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

Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

blog.quarkslab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 285 posts

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#171

Post by skybrian »

RivieraKid wrote: post #79
jpab wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you mean Chrome OS? Google is a web company; they want people to use the web. They made a laptop/desktop operating system built around their web browser, because they want everything to be on the web. It does most of the things you list, including synchronizing between devices since your data is all "in the Cloud". As for market share, I'm not sure what power you think Google has, but getting 10% of the desktop OS…

No. I mean a full-fledged alternative to the major operating systems. Do people in charge of Chrome OS say "In 5 years, we want developers, designers and project managers at Google use this OS"? I don't think so - it's not their ambition to compete with Mac OS or Linux.

It's already the case that ChromeOS can run a Linux environment in a VM. The question is whether this is enough for most developers?

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#172

Post by notyourday »

close04 wrote: post #134
geodel wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the one side you have Samsung, who are unhappy enough with their dependence on Google that they'll not likely eat the cost of moving from Android to something else... Strange argument. Maybe they will move all their devices to their own superior OS Tizen. Or maybe they tried and it did not turn out very well. So whichever side Samsung is it does not affect Google. There are many phone makers not that many phone…

> Maybe they will move all their devices to their own superior OS Tizen. Or maybe they tried and it did not turn out very well. Google (via the Open Handset Alliance) managed to enforce the current status quo. Manufacturers can't simultaneously ship their own OS like forked versions of Android, or presumably Tizen, and still be allowed to use Google Play Services. It's all-Google or nothing. I don't know whether Tize…

> Samsung has 20% of the market and a lot more of the high end market. Going with "not Google" means a lot of users no longer using Google Play Store and services. It most certainly would "affect" Google.

That will make Samsung phones very pretty door stops. Users do not care about phones. Users care about apps that run on those phones. Samsung has no apps that users care about ( IG/Facebook/TikTok/Snapchat/Banking/News/Tinder/etc ) without Google Play.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#173

Post by khazhoux »

rakoo wrote: post #167
cletus wrote: post #31

Ah, Fuchsia... another of Google's solutions looking for a problem. I remember hearing about it and immediately asking "what is the market for this?" and not being satisfied with the answer. On the one side you have Samsung, who are unhappy enough with their dependence on Google that they'll not likely eat the cost of moving from Android to something else that has no strategic benefit to them (as far as I could tell,…

What was the market for Linux when it came out ? The thing was a copy of an existing OS, made by a guy in his spare time. What was the market for php when it came out ? It was just a few helpers to write web pages, simpler to use than perl that already existed at the time What was the market for go when it came out ? Yes, it did have a few modern things built-in, but there were already tons of widely deployed languag…

> What was the market for Linux when it came out ? The thing was a copy of an existing OS, made by a guy in his spare time.

> What was the market for php when it came out ? It was just a few helpers to write web pages, simpler to use than perl that already existed at the time

The markets were clearly there (and huge!) for a free Unix-like OS and for a better replacement for CGI scripts. The fact that some people didn't see the potential for Linux or PHP, is wholly separate from their market opportunities.

The question here remains: where is the market today for a new micro-kernel OS? The likely answer would have to be device-makers... but which ones can actually benefit from Fushcia?

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#174

Post by pwdisswordfish2 »

jpab wrote: post #74
RivieraKid wrote: post #57

I'm more excited about the possibility of a high quality desktop OS rather than the kernel. The Linux kernel is great but a great open-source desktop OS doesn't exist today. Specifically, this product doesn't exist today: - Desktop environment that matches or surpasses Mac OS in quality, performance and UX design. - It includes seamless synchronization between devices. - Apps are sandboxed, similarly to Android or iO…

Do you mean Chrome OS? Google is a web company; they want people to use the web. They made a laptop/desktop operating system built around their web browser, because they want everything to be on the web. It does most of the things you list, including synchronizing between devices since your data is all "in the Cloud". As for market share, I'm not sure what power you think Google has, but getting 10% of the desktop OS…

Do you mean Chromium OS?

Chrome OS is not 100% open source and the bits that are not in Chromium OS are significant. It is also effectively tied to certain hardware. Users cannot easily install it on whatever hardware they choose.

The Chromium OS FAQ contains no link to download the source code and contains this little gem:

"Keep in mind that Chromium OS is not for general consumer use."

https://www.chromium.org/chromium-os/chromium-os-faq

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#175

Post by pjmlp »

moron4hire wrote: post #130
RivieraKid wrote: post #57

I'm more excited about the possibility of a high quality desktop OS rather than the kernel. The Linux kernel is great but a great open-source desktop OS doesn't exist today. Specifically, this product doesn't exist today: - Desktop environment that matches or surpasses Mac OS in quality, performance and UX design. - It includes seamless synchronization between devices. - Apps are sandboxed, similarly to Android or iO…

You just described UWP apps on Windows 10. Developers flat out rejected it because of the smartphone-like sandboxing.

