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

51–60 of 126 posts

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#51

Post by fauigerzigerk »

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…

I do share the excitement, but that's exactly why I found this video rather uninspiring. It doesn't say a thing about how Fuchsia is new or interesting. It just goes through a bunch of extremely unfinished screens in consumer product review style. Nothing much to see really.

I found it interesting to browse some of the source code to get an idea of the roles that different language runtimes seem to play. But much more than that I would be interested in the driver model, the graphics stack, the IPC facilities and how it all differs from Linux/Android.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#52

Post by s2g »

I'm conflicted on this.

I really do like the idea of a challenger to the linux monoculture (among devs)/the windows monoculture (among consumers), but I really hate the idea of google getting yet more power.

If it was pretty much anyone else doing this.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#53

Post by s2g »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #43
faitswulff wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

C just pushes the complexity onto the programmer without help.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#54

Post by KirinDave »

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.

I don't agree. How is this not interesting?

1. This is an open development effort, that's interesting.

2. It's moving very quick.

3. the code is really interesting.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#55

Post by forgot-my-pw »

s2g wrote: post #52

I'm conflicted on this. I really do like the idea of a challenger to the linux monoculture (among devs)/the windows monoculture (among consumers), but I really hate the idea of google getting yet more power. If it was pretty much anyone else doing this.

Like Android, this is OSS.

Sure, Google runs the core development, but everyone will benefit from this eventually.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#56

Post by happyguy43 »

s2g wrote: post #52

I'm conflicted on this. I really do like the idea of a challenger to the linux monoculture (among devs)/the windows monoculture (among consumers), but I really hate the idea of google getting yet more power. If it was pretty much anyone else doing this.

How exactly is Google getting power here? The code is totally open. They just seem to be giving themselves more flexibility and potential to build better products.

If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate.

(My response to s2g’s reply below because HN is terrible for commenting:

I see your point that they now unilaterally control how the kernel is engineered, but my counter argument is that I don’t think this meaningfully changes their control over the platform. They were already free to modify the Linux kernel at their whim. Having upstream control doesn’t make you emperor of derived applications.

As a separate point, don’t you think it just results in less efficiency and worst products if google isn’t free to steer the project in the direction that makes the most sense for the application? It seems they can more easily make zircon for their use case, and I think that will result in cheaper and better phones.)

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#57

Post by happyguy43 »

SllX wrote: post #44
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 contin…

Don’t hold your breath. The zircon API isn’t innovative in any modern sense. Additionally it’s bloated and not clean like L4. It’s just in house IP for Google.

(HN won’t let me directly reply to the comment below so here it is:

Nothing in zircon doesn’t already exist on Linux or any other modern kernel. Additionally it has bloat, like 3 distinct IPC mechanisms.

Even further, if it ends up being any technical person’s main driving OS it will surely sport a POSIX API and at that point it’s just another implementation of POSIX with similar a security model.)

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#58

Post by happyguy43 »

s2g wrote: post #53
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

C just pushes the complexity onto the programmer without help.

Random subjective opinion presented as objective truth!

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#59

Post by happyguy43 »

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…

Nah, writing a kernel in modern C++ or Rust is pretty rad. Higher level abstractions can be designed to avoid bugs (As evidenced by the explosion of macros in the Linux code base). Check out L4Ka::Pistachio https://github.com/l4ka/pistachio

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#60

Post by s2g »

happyguy43 wrote: post #56
s2g wrote: post #52

I'm conflicted on this. I really do like the idea of a challenger to the linux monoculture (among devs)/the windows monoculture (among consumers), but I really hate the idea of google getting yet more power. If it was pretty much anyone else doing this.

How exactly is Google getting power here? The code is totally open. They just seem to be giving themselves more flexibility and potential to build better products. If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate. (My response to s2g’s reply below because HN is terrible for commenting: I see your point that they now unilaterally control how…

How many of the core devs don't work for Google? How much of the overall project direction is decided by people who have nothing to do with Google?

Saying "it's open, so they don't really control it" is like saying Linus doesn't have control of the Linux kernel.

Maybe google will figure out how to make an Android style play and hold this OS hostage by withholding their services.

> If anything, this will result in less power over the Linux kernel for Google. It seems like that’s something you’d appreciate.

Yes.

Post reply on HN