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

231–240 of 324 posts

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#231

Post by reitanqild »

dleslie wrote: post #88
jjuel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not often someone says lean and VS Code in the same statement.

It's no joe, but it sure as hell beats NetBeans.

If you tell me your beef with Netbeans I might be able to help.

I have significant experience with all big Java IDEs, 3 months full time with Visual Studio (in addition to testing it on and off for years). Use Sublime regularily. Can use vim productivily for server config. Have used emacs enough to get a taste of it.

But lately I find myself getting back to NetBeans whenever possible, not because of price but because of features, sensible defaults and stability.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#232

Post by linschn »

zzzcpan wrote: post #81
linschn wrote: post #72

> The default Fuchsia filesystem, called minfs, was also built from scratch. The device manager creates a root filesystem in-memory, providing a virtual filesystem (VFS) layer that other filesystems are mounted under. However, since the filesystems run as user-space servers, accessing them is done via a protocol to those servers. Every instance of a mounted filesystem has a server running behind the scenes, taking ca…

You are confusing things that derive naturally from a microkernel architecture with Plan 9.

I dont understand your point.

I may be mistaken,but my understanding is that userspace servers accessible through the use of the fopen/fread/fwrite, etc. system calls was an idea that originated in Plan 9.

Furthermore, some people who worked at Bell Labs at the time now work at Google.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#233

Post by [deleted] »

jorvi wrote: post #186
deno wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not very fast, but it’s surprisingly easy on the resources, especially memory. Compare using VS Code w/ Typescript Language Service to any type of dev stack that includes the word “Scala.”

> It’s not very fast, but it’s surprisingly easy on the resources, especially memory. Open VS Code and then Sublime and be amazed. Atom and VS Code can never be 'easy on the memory' because they have to load an entire Electron instance just to idle.

[deleted]

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#234

Post by michaelmrose »

pjmlp wrote: post #153
Arizhel wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>On top of that, Linux essentially sucked all the air out of the UNIX development space by killing off all the commercial UNIXes. For good reason too. The commercial UNIXes were absurdly expensive, and they were all incompatible with each other too. There's a reason all the software developers abandoned UNIX and went to Windows. UNIX killed itself with ridiculous license fees and fragmentation. Linux saved it by maki…

Yes, because we all know how compatible each GNU/Linux distribution are among themselves.

A lot of differences are pretty superficial.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#235

Post by frozenport »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #226
thomastjeffery wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, the GPL mafia is right, and hardware vendors will continue to abuse their users with proprietary blobs unless they are forced into change.

How long has the GPL Mafia been saying this? Do you see many vendors being forced into change?

Typically only big vendors can afford not to change

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#236

Post by petre »

dragonwriter wrote: post #182
milesrout wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being business-friendly is not a goal, and shouldn't be a goal.

> Being business-friendly is not a goal Sure, it is, for lots of people. Even, apparently, the FSF, hence the reason non-consumer products are not subject to anti-tivoization rules in GPLv3.

I wonder why the BSDs haven't caught on for embedded appliances and phones while Linux did with a more restrictive and less business friendly license. Sure some companies like iXSystems and Juniper adopted BSDs, but the vast majority used Linux.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#237

Post by fauigerzigerk »

milesrout wrote: post #227
dragonwriter wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being business-friendly is not a goal Sure, it is, for lots of people. Even, apparently, the FSF, hence the reason non-consumer products are not subject to anti-tivoization rules in GPLv3.

Being business-friendly is not and should not be anyone's goal in licensing software. Being business-friendly is shit.

In my opininon, any particular license can only be friendly or unfriendly towards particular business models but not towards business in general.

Some businesses feel threatened by some open source licenses and other businesses are using the same open source licenses to do the threatening.

The funding for many important open source projects comes from global corporations that use it as part of their strategy, sometimes dominating entire industries based on open source.

A large number of small consulting businesses are based entirely on open source software as well.

Open source is not meant to be anti-commercial, nor would that make any sense, because "commercial" is what most of us do to make a living. That is not what takes away anyone's freedoms.

What does take away many freedoms is the fact that none of the widely used open source licenses fulfill their original purpose.

Linking rights to distribution once meant that users of the software got those rights. Now, in the age of the data center, end users get no rights at all and software can be modified freely by those who run the data centers without granting anyone access to those modifications.

Software has become more opaque than it has ever been before since the dawn of the PC age. Even without access to source code we had more control over Microsoft Excel than we now have over anything that runs in a data center, regardless of whether it is nominally "open source" or not.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#238

Post by pjmlp »

michaelmrose wrote: post #234
pjmlp wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because we all know how compatible each GNU/Linux distribution are among themselves.

A lot of differences are pretty superficial.

You mean like package formats, audio subsystems, configuration files that didn't exist on original UNIX, window managers, init systems, ...

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#239

Post by galacticpony »

petre wrote: post #236
dragonwriter wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Being business-friendly is not a goal Sure, it is, for lots of people. Even, apparently, the FSF, hence the reason non-consumer products are not subject to anti-tivoization rules in GPLv3.

I wonder why the BSDs haven't caught on for embedded appliances and phones while Linux did with a more restrictive and less business friendly license. Sure some companies like iXSystems and Juniper adopted BSDs, but the vast majority used Linux.

The manpower behind Linux is superior. Not sure if it's the "vast majority", but for many business cases following the GPL(v2) rules simply is not a problem.

Both the PS4 and the Nintendo Switch run on FreeBSD, by the way.

Re: Fuchsia: a new operating system

#240

Post by upboatter »

X86BSD wrote: post #144
VonGuard wrote: post #19

Capability-based operating systems must be the future. If they are not, then we are all doomed to continue to exist in a messy world where security problems crop up every minute. Capability-based access controls are one of the best options for getting out of our current mess, but they're also the type of thing that must be implemented very low in the system in order to work. Hopefully, when we start ripping out *nix…

Capabilities? FreeBSD, and other Unix flavors have had caps for decades. No one uses them. Security is useless if no one uses it. Capabilities are too hard, too complex, to manage. Great idea. Horrible implementation.

Not at the kernel level, is it?
Post reply on HN