Which is why Microsoft went around and is incrementally merging Win32 and UWP, including sandboxing for Win32.

Don't cry victory as you would be quite surprised how Windows will look like in 5 years or so.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#176

Post by noobermin »

apozem wrote: post #69
cletus wrote: post #31

Ah, Fuchsia... another of Google's solutions looking for a problem. I remember hearing about it and immediately asking "what is the market for this?" and not being satisfied with the answer. On the one side you have Samsung, who are unhappy enough with their dependence on Google that they'll not likely eat the cost of moving from Android to something else that has no strategic benefit to them (as far as I could tell,…

Bloomberg, 2018: > One person who has spoken to Fuchsia staff described the effort simply: "It’s a senior-engineer retention project." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-19/google-te... Fuchsia’s greatest value is letting senior devs solve fun puzzles without the burden of shipping anything customers want.

People seem to forget this is Google. Yes, this take might be a bit cynical but given Google's track record of projects that sound great but then burn and die, how sure are we that this won't be another one? Google working on something and it becoming the next Chrome or Android isn't a sure bet given history. It's more like a >60% probably it will become abandoned at some point after enough careers from within the company are advanced.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#177

Post by close04 »

notyourday wrote: post #172
close04 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe they will move all their devices to their own superior OS Tizen. Or maybe they tried and it did not turn out very well. Google (via the Open Handset Alliance) managed to enforce the current status quo. Manufacturers can't simultaneously ship their own OS like forked versions of Android, or presumably Tizen, and still be allowed to use Google Play Services. It's all-Google or nothing. I don't know whether Tize…

> Samsung has 20% of the market and a lot more of the high end market. Going with "not Google" means a lot of users no longer using Google Play Store and services. It most certainly would "affect" Google. That will make Samsung phones very pretty door stops. Users do not care about phones. Users care about apps that run on those phones. Samsung has no apps that users care about ( IG/Facebook/TikTok/Snapchat/Banking/N…

That's the point I made in the comment. Having no apps will shoot even good OSes in the foot. This being said all Samsung needs is for an antitrust investigation to break the exclusivity clause.

Samsung doesn't need to drop Android, they need to be able to sell phones with other OSes. Tizen probably fits the bill for low-end, cheap phones. With the exclusivity clause in place Samsung would have to bridge the canyon between the current Tizen ecosystem and where Samsung would want it in one step. Removing the limitation just gives them the chance to take it one step at a time with building their ecosystem (not a pleasant thought looking at the state of their software but hey...).

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#178

Post by pvarangot »

apozem wrote: post #69
cletus wrote: post #31

Ah, Fuchsia... another of Google's solutions looking for a problem. I remember hearing about it and immediately asking "what is the market for this?" and not being satisfied with the answer. On the one side you have Samsung, who are unhappy enough with their dependence on Google that they'll not likely eat the cost of moving from Android to something else that has no strategic benefit to them (as far as I could tell,…

Bloomberg, 2018: > One person who has spoken to Fuchsia staff described the effort simply: "It’s a senior-engineer retention project." https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-19/google-te... Fuchsia’s greatest value is letting senior devs solve fun puzzles without the burden of shipping anything customers want.

Ah, the "senior-engineer retention project". And when they need those senior engineers, or they get bored and retire or go to another company, only the senior engineers that were not that good will keep on working on that thing. That's usually when the useless by design project starts getting pressure to show that's actually useful and when it's surprisingly not it gets the axe.

And while that happens all the cream of the crop of the top talent already left or leaves because of the bullshit that comes with the pressure to show marketability for a research project.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#179

Post by pvarangot »

atombender wrote: post #88
adrianmonk wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if this is Google's intention, but I could certainly see Fuchsia being used for IoT devices. IoT devices have a big problem with software updates. The people who make them are primarily interested in selling hardware, not supporting it for the many years it will probably be in your home. (You might replace a smartphone every two years, but how often do you replace a light switch or thermostat?) Google sa…

Apparently Google is already running Fuchsia (or at least Zircon) internally on several smart home devices, such as the Home Hub. Here [1] is an article from last year, still relevant. [1] https://9to5google.com/2019/02/08/fuchsia-friday-home-hub-ma...

Which several ones? The old puck shaped access points don't run it, and the Hub is the only other device with a processor that's capable or running it.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#180

Post by [deleted] »

RivieraKid wrote: post #57

I'm more excited about the possibility of a high quality desktop OS rather than the kernel. The Linux kernel is great but a great open-source desktop OS doesn't exist today. Specifically, this product doesn't exist today: - Desktop environment that matches or surpasses Mac OS in quality, performance and UX design. - It includes seamless synchronization between devices. - Apps are sandboxed, similarly to Android or iO…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN