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

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#71

Post by eddieh »

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.

I haven't personally looked into the Rust based OS (I know it exists), but I can guarantee that they're using inline assembly, fighting with language features, working around limitations, and forgoing safety.

I'd be shocked if that isn't the case. I'm not saying that you can't build an OS in Rust or other languages, just that OS development is complicated enough without having to fight your language.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#72

Post by abdulla »

happyguy43 wrote: post #57
SllX wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Could you explain what you mean? I'd like to understand your point of view.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#73

Post by freddref »

KirinDave wrote: post #54
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.

Open and quick is nice.. I guess.

How is the code interesting?

What features of this OS differentiate it from others?

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#74

Post by scarmig »

freddref wrote: post #73
KirinDave wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Open and quick is nice.. I guess. How is the code interesting? What features of this OS differentiate it from others?

If nothing else, its capability-based security model is a giant leap forward.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#75

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#76

Post by retromario »

mempko wrote: post #34
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.

There are already important signals here. 1. Your login is tied to your google account. Want to use the computer in any real capacity? Google account. 2. They think bringing back multi tasking from the 90s is important. 3. People will want to control their computer views. 4. They are making a new kernel. 5. They believe in the capabilities based security model. 6. They believe in micro kernels. 7. They don't have any…

I feel like just executing an old idea correctly is as worthwhile as coming up with something new.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#77

Post by snvzz »

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.

>If it was pretty much anyone else doing this.

Look at seL4, minix3, genode, helenos.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#78

Post by throwaway0071 »

s2g wrote: post #60
happyguy43 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 les…

> 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?

This is why some developers are starting to hate open source. There's no technical excitement, it's all about community and governance and who has power and corporations and codes of conduct, etc... If not, you're going to fail. You get an army of experts scrutinizing your project and it's unexciting.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#79

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#80

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

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

Click on the comment’s link (the “x hours ago”) to reply.

Post reply on HN