Live data from Hacker News

Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

blog.quarkslab.com

191–200 of 285 posts

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#191
post #164

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…

> There is a clearly defined platform / SDK, like in Android or iOS. If it works in your development environment, it's guaranteed to work everywhere. Are iOS/Android SDKs good examples of stable platforms? They are just as much a moving target as anything else and the only thing certain about them is that they _will_ require maintenance.

Not to mention SDK == not self hosting, which is IMHO rather bad.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? What is UWP and why did devs not like it? All the critique i see with a quick google comes from game devs.

Developer push back first started with windows 8 with fears of lockdown. Valve's CEO was the most vocal because it looked like MS's end game would be to crush steam. Microsoft didn't help matters with the 99 dollars developer fee - not high per se but in an existing free for all operating, pushbacks would happen. Microsoft basically said to use this shiny new crippled toy, you must use our store and pay money. Micros…

So it has little to nothing to do with sandboxing.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#193
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,…

The market is enforcing DRM at the operating system level. Look it up in the documentation, search "DRM".

Yeah, all those banking apps, streaming clients and even games that require locked boot loader and a singned image are basically another wave of thrusted computing. Totally disgusting.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#194
post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Traditionally, large money-making companies liked having big, obvious loss areas, so that when the hard times come, they can just cut that and restore the illusion of growth on Wall Street. It only buys you a couple of quarters of fake growth, but for Wall Street, that's often enough.

People like to claim these things anecdotally but if you sit down for a few minutes and think about it then it doesn't really make sense. By doing something like that you'd sacrifice current growth, and since money today is worth more than money in the future cutting dead weight now would be more valuable to the shareholders (not to mention the fact that the losses accumulate each year as cash being drained from your…

I like the insight in this comment, but I worry that you subscribe to the idea that there is any kind of sanity in buisness decisions in a large org. As a researcher pleb mucking around in the undergrowth of a university organisation, many of the decisions admin makes don't make any strategic sense if the university is considered as a rational machine looking out for it's own good. If instead, the university is seen as being controlled by a bunch of self serving sociopaths looking to get a leg-up on the competition, the insane decisions admin makes suddenly become a lot more understandable.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really doubt Google has any interest in building a "great open-source desktop OS". Everything they've done with Android suggests they'll throw releases over the wall, but keep any interesting or useful bits proprietary & closely tied to Google cloud services.

All of Chrome OS is open.

Can you point me to the source code for verified boot?

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really doubt Google has any interest in building a "great open-source desktop OS". Everything they've done with Android suggests they'll throw releases over the wall, but keep any interesting or useful bits proprietary & closely tied to Google cloud services.

All of Chrome OS is open.

Can you point us to the source code for verified boot? How about auto-update?

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>binary-only drivers If by this you're referring to their promises of a stable driver ABI, I can't understand what problem this is supposed to solve compared to Linux. There are plenty of binary drivers already shipped on Linux. IOT device vendors don't care about a stable ABI because they just pin to their kernel version. Android device vendors don't care because either way they will stop updating their kernels afte…

> Android device vendors don't care because either way they will stop updating their kernels after a number of years This one seems like a big problem to me. Maybe the handset manufacturer doesn’t care because they already made their profit, but this pushes the support burden onto app developers (including Google itself) who have to maintain support for these old Android devices that the manufacturers don’t care abou…

There is an effort to upstream all the Android kernel patches to make Android device kernel updates simple:

https://lwn.net/Articles/771974/

Also some vendors such as Sony have standardized kerbel versions across many devices & publish kernel major version updates for a range of devices (in Sonys case called the open device program).

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#198
post #15

A couple of years ago it was believed that Fuchsia would replace Android and ChromeOS. Then, IIRC, it was said in a Google IO that it was just some sort of experiment to test new OS ideas. What do you think is Google's masterplan for Fuchsia?

Avoiding GPLv2. What Google says about their plans and what their plans actually are does not necessarily have to converge.

License is import for an OS and most - it's far too important to not be covered by copyleft license like Linux kernel and most of usual distro userspace is.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#199
post #43

The technical reasons for Fuchsia to exist are debatable. The real reason it exists is because Linux is GPL.

Yeah, theiy already are half there with all Android userspace and tooling being under non-GPL and Google Play Services being outright proprietary.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people think monopoly means "big company," especially when size is contingent on continuing to serve customers better than competitors.

This is fundamentally untrue. Monopoly has nothing to do with product or service quality. This is proven by Google, which both has bad products and terrible service. Monopoly is built by using network effects and illegal business arrangements to gut competitors such that a better product cannot win in the market.

Network effects aren't part of the quality of the product? Seems to me like they are. Interestingly as well, the most network-effect-ridden sectors of the internet, namely social media platforms, also seem to be the most diverse. There are a heck of a lot of social media platforms out there!

Furthermore, what about Google Search allows it to take advantage of a network effect? It's a product designed to be used by a single person - it's not a social network. You can switch without incurring network effect problems. The real reason nobody is switching is that Google Search really is better than the alternatives: Bing, DuckDuckGo, etc, all have a plethora of users complaining about worse searches, even here. If someone were to make a search engine algorithm that led to a genuinely better experience (not for ideological or moral reasons, but actually better at finding what you want on a regular basis in a way the average person would care about), and had equally good (or better) user interface design, do you really think it would be that hard to switch?

Face it, for the Average Joe, the experience of using Google is far better than any other option. That's why they're all using Google. They don't care so much about their data, they just want search results. In essence, they're paying for good search results by selling their search history.

What illegal business arrangements has Google used to "gut competitors"? Nothing that Google seems to have done, besides being well known - as far as I know - has prevented other players from entering the market. This is definitely [citation needed] in this case.

Furthermore, sure I made a hasty generalization, but the best way to keep competitors out of the market really is using the government. What else are you going to do? Buy every competitor that comes your way? That's not going to work for long, especially as you get worse in services (that's the whole point of monopoly power) so each competitor sees a bigger and bigger chance of reward in the amount of pent up demand (people who would really like to switch to something else).

In conclusion, Google Search has not made it impossible for a better product to win in the market, it has not to my knowledge used illegal businesses, has certainly not gutted competitors except through actual market competition, and can't take advantage of network effects. It does not have bad products (I love most of Google's products, everything else is basically sh!t) nor does it have terrible service - even moreso for the Average Joe, as I said, who doesn't have an ideological commitment to hate Google.

One could argue that monopoly can be kept by using network effects and "illegal business arrangments" (whatever that means) but that's not how a company gets big enough in the first place to do those things. The reason Google is big enough now to make everyone start freaking out is because their Search was that much better.

Post reply on HN