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

Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 126 posts

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#41

Post by kajecounterhack »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #38
greenhouse_gas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you're a prolific commentator here, so if you don't mind me asking ... Which operating systems have you designed (or worked on) to say that writing a microkernel in C is a symptom that they don't know anything about OS development?

Writing a microkernel in C is fine. I said _C++_. But for the record, I built this: https://github.com/KnightOS/kernel And I've worked on toy kernels here and there and studied more serious kernels in depth.

You're probably missing their tradeoffs. Google has deep expertise in C++ within the company and integration with existing libraries / tools is a huge bonus. So if the goal is a market-ready product and velocity matters, then it makes sense not to adopt a new language that is still changing a lot. It's only your opinion that they've chosen the wrong tool. There isn't one right answer to nuanced product decisions.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#42

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

kajecounterhack wrote: post #41
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Writing a microkernel in C is fine. I said _C++_. But for the record, I built this: https://github.com/KnightOS/kernel And I've worked on toy kernels here and there and studied more serious kernels in depth.

You're probably missing their tradeoffs. Google has deep expertise in C++ within the company and integration with existing libraries / tools is a huge bonus. So if the goal is a market-ready product and velocity matters, then it makes sense not to adopt a new language that is still changing a lot. It's only your opinion that they've chosen the wrong tool. There isn't one right answer to nuanced product decisions.

>then it makes sense not to adopt a new language that is still changing a lot

I should clarify that I agree with eddieh and think C is the only rational choice.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#43

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

faitswulff wrote: post #25
eddieh wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who has dabbled in OS development over the years, you'd be a fool to use anything other than C (I suppose you could use a restricted subset of C++ if you really don't want to write anything but a toy OS) or assembly if you have something to prove.

What about Rust disqualifies it? Let's say besides ecosystem immaturity (lack of libraries). As a non-systems programmer, I'm curious.

Not OP but the reason I dislike Rust for OS/kernel development is that it's just too damn complicated. Kernels should be written in more conservative languages.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#44

Post by SllX »

Unkechaug wrote: post #12

What is this supposed to become, exactly? Google hasn't said much about it and speculators are making big claims like how this will replace ChromeOS and Android. I don't see that happening any time soon considering how deeply entrenched both OSes are, but Google's dedication mixed with the lack of comments makes me think again.

Depending on the future direction they take this, it might end up replacing OpenBSD for me.

Mac OS X and OpenBSD are my daily drivers, but at their core, they are BSDs, and less and less I find myself using the NeXTSTEP portion of Mac OS X and more and more time in BSD-land, which is leading me to move more and more of my overall computer time to OpenBSD which is a great operating system but is still largely a continuation of the UNIX/POSIX/BSD model which I appreciate like fine wine but do not love.

If Fuschia ends up being the answer to the question of what would happen if we built a new operating system from scratch today, taking the best lessons we were able to learn in the past 50 years, then I might be using it as my daily driver in 10 years.

Or maybe not. Nobody can really say what it will be right now.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#45

Post by nxc18 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #3
Jesus_Jones wrote: post #2

There's no point to these early Fuschia review attempts. I don't see how it demonstrates anything. It's like looking at the famous first email from Linus Torvald and figuring out what the os would be in the end. So it boots, it has windows, but not apps, and prints some things to the screen. It tells us nothing about real intentions, future capabilities, etc.

Yeah, you can't "review" something that isn't even close to finished. Windows Phone was originally supposed to eschew apps for some sort of focus on views, I forget what they called it. Now Windows 10 Mobile is more or less just Windows 10, with apps. I won't mind if someone finally finds a new model and makes it not suck, but when you're early in the product design phase is when you try crazy ideas to see if they pa…

Windows Phone 7 Series had the concept of hubs (e.g. People Hub). It was an innovative model, and having so much functionality built in eased the pain of missing or poor quality native apps for things like facebook/Twitter. It was helpful in an “information at your fingertips” sort of way, where everything was organized without solos between apps/platforms.

Windows Phone 8.1 was the beginning of the end for hubs, with the OS feeling much more like iOS/Android, with winmo 10 basically killing it altogether.

