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

211–220 of 235 posts

Re: Fuchsia overview

#211

Post by NOGDP »

VikingCoder wrote: post #102
NOGDP wrote: 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 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?

'21 years ago we got a new thing. Why on Earth do you think we're going to get something new ever again?'

Re: Fuchsia overview

#212

Post by 101404 »

101404 wrote: post #167
cycloptic wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

*your

Re: Fuchsia overview

#213

Post by nmcain »

axegon_ wrote: post #173

I've been eyeing Fuchsia for some time now and wanting to give it a spin but I've been holding back just to make sure it doesn't get abandoned(despite having a well maintained fork already). Real shame they pulled the plug on the raspberry pi support.

What fork are you referring to?

Re: Fuchsia overview

#214

Post by nmcain »

tempodox wrote: post #188

I was trying to find out from that site who's behind this and if that information is in there it must be really well hidden. Apart from other concerns, I'm not going to touch an OS from a group that doesn't clearly state who they are.

fuchsia.dev?

Re: Fuchsia overview

#215

Post by 0-_-0 »

VikingCoder wrote: post #207
0-_-0 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expired patents

Sorry, walk me through this. There was a competitive field of GPUs. Somehow the companies were able to produce hardware. Are you saying that someone controlled the defining patents, and all of the competitors were forced to license from them? Citation needed.

Currently the GPU market consists of companies that have been working on GPUs for decades. Companies that are starting right now have failed to design GPUs. This includes very big players, like Intel, Apple and Huawei. This is likely because all the important ways to produce GPUs have been patented, and there's only so many ways to create an efficient GPU. Even if you try to create your own GPU by poaching engineers from existing GPU companies (like Apple tried), those engieers are only familiar with methods that were already patented and you have no way around this even if you have Apple's tremendous resources to throw at the problem. So the only way to create an open source GPU is to use patents that already expired. Such a GPU might be 15-20 years behind current technology, but that's still a GPU.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#216

Post by AnthonyMouse »

zozbot234 wrote: post #105
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 embedd…

The existence of other ARM SoCs doesn't mean they're competitive enough at the high end for the advantage of open source drivers to be the determining factor.

Meanwhile the low end is more sensitive to price than quality, so competition there pushes things towards things cut costs rather than things that improve the experience, or even things that reduce long term costs at the expense of short term costs.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#217

Post by axegon_ »

nmcain wrote: post #213
axegon_ wrote: post #173

I've been eyeing Fuchsia for some time now and wanting to give it a spin but I've been holding back just to make sure it doesn't get abandoned(despite having a well maintained fork already). Real shame they pulled the plug on the raspberry pi support.

What fork are you referring to?

DahliaOS.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#218

Post by mbrukman »

afiori wrote: post #143
mbrukman wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. I've added a clarification separately, please take a look there first: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365469 > The point is that when a non-Googler contributes code, it’s non-proprietary since the non-Googler is by definition a non-Googler. I think we are using different definitions of "proprietary". I'm using it to mean "non-open-source" [1], and you…

I think a nice example that could help clarify the situation is the CLA that Canonical uses; if I remember correctly they reserve to themselves the right to change the license of community contributions.

Looking at the Canonical CLA [1], you're right that it allows Canonical the right to relicense contributions under any other license:

> 2.3 Outbound License

> Based on the grant of rights in Sections 2.1 and 2.2, if We include Your Contribution in a Material, We may license the Contribution under any license, including copyleft, permissive, commercial, or proprietary licenses. [...]

However, please note that my original comment [2] was asking for a CLA which prevents usage in a proprietary setting, while the project is under a permissive license like Apache/BSD/MIT (emphasis added):

> I've never seen an Apache/BSD/MIT project where the CLA (and only the CLA) prohibits commercial / proprietary / closed-source or any other use cases — if you have an example or two, could you please point them out?

[1] https://ubuntu.com/legal/contributors/agreement

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23365535

Re: Fuchsia overview

#219

Post by nmcain »

axegon_ wrote: post #217
nmcain wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What fork are you referring to?

DahliaOS.

Haha, I thought there was another fork going around. Don't worry, we are actively working on Pi4 support, Fuchsia dropped the 3 because they changed the graphics stack to one that used Vulkan, but the Pi4 has experimental Vulkan support.

Re: Fuchsia overview

#220

Post by abraham »

stewbrew wrote: post #174
TulliusCicero wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

2-3 languages? It has support for C, C++, Dart, Rust, and Go. And I think some level of support for Swift.

I wouldn't be so sure about Go. Anway, I found certain remarks somewhat irritating in this respect. I'm happy if it turns out I misunderstood something.

Go is listed as a language https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/development#languages
Post reply on HN