Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fuchsia overview

fuchsia.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 235 posts

Re: Fuchsia overview

#131

Post by kbumsik »

catern wrote: 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…

> It makes it possible to build proprietary drivers.

Even worse, Fuchsia aims to be BSD License, not GPL. Fuchsia is a complete disaster for hobby OS makers.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#132

Post by VikingCoder »

michaelmrose wrote: post #115
VikingCoder wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With linux they are required to release some version of their driver even if its for an old kernel. Without any source it will be hard to produce a driver ever. Look at nvidia cards which still have shit drivers after how many years? Further its entirely possible for a device to require signed drivers and their is even a security incentive to doing so. They don't have to ever let you have your own drivers for their h…

There exists hardware that you are screwed by. How is that Fuschia's fault? How is that anyone in the open source operating system world's fault? Given the fact that some hardware is completely impenetrable, why would someone wish harm upon Fuschia?

Re: Fuchsia overview

#133

Post by cageface »

cletus wrote: post #93

I can't help but think that if microkernel architectures were such a good idea, that would explain why every popular OS is a microkernel architecture (oh wait...). Snark aside, this is a serious debate since the inception of Linux [1]. It's important to look at Fuchsia through the lens of what problems it solves in Android/Linux because that tells you a lot. As we know, receiving updates in Android is, well, a cluste…

Samsung is getting better at software. OneUI gets very positive reviews. Many of the Samsung apps on my Note 10 are perfectly acceptable daily tools. Mail, gallery, notes etc are competitive now.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#134

Post by michaelmrose »

sam1r wrote: post #109

What is the cheapest fuschsia supported hardware device?

Logically an emulator https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/getting_started#set_up_the_e...

Regarding supported platforms

"Fuchsia has good support for a few different hardware platforms including the Acer Switch 12, Intel NUC, and Google Pixelbook (not to be confused with the Chromebook Pixel). The install process is not currently compatible with ARM-based targets."

Looks like the 2 laptops can be had used/new for between 660-1k+ while the NUC can be purchased as a bare board with cpu for as little as 290

https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/boards-kits...

Re: Fuchsia overview

#135

Post by michaelmrose »

dzonga wrote: post #84

everything in userspace == high security. programs, software won't clash like they do on *nix, windows due to isolation. same benefits of snaps | flatpaks. but now you've a microkernel which is 1. fast 2. easy to patch 3. stable ABI something Linux doesn't have.

In what way does software "clash" on *nix? The isolation provided by snaps and flatpaks is 99% about isolating devs from having to worry about deps and different platforms.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#136

Post by michaelmrose »

bsder wrote: post #92
clumsysmurf wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they will fix Android by replacing it with Fuchsia :P I think the problems with Android run so deep, it can't just be "fixed".

Well, the touchstone is audio. If Fuchsia manages to have audio performance like iOS, then they definitely rearchitected rather than just slapped lipstick on a different pig.

Do people actually have audio problems with android? People don't seem to even have a problem with all the bad quality audio devices they ought to have a problem with let alone the OS.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#137

Post by rohan1024 »

est31 wrote: post #61
CJefferson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I understand why you want open source drivers, the situation hasnt improved for 10 years, and this is one of the major reasons many phones end up not getting Android updates, which makes Google/Android look bad.

> the situation hasnt improved for 10 years But it has. * I remember having major issues with printer drivers on Linux 10 years ago. Nowadays thanks to IPP support I don't need any drivers any more. I had to help my dad with installing a windows driver while on my Linux laptop it just worked. * My Laptop from 13 years ago didn't have free network drivers. I had to jump through hoops to install them. Now they are all…

> the situation hasn't improved for 10 years

I believe its meant in context of Android.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#138

Post by VikingCoder »

NOGDP wrote: post #119
VikingCoder wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think people are missing the sarcasm... at least I hope that's sarcasm.

It's not at all sarcasm. What's different now?

Re: Fuchsia overview

#139

Post by lsofzz »

michaelmrose wrote: post #135
dzonga wrote: post #84

everything in userspace == high security. programs, software won't clash like they do on *nix, windows due to isolation. same benefits of snaps | flatpaks. but now you've a microkernel which is 1. fast 2. easy to patch 3. stable ABI something Linux doesn't have.

In what way does software "clash" on *nix? The isolation provided by snaps and flatpaks is 99% about isolating devs from having to worry about deps and different platforms.

flatpak/snap applications can run on its own confined sanboxes

Re: Fuchsia overview

#140

Post by michaelmrose »

VikingCoder wrote: post #132
michaelmrose wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With linux they are required to release some version of their driver even if its for an old kernel. Without any source it will be hard to produce a driver ever. Look at nvidia cards which still have shit drivers after how many years? Further its entirely possible for a device to require signed drivers and their is even a security incentive to doing so. They don't have to ever let you have your own drivers for their h…

There exists hardware that you are screwed by. How is that Fuschia's fault? How is that anyone in the open source operating system world's fault? Given the fact that some hardware is completely impenetrable, why would someone wish harm upon Fuschia?

A multi billion dollar company doesn't need you to shield its efforts from criticism. You have somehow anthropomorphized an OS project and are treating it like a frail animal in need of your protection. It's composed of actual adults who presumably can read critical comments without coming to "harm".

Hardware running software that is either proprietary or based on permissively licensed software is everywhere. It's usually impractical or impossible to run your own software on such devices. There is no particular reason to trust Google any more than any other big company. Corporate persons judged by the moral standards one would apply to people are nearly always bad people even wherein most of the people therein are OK to good. Trusting them beyond their own self interest is nearly always a mistake.

Post reply on HN