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

Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

opensource.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 334 posts

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#321

Post by lern_too_spel »

zepto wrote: post #316
lern_too_spel wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Push messaging is a service, just like anonymous proxies are a service. It doesn't make sense to put them into a platform if they can be built on top of the platform. It would make sense to put something like this into iOS because it can't be built on iOS. It doesn't make sense to put it into AOSP.

Earlier you said AOSP had a framework for push notifications, a statement found to be false when checking the links you provided. Now you say it doesn’t make even sense to put this feature in the platform, confirming that you were lying when you said it already was part of the platform. Why are you talking about iOS?

AOSP has a framework to support multiple backends. It's called the Service framework. With it, you can build a library to simplify dealing with backends, and I pointed you to one such library.

> Now you say it doesn’t make even sense to put this feature in the platform

Of course it doesn't make sense to build that library into the platform.

> Why are you talking about iOS?

iOS doesn't provide the ability to make this possible, which is probably why you are so confused.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#322

Post by zepto »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #321
zepto wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Earlier you said AOSP had a framework for push notifications, a statement found to be false when checking the links you provided. Now you say it doesn’t make even sense to put this feature in the platform, confirming that you were lying when you said it already was part of the platform. Why are you talking about iOS?

AOSP has a framework to support multiple backends. It's called the Service framework. With it, you can build a library to simplify dealing with backends, and I pointed you to one such library. > Now you say it doesn’t make even sense to put this feature in the platform Of course it doesn't make sense to build that library into the platform. > Why are you talking about iOS? iOS doesn't provide the ability to make this…

“I pointed you to one such library”

You pointed me to an abandoned codebase. When I pointed out that it seemed incomplete you said:

“It is already usable.” ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25361587 )

Do you still claim it’s already usable? If not, why did you say it is?

You say: “Of course it doesn't make sense to build that library into the platform.”

I agree, but nobody is talking about building that library into the platform. The comment you are replying to is talking about the feature, not that library:

“Now you say it doesn’t make even sense to put this feature in the platform”

Do you think it makes sense to put this feature into the platform?

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#323

Post by e12e »

205g0 wrote: post #320
e12e wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's underwhelming about?: sudo apt install unattended-upgrades

You have to touch two config files. One is easy but the other one needs a bit of googling, nothing major but yeah why at all this? Auto-updating security updates should be the default if you run servers in the wild.

> You have to touch two config files.

Not if you just want automatic security updates? The package is part of the server task, and defaults to installing security updates. It does not install other updates, and does not automatically reboot.

> Auto-updating security updates should be the default if you run servers in the wild.

It pretty much is (for Ubuntu server)?

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#324

Post by lern_too_spel »

zepto wrote: post #322
lern_too_spel wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AOSP has a framework to support multiple backends. It's called the Service framework. With it, you can build a library to simplify dealing with backends, and I pointed you to one such library. > Now you say it doesn’t make even sense to put this feature in the platform Of course it doesn't make sense to build that library into the platform. > Why are you talking about iOS? iOS doesn't provide the ability to make this…

“I pointed you to one such library” You pointed me to an abandoned codebase. When I pointed out that it seemed incomplete you said: “It is already usable.” ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25361587 ) Do you still claim it’s already usable? If not, why did you say it is? You say: “Of course it doesn't make sense to build that library into the platform.” I agree, but nobody is talking about building that library…

> Do you think it makes sense to put this feature into the platform?

How many times do I have to tell you that it doesn't?

Do you think AOSP should have a framework specifically for uploading photos to a photo sharing service in the background? That is another standard feature for smartphones. Of course not, it just needs the ability to support uploading photos to multiple services, and people can build libraries on top of the platform to make it easier. This is notably another thing that is not possible on iOS.

> You pointed me to an abandoned codebase.

And another one that isn't abandoned.

> Do you still claim it’s already usable? If not, why did you say it is?

No. I assumed it was because they had already announced it. Any developer who would like it can simply finish the library themselves.

We seem to be in agreement except for your wacky ideas of how much should be in the platform vs. how much should be built on top of the platform.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#325

Post by zepto »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #324
zepto wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“I pointed you to one such library” You pointed me to an abandoned codebase. When I pointed out that it seemed incomplete you said: “It is already usable.” ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25361587 ) Do you still claim it’s already usable? If not, why did you say it is? You say: “Of course it doesn't make sense to build that library into the platform.” I agree, but nobody is talking about building that library…

> Do you think it makes sense to put this feature into the platform? How many times do I have to tell you that it doesn't? Do you think AOSP should have a framework specifically for uploading photos to a photo sharing service in the background? That is another standard feature for smartphones. Of course not, it just needs the ability to support uploading photos to multiple services, and people can build libraries on…

> No. I assumed it was because they had already announced it.

You said it was already usable after I said that the link you posted showed that it was incomplete.

I.e: You made a claim that you didn’t know was true, but stated it as fact, even when you were asked to confirm it.

This is known as lying - saying something is true, when you don’t know it is true.

