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

Fuchsia: a new operating system

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 324 posts

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#191

Post by jvert »

monocasa wrote: post #42
david-given wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Roughly put: in a capability based system, if you have a valid handle for a service, then you can use that service. But the only way you can get a valid handle is to ask your parent process for one --- handles are unforgeable. So your parent gets to check that you're legitimate. ...but your parent, in turn, has limited permissions, because the only way it can get a handle is to ask its parent. And when you ask your p…

So, going back to Win32, it's as if OpenFile also took a HANDLE that represented your abilities (or capabilities if you will ) within the security model, with the explicit ability to forward these handles (or new handles that represent a subset of the original's capabilities) to other processes if you choose.

In Win32, this handle is called the AccessToken https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa3... and the calling thread's current access token is used by OpenFile to grant or deny the requested access.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#192

Post by Klathmon »

bitmapbrother wrote: post #97
jnwatson wrote: post #57

If I had to guess, this looks to be a strong candidate for the embedded OS market. There are still lots of folks running VxWorks, QNX, ThreadX, Mentor Graphics' Nucleus, Green Hills' Integrity. In fact, it looks a lot like the same general design as Integrity, a microkernel capability-based architecture with as much as possible in user space.

Its modern rendering pipeline would suggest it has uses for far more than the embedded OS market.

I'm not so sure. Perhaps "embedded" is the wrong term, but more and more devices have full touchscreens on them, and if you are selling a high end device like a refrigerator, having the UI be fluid and feel high end is important as well. Not to mention TVs, car UIs, security system pads, and more.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#193

Post by ageofwant »

mankash666 wrote: post #146
michaelmrose wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make open source drivers sound like a bad thing.

offering no alternative but "open source" on Linux is certainly not the most business friendly way to go about it.

It certainly is. "Business" just needs to internalize the fact that baking a bigger cake gets you more cake than fighting like a starved peasant over crumbs.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#194

Post by ewrcoffee »

I can see the major point of making a microkernel is to allow kernel or other service (like driver) upgrade to be de-coupled; it would also allow much easier integration of non-open source driver and service, which could be a pain with Linux as it doesn't provide a clean way to do without rebasing (which could explain why Android upgrade is much lag behind for existing phone). But don't get me wrong, I totally support Linux philosophy.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#195

Post by Torgo »

stouset wrote: post #180
ClashTheBunny wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In addition to the other comments, I would be excited about a graphics driver not being able to take out my system.

Does this actually happen with enough regularity to care? In the cases where it does, I imagine it's a situation where you're actually doing 3D-accelerated renders of the user interface. In which case, when the graphics subsystem craps out, hasn't your running system been rendered effectively unusable anyway? I get that this is a nice idea in theory, but does it actually improve anything practical in practice?

Yes? I haven't played games in a while, but when I did, crashes were frequent enough to be annoying, and ~100% of the time it was video drivers.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#196

Post by michaelmrose »

mankash666 wrote: post #146
michaelmrose wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You make open source drivers sound like a bad thing.

offering no alternative but "open source" on Linux is certainly not the most business friendly way to go about it.

Why would I or anyone care if it's business friendly. The people who just want to sell hardware should have no qualms about open source.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#197

Post by diebir »

tyingq wrote: post #10

Are there enough clues to figure out if this is intended to eventually displace Android, ChromeOS, the Ubuntu distribution most googlers use on their company machines, or the Linux they run their data centers? As far as I know, Google hasn't telegraphed the purpose of it. I can't tell if it's targeted at all, none, or some of the above.

More likely this exists simply because Google could afford it. If something comes out of it, fine; if not no problem. When money is no object why not let some engineers play with experimental tech.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#198

Post by stouset »

Torgo wrote: post #195
stouset wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does this actually happen with enough regularity to care? In the cases where it does, I imagine it's a situation where you're actually doing 3D-accelerated renders of the user interface. In which case, when the graphics subsystem craps out, hasn't your running system been rendered effectively unusable anyway? I get that this is a nice idea in theory, but does it actually improve anything practical in practice?

Yes? I haven't played games in a while, but when I did, crashes were frequent enough to be annoying, and ~100% of the time it was video drivers.

Right, but that's my point. You're playing a game and the display crashes — I guess it's nice in theory that the rest of your system stayed up, but you're still more than likely just going to reboot, no?

If not, how exactly do you plan to restart the graphics process?

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#199

Post by milesrout »

cozicoolmail wrote: post #156
milesrout wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you ever used a Microsoft product? Have you ever tried to get support for a Google product? You do not want these companies involved in your operating system.

Who does that leave to help with your OS? Apple? Their support is pretty bad too.

What about, the people that made it in the first place?

The support I've had from companies like Red Hat is unparalleled.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#200

Post by dragonwriter »

reggieband wrote: post #29
ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UNIX, as a viable OS model, isn't the last word in operating system design. It has too much design decisions and other baggage rooted in technology dating back to the 1970s. As Rob Pike, one of the people who worked on UNIX, said " Not only is UNIX dead, it's starting to smell really bad. " On top of that, Linux essentially sucked all the air out of the UNIX development space by killing off all the commercial UNIXes.…

> Google and Microsoft are the last two companies with the talent to build a future OS and enough resources and clout to push it enough to get traction. I think that is a stretch. Apple has significant investment in Darwin and are a huge contributor to LLVM. Also, don't count out Amazon ... they have their fingers in so many pies these days ...

> Apple has significant investment in Darwin and are a huge contributor to LLVM.

Apple could make the next OS for Apple (presuming they were willing to take the leap to do something other than incremental improvements to their existing stable of OSes), but they aren't likely to make OSes for anyone else, so they aren't really relevant to the discussion.

> Also, don't count out Amazon ... they have their fingers in so many pies these days ...

Amazon seems to be pretty consistently plucking the low-hanging fruit from their current position. They might have the right talent to build a future OS, butz for a slightly different reason than Apple, it doesn't seem to be consistent with their orientation.

Post reply on HN