Curiously much of the hub functionality seems to be coming back to Windows proper. For example, see ‘People’ integration in the taskbar that shipped with Windows 10.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#46

Post by coldtea »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #31
liuw wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why focus on the language and the possibility of a million and one bugs but not the architecture and design choices?

Because it's an easy indicator of someone who has no idea what they're doing in OS development. Choosing the wrong tool for the job is meaningful. Have you ever looked through Chromium's C++ codebase? The same people are working on this and it tells us that they haven't learned their lesson (or they want to tightly integrate Chrome with Fuschia, which is also a foreboding sign). Edit: I should clarify that I think C…

>Because it's an easy indicator of someone who has no idea what they're doing in OS development.

Actually suggesting Rust as some kind of magic bullet over C/C++ is a huge indicator "of someone who has no idea what they're doing in OS development".

It's similar to when first year CS students learn that assembly is "faster" (a hazy notion itself), and then want everything to be written in assembly.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#47

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

coldtea wrote: post #46
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's an easy indicator of someone who has no idea what they're doing in OS development. Choosing the wrong tool for the job is meaningful. Have you ever looked through Chromium's C++ codebase? The same people are working on this and it tells us that they haven't learned their lesson (or they want to tightly integrate Chrome with Fuschia, which is also a foreboding sign). Edit: I should clarify that I think C…

> Because it's an easy indicator of someone who has no idea what they're doing in OS development. Actually suggesting Rust as some kind of magic bullet over C/C++ is a huge indicator "of someone who has no idea what they're doing in OS development". It's similar to when first year CS students learn that assembly is "faster" (a hazy notion itself), and then want everything to be written in assembly.

Added to my comment:

>Edit: I should clarify that I think C is the only rational choice and that Rust is ill suited to osdev as well. I'm only talking about C++ here.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#48

Post by jrs95 »

groby_b wrote: post #24
Jesus_Jones wrote: post #2

There's no point to these early Fuschia review attempts. I don't see how it demonstrates anything. It's like looking at the famous first email from Linus Torvald and figuring out what the os would be in the end. So it boots, it has windows, but not apps, and prints some things to the screen. It tells us nothing about real intentions, future capabilities, etc.

As somebody who read that famous first email and shared it around her lab: We were all tremendously excited, and spent days discussing it. This is the same thing - it's exciting . It's trying to do things many of us have thought of, but never worked on. It's new technology. It's something that, in our hearts, we want to succeed just because the alternatives are all grungy and dusty and carry the compatibility fixes o…

On the one hand I'm excited, but I ultimately hope this fails (commercially, anyways) because I don't think the world needs more devices loaded up with Google's spyware.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#49

Post by jrimbault »

coldtea wrote: post #46
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's an easy indicator of someone who has no idea what they're doing in OS development. Choosing the wrong tool for the job is meaningful. Have you ever looked through Chromium's C++ codebase? The same people are working on this and it tells us that they haven't learned their lesson (or they want to tightly integrate Chrome with Fuschia, which is also a foreboding sign). Edit: I should clarify that I think C…

> Because it's an easy indicator of someone who has no idea what they're doing in OS development. Actually suggesting Rust as some kind of magic bullet over C/C++ is a huge indicator "of someone who has no idea what they're doing in OS development". It's similar to when first year CS students learn that assembly is "faster" (a hazy notion itself), and then want everything to be written in assembly.

>It's similar to when first year CS students learn that assembly is "faster" (a hazy notion itself), and then want everything to be written in assembly.

That's an interesting kind of first year students... The kind I know flee before anything lower than C++.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#50

Post by jrimbault »

2bitencryption wrote: post #18
mtgx wrote: post #14

Short review: Another OS written in C/C++ that will have a million and one bugs over the next 3 decades.

you're right. it should be written in typescript. or maybe the java prerelease from 1995.

Urg...

https://externos.io/

Edit:

>eXperience the future.

I don't know what gets me more, the idea of a js os, the bad capitalization, the period at the end of a non sentence, the cliché expression...

Post reply on HN