Another Google project that will end up being abandoned. Flutter, Dart, messaging, etc. They need to just fix Android.
Ah, the HN hivemind Markov chain is mired in another infinite cycle.
Fuchsia overview
21–30 of 235 posts
Re: Fuchsia overview
#22Another Google project that will end up being abandoned. Flutter, Dart, messaging, etc. They need to just fix Android.
Flutter is the UI framework of Fuchsia
Re: Fuchsia overview
#23Another Google project that will end up being abandoned. Flutter, Dart, messaging, etc. They need to just fix Android.
I have a strong feeling that Fuchsia will not be abandoned. I can't put my finger on it, but Google's approach and tone around Fuchsia feels really different from how they talked about / marketed Reader, or even Wave, or other things they shut down. I'm an Android developer learning Flutter and Dart out of both curiosity and an gamble that it will likely be a faster-improving way to make cross-platform apps than othe…
> I can't put my finger on it, but Google's approach and tone around Fuchsia feels really different from how they talked about / marketed Reader, or even Wave, or other things they shut down.
Different marketers?
Re: Fuchsia overview
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really open. If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code.[1] So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. Like they did to Android with Google Play Services. [1] https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual
Google Play Services was never open. You can however still submit changes to the actual OS though. People said the same thing about Android in its early days. It was wrong then, still wrong now, and will likely be just as wrong in the future.
'Animats didn't claim they were ever open.
His claim was more along the lines of: Google Play Services has over time subsumed more and more of core functionality, enough to stop the creation of clones.
Which is true.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#25Another Google project that will end up being abandoned. Flutter, Dart, messaging, etc. They need to just fix Android.
Well Flutter is a first-class citizen in Fuchsia and will be able to run Flutter apps as soon as they release the OS. So I don't see this as a likely candidate for Google to abandon this.
Android apps compatibility 'appears' to be being supported via a mix of using Android's ART ported to Fuchsia and hardware assisted virtualisation of the Linux kernel, called 'Machina'.
The sort of transitioning Apple did between PowerPC -> x86 and now to ARM.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#26Sounds a bit like a modern, open approach to the problems that were solved by QNX. Excited to see how it evolves!
Not really open. If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code.[1] So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. Like they did to Android with Google Play Services. [1] https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual
All permissively-licensed (MIT/BSD/Apache) code has that property. If you contribute to BSD anyone can create a proprietary derivative.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really open. If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code.[1] So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. Like they did to Android with Google Play Services. [1] https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual
So basically you'd work for free for one of the wealthiest companies. That's f'ed up.
Uh, that's how the BSD and Apache licenses work.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#28Another Google project that will end up being abandoned. Flutter, Dart, messaging, etc. They need to just fix Android.
I have a strong feeling that Fuchsia will not be abandoned. I can't put my finger on it, but Google's approach and tone around Fuchsia feels really different from how they talked about / marketed Reader, or even Wave, or other things they shut down. I'm an Android developer learning Flutter and Dart out of both curiosity and an gamble that it will likely be a faster-improving way to make cross-platform apps than othe…
I agree Fuchsia should prevail. My reasoning is that, presuming it succeeds technically, it could only be killed politically if both Android and ChromeOS prevented Fuchsia from being used on first party devices. This seems unlikely.
Google projects that get killed are either retail products that gain insufficient traction (for Google) or expensive projects that stall for technical or logistical reasons.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#29Don't tell me what it's not tell me what it is.
The literal first sentence
Re: Fuchsia overview
#30Sounds a bit like a modern, open approach to the problems that were solved by QNX. Excited to see how it evolves!
Not really open. If you submit code, you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code.[1] So, at some point, once users and developers are locked in, Google can make later versions closed and proprietary enough to stop clones. Like they did to Android with Google Play Services. [1] https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual
Disclosure: I work at Google (but not on Fuchsia), and I contribute quite a bit to open-source projects.
Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, etc.
I'm not sure what you mean by "you grant a license to Google to use it in non-proprietary code" — was that a typo and did you mean "proprietary"? In any case, Apache/BSD/MIT licensed code can already be used in proprietary code, the CLA does not change that.
The Google ICLA you cited [1] is basically the same as the ASF ICLA [2]; the gist is that you retain copyright of your contributions, you're not giving up your copyright — i.e., it's a copyright license, not a copyright assignment (as some other CLAs are).
And, naturally, anyone can fork it if they wish, or distribute proprietary, non-open-source versions of an Apache/BSD/MIT-licensed project, subject to appropriate attributions, if required, by the relevant licenses.
However, neither you (nor Google) can claim copyright over the entire project, because the copyrights are held by the relevant contributors. Changing the license for the entire project requires agreement from all copyright holders — for example, see what LLVM had to do when they chose to add a clause to their license [3].
[1] https://cla.developers.google.com/about/google-individual