Live data from Hacker News

Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

blog.quarkslab.com

281–285 of 285 posts

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#281
post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that is a real issue. By my point is that the proposed solution is now that Google itself is now going to have to maintain support for old Fuschia devices because the burden is now on them to maintain this stable ABI. How is this going to solve anything compared to just making a support promise about a particular Linux version? Nothing here seems like it would improve for the app developers.

*Fuchsia

It's ok, nobody can spell fuchsia: https://blog.xkcd.com/2010/05/03/color-survey-results/

Back on topic though, I think it's just easier from an engineering perspective to maintain a stable ABI than it is to maintain a set of blessed kernel versions.

An ABI is something that can be reasonably well-defined and has a clear scope, whereas if you just say that you support kernel versions X, Y and Z, then who knows what weird undocumented behavior you'll need to maintain.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sandboxing in Linux is developing with both Snaps and Flatpaks. Linux really does miss an SDK though. Realistically if you target Ubuntu you'll reach the majority of Linux users but the community of power users (ugh, hate that phrase but can't think of a better one) and developers is scattered any number of desktops and Linux varients.

We build and package Ardour, a cross-platform DAW, as a single installable for every version of Linux except nixOS. Same installer, same package. Every version of Linux (except nixOS). I am not sure what you are talking about.

LMAO I feel physically hurt as a NixOS user.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Developers , PMs already use Chrome OS at Google. Designers can / will also happen.

So Chrome OS team's explicit ambition is to provide a full-fledged alternative to Windows and Linux distributions?

I don't know what the ambition is. But it sure looks like it's a perfectly fine machine for developers and PMs.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Each component uses it's own resources and logic to make up "verified boot". For e.g. there is dm-verity, for block level hashes and then there is key signing for images. Here is a talk on verified boot - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdpZC9jFzZA&feature=emb_logo https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/platform/ All associated projects - "uboot", "update_engine" are there. Some are also in platform2/. Let me g…

You said Chrome OS was open. In another comment, I pointed out that only Chromium OS is open. I asked you for a link to the Chrome OS source code. You provided a link to Chromium OS source code. Thank you.

Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system

#285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/chro…

What a disingenuous comment. "The Chromium OS FAQ contains no link to download the source code" - https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromiumos/docs/+/master/d... LOL a whole guide "secretly hidden" on the Internet, to get and build the source code. Right above that line - "Where can I download Chromium OS? If you are the kind of developer who likes to build an open source operating system from scratch, you can follow…

What if the user is not "the kind of developer who likes to build an open source operating system form scratch"?

The fact is that this FAQ on www.chromium.org gives no pointers into Google Git to find the files to which you refer. It does not even give a link to chromium.googlesource.org, aside from the BSD license. If the reader following the "For everyone" link is not a developer, not a "UI designer" and not a "Contributor", she does not want to be treated like those types of people, she just wants the source code. If she were a developer she would have followed the "For developers" link at www.chromium.org. Interestingly, there is no "For users" link at www.chromium.org.

Not everyone looking for source code is a "developer", or thinks like one, and even if they are a developer, they may not be one "who likes build an open source OS from scratch".

I am an end user, not a developer, and I have been building an open source OS from source code for over 15 years. This FAQ makes some bold assumptions about end users. I do not believe that calling this out is "disingenuous", a "put down", nor "snark", at least, not according to the definition of that term I found on FOLDOC. I have always run my customised systems in a configuration similar to what Google calls "developer mode" (in fact, I use a more flexible, simpler configuration), however I am not a developer. The name "developer mode" is suggestive and silly.

One does not need to be a "developer", or think like one, to read, edit, write or compile software. Google seems to prefer to pretend such users do not exist. A Chrome OS user who is not a developer, UI designer nor contributor who wants the source code gets funnelled to the Chromium OS website, and then is provided with the advice to "follow the developer instructions". No link to the source code, or even to the "For developers" section. Too add to this, the user is given the caveat that "Chromium OS is not for general consumer use". This "For everyone" page is a dead end for non-developer users who want source code.

Imagine you are a "general consumer", i.e., an end-user, who is told Chrome OS is "open source". You go looking for the source code tree and tarballs and you are directed to Chromium OS. Then you arrive at www.chromium.org and are told Chromium OS is "not intended for general consumer use" and "if you a developer who likes to build an open source operating system from scratch you can follow the developer instructions". This is extremely presumptuous.

Nor everyone who wants to see the source code wants to build Chromium OS. Building "modern" web browsers like Chrome from scratch is unreasonably resource intensive. Some people may not want to read through all the opinionated developer instructions whose primary audience appears to be Google staff. Some people just want the source code to Chrome OS. That's it.

Yes, people not working for Google can get it. I can get it (with some effort). I never said otherwise. However, as I pointed out, it is "Chromium OS" not "Chrome OS" and there is a lot of cult-like mumbo jumbo for non-Google staff to wade through in order to find what one is looking for. The "open source" OS is Chromium OS not Chrome OS. That is not a "half-truth" it is a fact. Is all this a deterrent for those interested in Chrome OS source code? That is for the reader to decide. I think it could be made easier but that is only my opinion.

.

Post reply on HN