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?
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/
Fuchsia overview
161–170 of 235 posts
Re: Fuchsia overview
#162I 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…
Android Linux also has it since Project Treble.
Linux drivers are considered legacy on Android, all new drivers should follow the Project Treble architecture, which is basically the genesis of how Fuchsia drivers work.
Every driver has their own process and uses Android IPC to talk with the kernel.
The stable ABI is Android HIDL, similar to Fuchsia FIDL, a protocol buffer based IPC for fast communication with the kernel, that also allows for passing references to hardware buffers across processes.
You can read all about it at AOSP web site.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
Everyone is having their go at this, blame younger generations for fighting GPL, while favouring other license models. GPL is the only reason Linux still exits, not for long though, when even Linux Foundation has decided to go with something else for IoT, namely Zephyr, which is neither Linux based, nor under GPL license. In about 20 years we will be back at shareware and public domain, enjoy what is left while it la…
The Linux Foundation has a misleading name: it's essentially the Megacorporations Linux User Group. It wants whatever its member companies want. It does not really want to promote Linux or, say, enforce the GPL.
Indeed, and while I am mostly a user of commercial software, I appreciate the work that Stallman and FSF have placed on the GPL.
Whatever non-copyleft licenses allow for, it was already available via public domain and shareware like licenses.
Yes, GPL makes is very hard for certain kinds of business models like games or desktop software in general, however when people complain about its existence, most seem to blind to the fact that they only have Linux and GCC because of GPL, and clang wasn't around until 2007.
Had it not been for them, and most likely all commercial UNIXes would still be around.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#164I 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…
Operating systems have a lot of inertia. Linux is close to 30 years old. Performance characteristics, threat models and a lot of other things were different back then. New operating systems solving this issue will generally fail because of missing drivers and userland code, not because they are technologically worse.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#165I still think its strange to create an OS that officially supports only 2-3 languages for development. Sounds rather 1980s to me.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#166I still think its strange to create an OS that officially supports only 2-3 languages for development. Sounds rather 1980s to me.
To the extent that there's native C++ I'm sure it will be somewhat straightforward to get other languages supported later by users/developers.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
So basically you'd work for free for one of the wealthiest companies. That's f'ed up.
It's not because you're also asking the same of them. If you're submitting code upstream, you're essentially asking the maintainers to perform code review and start maintaining your contributions, for free.
You're comment makes no sense.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hardware vendors are under no obligation to use Fuschia. Therefore, you have still not compelled hardware vendors to provide open source drivers. Linux has not compelled Nvidia to produce good OpenGL drivers. No, really, walk me through this.
Nvidia actually DOES have good OpenGL drivers that are unfortunately proprietary. AMD GPU drivers have been getting progressively better to where they represent a valid alternative for gaming. Intel GPU drivers have long been good enough for general use. I think the principal is that if Google had licensed Fuchsia in such a way as to require release of source code to kernel modules that companies would rightly fear b…
> Nvidia actually DOES have good OpenGL drivers that are unfortunately proprietary.
I think this proves GP's point.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Since Fuchsia uses a pushover license instead of a copyleft license [emph. add.] This is great term for it, thank you.
I can't claim credit for coming up with it: that honor goes to RMS and the FSF. See https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-compatibility.html and https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html#sm...
Huh; I've actually read both of those before and not noticed that, so still thanks for bringing it to my attention, although now I feel a bit bad about my own reading comprehension.
Re: Fuchsia overview
#170I still think its strange to create an OS that officially supports only 2-3 languages for development. Sounds rather 1980s to me.
2-3 languages? It has support for C, C++, Dart, Rust, and Go. And I think some level of support for Swift.