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

111–120 of 126 posts

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#111

Post by swiley »

kuschku wrote: post #105
ZiiS wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still go fully open; https://microg.org/ and https://f-droid.org/en/ I don't have Pay, and no cloud push notifications, and the GPS assist isn't quite as perfect, but the only real bugbare is no swyping keyboard.

Sure, but that's not the same. By that argument — the core of the OS is open, just everything on top isn't — you might as well call macOS open because Darwin is open. Android is nowadays proprietary, sadly.

This is actually a very good analogy. There are even open reimplementations of core foundation and coaca, but no one would ever call OSX open.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#112

Post by sangnoir »

kuschku wrote: post #85
sangnoir wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and Amazon went ahead and forked it, in addition to CyanogenMod, Paranoid, Copperhead, "HALFB4kedMod 0.9Beta2(No camera)"[1] and so on. Android's openness is not just empty words. 1. Until the developer changes phones and loses interest. Nevertheless, thank goodness for XDA.

And by now not even the caller app, or the phonebook app, or the calendar, or Homescreen, or settings, or search are open anymore.[1] Everything now requires Google's proprietary services Oh, and Google prevents OEMs from cooperating with Amazon.[2] As result, Android is almost completely controlled by Google. And you call that "open"? ________________________ [1] To disprove this, please find me the full current sou…

Android was always "completely controlled by Google". It wasn't developed in the open - they would throw the code over the wall when it was ready. Does software have to be developed in the open for the result to be open? Answers to this vary depending on your perspective.

If you're going to dismiss "open-core" and corporate-controlled open projects out of hand, I have bad news to tell you Gitlab, Red Hat, VS Code and hundreds of other projects the rest of us non-purists are grateful for providing their source under licenses that allow for modifications or forking...

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#113

Post by kuschku »

sangnoir wrote: post #112
kuschku wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And by now not even the caller app, or the phonebook app, or the calendar, or Homescreen, or settings, or search are open anymore.[1] Everything now requires Google's proprietary services Oh, and Google prevents OEMs from cooperating with Amazon.[2] As result, Android is almost completely controlled by Google. And you call that "open"? ________________________ [1] To disprove this, please find me the full current sou…

Android was always "completely controlled by Google". It wasn't developed in the open - they would throw the code over the wall when it was ready. Does software have to be developed in the open for the result to be open? Answers to this vary depending on your perspective. If you're going to dismiss "open-core" and corporate-controlled open projects out of hand, I have bad news to tell you Gitlab, Red Hat, VS Code and…

Yes, but in the past they actually threw code over the wall.

They stopped updating most system apps code, and never continued even providing the code.

Originally, everything was open source at least.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#114

Post by peoplewindow »

solarkraft wrote: post #96
willtim wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all written in C++, so from a security and reliability perspective, I'm sketical it's going to offer much improvement over Linux. I don't see any evidence yet of "new technology". I'm happy to be proven wrong.

Of course the programming language defines the architecture ...

The most radical OS architectures are all based on integration of compiler and language techniques - see Singularity or JNode for examples.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#115

Post by peoplewindow »

greenhouse_gas wrote: post #35
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.

Just want to point out that not that long ago redox-os (the microkernel OS in Rust) asked people to test it. People were able to kernel panic it, get privilege escalations, and DDoS it. In short, it had the same same issues a C based kernel would get. It's true that it's still heavily in development and doesn't offer any guarantees whatsoever, but I think that it should be pointed out that just because your language…

Can you link to that? I'd be curious to see how they did those things. I guess Redox has a lot of unsafe Rust code?

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#116

Post by dtolnay »

peoplewindow wrote: post #115
greenhouse_gas wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just want to point out that not that long ago redox-os (the microkernel OS in Rust) asked people to test it. People were able to kernel panic it, get privilege escalations, and DDoS it. In short, it had the same same issues a C based kernel would get. It's true that it's still heavily in development and doesn't offer any guarantees whatsoever, but I think that it should be pointed out that just because your language…

Can you link to that? I'd be curious to see how they did those things. I guess Redox has a lot of unsafe Rust code?

Here is the "Redox Crash Challenge":

https://github.com/redox-os/redox/issues/1136

According to the Redox book, at last count they had 70 cases of unsafe across 4500 total lines of kernel code.

https://doc.redox-os.org/book/introduction/unsafes.html

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#117

Post by happyguy43 »

vesak wrote: post #86
happyguy43 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You think the lack of technical innovation is what makes products fail? Seems to me that it's actually the opposite that's true.

Never said it was going to fail. I just don’t expect it to be more appropriate as a hacker’s OS than OpenBSD or Linux.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#119

Post by mercurial »

Toidiu wrote: post #110

Hi could someone compare fuchsia with redox, mozilla's operating system.

Redox is not "Mozilla's operating system" in any way or form. It is an immature OS whose primary contributor works at System 76. The only thing Mozilla-related about it is that it's written in Rust.

Re: Google’s Fuchsia OS on the Pixelbook

#120

Post by mercurial »

greenhouse_gas wrote: post #35
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.

Just want to point out that not that long ago redox-os (the microkernel OS in Rust) asked people to test it. People were able to kernel panic it, get privilege escalations, and DDoS it. In short, it had the same same issues a C based kernel would get. It's true that it's still heavily in development and doesn't offer any guarantees whatsoever, but I think that it should be pointed out that just because your language…

Well, I mean, one of the issues listed is "getting a lockup with ls * on the default directory". Sure, Rust (or any other language, even something like Idris) is not a magic pill, but at that stage of development, you can't expect much. I would still say that it is, on average, a lot easier to shoot yourself in the foot in C than in Rust.
Post reply on HN