Live data from Hacker News

Fuchsia overview

fuchsia.dev

101–110 of 235 posts

Re: Fuchsia overview

#101
post #98
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually quite the opposite, Fuchsia already runs on production devices manufactured by Google. The (ridiculously long named) Google Nest Home Hub and Home Hub Max both can run Zircon and Fuchsia on device, although it's very much for development.

They probably cut it down from the original “Play Home Hub All Access by Nest by Google”.

The original sold-as product name was Google Home Hub, the announced rename was the shorter Nest Hub, though it seems to be fully Google Nest Hub (that's the title of the Google Store product page, though the page itself only ever used Nest Hub.)

I can't find anything from Google using both the “Nest” and “Home” bits as part of the same product name, though some third party sites seem to have mixed the old and new names that way.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#102
post #97
post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For various reasons, but nothing fundamental. "Hardware vendors being unwilling to make the drivers they write open source" is a pretty fundamental reason. Which is worse, a phone where you can't update kernel because of the closed drivers or a phone where you can update the kernel, with closed drivers? I don't think that realistically there's a third option. The open source community is not, for example, going to…

> The open source community is not, for example, going to make their own high performance gpus. Of course it will.

The first GPU came out twenty one years ago. Why on Earth do you think all of a sudden we're going to get something we've never gotten before?

Re: Fuchsia overview

#103
post #35

>Fuchsia aims to provide drivers with a binary-stable interface. In the future, drivers compiled for one version of Fuchsia will continue to work in future versions of Fuchsia without needing to be modified or even recompiled. This approach means that Fuchsia devices will be able to update to newer versions of Fuchsia seamlessly while keeping their existing drivers. This is a massive step back for open source. The fa…

I think your take on this is very wrong.

An open source driver written once will work for all future versions of Fuschia. Right? That reduces the effort for open source developers enormously.

Most security flaws come in above the driver level. Right? Being able to update the OS, despite the hardware manufacturer's laziness, is a huge boon for everyone.

Fuschia is open source. Drivers written for one Fuschia (say, the one Google controls) should work for another Fuschia (say, the one you and your friend forked.) Right? That's a huge win for you.

Whatever incentives you have imagined that hardware manufacturers have, time has proven those incentives don't work. It's far better to take as much control away from them as possible. They will do the minimum amount of work necessary (write new drivers). Then we can all exploit the hardware + driver + Fuschia system.

It has always, and will always, be possible to build propriety drivers. This is minimizing the blast radius of them never being updated, as much as possible.

For these reasons and more, we should all hope Fuschia is successful.

The Android developers who have tried to live on top of Linux are sick of the problems that Linux brings them. Fuschia is an open source direct response to those limitations. It's stunning to me that you would wish them to fail.

"then any improvement that could be added to Fuschia could be added to Linux". Explain to me why we still have BSD? Not all problems are solved by Linux. The sooner you accept that, the better off we will all be.

It's like you're wishing Clang would die, because we can always just improve GCC. That's demonstrably false. Just like saying everything good in Fuschia can be added to Linux. No, it can't.

"We don't need a new operating system whose only advantage is that it's easier to write proprietary drivers."

Wait, if it's easier to write propriety drivers, doesn't that lower the barrier to making low-cost phones? Well, Christ, sign me up. Do you have any idea how many billion people have a low-cost smart phone as their first computing device? If we lower the cost even more, that will broaden the reach even more.

Do you seriously not get that the other major phone OS is completely closed source? Maybe put a little faith in the people who have developed the most successful competing operating system that's open source?

Re: Fuchsia overview

#104
post #35

>Fuchsia aims to provide drivers with a binary-stable interface. In the future, drivers compiled for one version of Fuchsia will continue to work in future versions of Fuchsia without needing to be modified or even recompiled. This approach means that Fuchsia devices will be able to update to newer versions of Fuchsia seamlessly while keeping their existing drivers. This is a massive step back for open source. The fa…

I think your take on this is very wrong. An open source driver written once will work for all future versions of Fuschia. Right? That reduces the effort for open source developers enormously. Most security flaws come in above the driver level. Right? Being able to update the OS, despite the hardware manufacturer's laziness , is a huge boon for everyone. Fuschia is open source. Drivers written for one Fuschia (say, th…

> An open source driver

Lost you already. Since Fuchsia uses a pushover license instead of a copyleft license, the vendors' drivers aren't going to be open source. Look how many companies today don't open-source their Linux drivers, and they're breaking the law by not doing so. It's going to be so much worse when there's "nothing" wrong with keeping them proprietary.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a negotiation, and the hardware vendors seem to be 100% happy stepping away from the table and letting old hardware suffer. They have a lot more leverage than we FOSS supporters do.

What this is really about is Qualcomm. They have inadequate competition and that allows them to abuse everybody else. In a competitive market, open source drivers win. Look at the desktop market -- nearly everything is open source, and the biggest holdout is nVidia, because for a while there nobody was challenging them on performance. Now that AMD has competitive GPUs again, not only does that provide a competitive o…

Qualcomm has plenty of competitors. Mediatek, Allwinner, Samsung, Broadcom etc. They all have the exact same issues wrt. driver support: they do the minimum work required to bring up their board with one heavily-patched kernel version, and that's it. Allwinner now has quite decent support from the mainline kernel, but only because of 3rd-party efforts. It's not just Qualcomm: these problems are shared by every embedded SoC to date, with very limited exceptions.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#106
post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plus, better isolation between driver code and other kernel code (which Fuchsia seems to bring; correct me if I'm wrong) would be good for everyone, since you can be relatively assured that running vendor-provided driver blobs is safe.

"Isolation" of driver code that can talk to on-SoC hardware is just not very meaningful. You can only have real driver isolation if it's enforced on the hardware side via some IOMMU mechanism (or by keeping the hardware isolated on the USB bus, etc.), otherwise you're just adding pointless overhead for no real benefit.

I didn't get it. Don't we want, for example, wifi driver not to be able to access and corrupt (due to some bug) GPU driver's memory?

Re: Fuchsia overview

#107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

You're talking out your ass, Google. Everyone knows how much Google cares about open source and open platforms...

Everyone knows how much the Google haters opt for a company that actively patents most trivial stuff and arguably contributes much less to open source.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your take on this is very wrong. An open source driver written once will work for all future versions of Fuschia. Right? That reduces the effort for open source developers enormously. Most security flaws come in above the driver level. Right? Being able to update the OS, despite the hardware manufacturer's laziness , is a huge boon for everyone. Fuschia is open source. Drivers written for one Fuschia (say, th…

> An open source driver Lost you already. Since Fuchsia uses a pushover license instead of a copyleft license, the vendors' drivers aren't going to be open source. Look how many companies today don't open-source their Linux drivers, and they're breaking the law by not doing so. It's going to be so much worse when there's "nothing" wrong with keeping them proprietary.

However hard it is to produce an open source driver, that's how hard it is. Sometimes the hardware vendors do it. Sometimes dedicated developers produce an open source, clean room driver.

So, when an open source driver exists, Fuschia will make it useful for a long time.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#110
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The open source community is not, for example, going to make their own high performance gpus. Of course it will.

The first GPU came out twenty one years ago. Why on Earth do you think all of a sudden we're going to get something we've never gotten before?

The RISC-V community is already working on GPUs, some of them open:

https://github.com/felsabbagh3/Vortex https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22492902 https://libre-riscv.org/3d_gpu/

Post reply on HN