4 years then. Bloated manufacturer updates combine with bloat in most popular applications and the regular web bloat to make the phone unusably slow after few years. My S3 is 4 years old now, and it is works perfectly fine. When it dies, I will most likely adopt one of my Lumia devices as main one, or will buy a 2nd hand Android device, instead of giving money to support bad OEMs

Same here. My iPhone 5s is simply not giving me any reason to update. My guess is it will work fine till next year's model.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#406

Post by GTP »

pjmlp wrote: post #384
GTP wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. There's a considerable amout of people that regulary change their phone every 1 or 2 years because they like to have the last model even if they don't really need it.

Is there any research on how many do that across Europe, including new devices versus 2nd hand ones?

I heard about that in TV some years ago but I don't remember the source. I suppose you can google for it and find the relevant information. I'm not sure if that resesrch included second hand devices but I'm pretty sure exists detailed information on this topic. Edit: typo

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#407

Post by sametmax »

pier25 wrote: post #9

We definitely need a universal OS for all our devices and I really believe Google is in a great position to get us there. It would really surprise me if Apple got there first. Tim lacks vision and will keep on milking iOS even if the iPad Pro is a failure as a laptop replacement. Windows is still king in the desktop space, at least as far a user base goes, but it's terrible on tablets and phones. MS has all the tech…

Do you really want Google, that has DNS, fiber, search engine, emails, calendar, phone contacts, ads, deep learning, app store, CDN, analytics, web browser, maps, power plants to ALSO handle your desktop OS ?

That seems very, very dangerous to me.

Actually we already are in the red zone, I just wish we don't go crimson. But I doubt people will care. They didn't up to now, no reason it changes.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#408

Post by michaelt »

dTal wrote: post #349
pjc50 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one design decision in Linux that makes this slightly harder than it needs to be in this situation: Linux's lack of a driver ABI. At the moment, phones include all sorts of custom drivers for very specific versions of the hardware. The OEMs ought to send these upstream, but don't want to. You can't build your own kernel and upgrade without breaking all the binary-only drivers. Android falls between two stools…

>The OEMs ought to send these upstream, but don't want to. Isn't this a rampant GPL violation? Why do we put up with this? We are about to lose the war for general purpose computing due to insufficient GPL enforcement.

  Isn't this a rampant GPL violation?
Eh, it could just be that there isn't sufficient overlap in the incentives of the vendors and upstream.

For example, an OEM can bash out low quality code which is hard to maintain, secure in the knowledge that they'll only have to maintain it for the year or two that phone is getting updates, and it won't have to survive any big kernel updates or be compatible with anything that isn't on the phone.

Upstream, on the other hand, wants to maintain device support forever so they want good quality code that they can get through kernel updates with a minimum of fuss, and they can't accept anything that breaks existing code.

So upstream won't accept the OEM's shitty patch, and the OEM won't pay for the engineering time to make patches that upstream will accept.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#409

Post by sametmax »

mastax wrote: post #75
yen223 wrote: post #7

Rust as a first-class language?

I believe the article over-sells Fuchsia's use of Rust. Raph Levien wrote some bindings to the OS runtime, and he does work at Google, but his Rust work is not-official. (or that's the story as I remember it)

Which is a shame, they are missing an opportunity to ditch C/C++ in favor of a safer language and set a precedent in OS history.

Imagine how easier contribution would be if you could write the OS parts with less lines, guarantied to no introduce most security and concurrency bugs we know about.

Re: Google’s not-so-secret new OS

#410

Post by piyush_soni »

flukus wrote: post #366
piyush_soni wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh I bet they are! Like, anything is better than those slow, buggy and annoying Java Applets and I'm so thankful to god they're over. Did anyone ever notice how slow they were not only to 'run', but to initiate and start doing just about anything. I always knew it was a java applet even before it started anything because of its characteristic loading behavior.

Now remember that they ran on machines with 16MB of RAM. Could this page even render on a machine like that?

Not sure on that. When I was in my University we used these Java Applets. I had 4 GB of RAM at that time in my laptop, and they were still very bad.
Post reply on HN