In this case I didn’t even call you on it - I just asked whether you were sure it was usable.

Your response was to immediately reply with a false statement.

A true answer would have been: “I don’t know, but I assume so because it has been announced.”

Because you do this, what you say simply cannot be taken at face value.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#326

Post by quadrangle »

evgen wrote: post #288
quadrangle wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fuzziness to the concept of monopoly. It doesn't have to mean the absolute version where no alternatives exist at all. It can (and legally does) mean that a business is so dominant that it can effectively dictate the terms of the market. Google has a search monopoly effective enough that they can solely make or break anyone who relies on search. They have enough dominance in the market that if they were to…

As a simple example of this, let us imagine for a minute that Amazon and Google go to war. Google drops all search results that point to Amazon products or products in the Amazon marketplace and direct those searches to competitors and competing marketplaces. Google also changes Chrome so that entries into the url bar that are not explicitly for amazon domains do not match or return any amazon domain or product. Sinc…

That's not a simple example, that's an exceptional poor example. That's like talking about a world with a railroad monopoly and a steel monopoly and discussing what happens if they have a war at their intersection. That's not the point at all.

Google does NOT have a monopoly on searching for the sorts of products you buy on Amazon. In that particular exceptional case, a lot of people do go straight to Amazon for the search.

Google's monopoly is on other sorts of searching.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#327

Post by quadrangle »

tesmar2 wrote: post #258
quadrangle wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a fuzziness to the concept of monopoly. It doesn't have to mean the absolute version where no alternatives exist at all. It can (and legally does) mean that a business is so dominant that it can effectively dictate the terms of the market. Google has a search monopoly effective enough that they can solely make or break anyone who relies on search. They have enough dominance in the market that if they were to…

I switched to Bing for search, it's great. > it could utterly devastate all sorts of players in the market That's the risk you take if you bank your entire business off of your search rank on Google. You should diversify accordingly. This fuzziness you speak of has lead to massive overreach in the past, and it needs to stop.

I use DuckDuckGo myself. The issue isn't that no alternatives exist (if that were the case, it would be much clearer that Google had a plain and simple monopoly). The issue is that Google can unilaterally kill or make other businesses through their search. For example, they can use their search dominance to push everyone into Chrome in order to kill Firefox (even as they pay Mozilla and Apple to keep Google as default search).

Google's search dominance is under threat from competition, but they do enough anti-competitive stuff to keep their dominance that it's an issue.

Maybe a big step would be just to block Google from paying Apple and others to make Google the default. I don't know. Probably the more impactful would be to separate the Google search business from the Android stuff. The benefit Google has from tying those two together makes it really so much harder for competition to gain ground.

If you want a pretty neutral balanced view of the issues of anti-trust, Planet Money did a good little series on how overreach in the past led to excessive caution and underreaction now.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2019/03/20/704426033/anti...

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#328

Post by lern_too_spel »

zepto wrote: post #325
lern_too_spel wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you think it makes sense to put this feature into the platform? How many times do I have to tell you that it doesn't? Do you think AOSP should have a framework specifically for uploading photos to a photo sharing service in the background? That is another standard feature for smartphones. Of course not, it just needs the ability to support uploading photos to multiple services, and people can build libraries on…

> No. I assumed it was because they had already announced it. You said it was already usable after I said that the link you posted showed that it was incomplete. I.e: You made a claim that you didn’t know was true, but stated it as fact, even when you were asked to confirm it. This is known as lying - saying something is true, when you don’t know it is true. In this case I didn’t even call you on it - I just asked wh…

Says the guy who has been caught lying many times after he finally found a single time that I lied. Sure, buddy.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#329

Post by tesmar2 »

quadrangle wrote: post #327
tesmar2 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I switched to Bing for search, it's great. > it could utterly devastate all sorts of players in the market That's the risk you take if you bank your entire business off of your search rank on Google. You should diversify accordingly. This fuzziness you speak of has lead to massive overreach in the past, and it needs to stop.

I use DuckDuckGo myself. The issue isn't that no alternatives exist (if that were the case, it would be much clearer that Google had a plain and simple monopoly). The issue is that Google can unilaterally kill or make other businesses through their search. For example, they can use their search dominance to push everyone into Chrome in order to kill Firefox (even as they pay Mozilla and Apple to keep Google as defaul…

> The issue is that Google can unilaterally kill or make other businesses through their search.

I don't see how this answers my statement. Of course they can, it's their platform. I'm sure MS pushes their new browser on bing. There's another thread open today where people have listed a ton of alternates so one can de-google. I did it 2 years ago, it's been fine. Apple Maps is much better than it used to be, bing is better than it used to be. Lots of email options.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#330

Post by dhodell »

fnord123 wrote: post #319
dhodell wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. My point here was exactly that is not how a bazaar model functions. Hence the use of "in this regard."

But it comes from observing what the Linux community did and giving it a name. It wasn't an ivory tower meditation but a field observation. I don't know how one can then turn around and say that it is not how the model works. Was the original observation incorrect? It might sound like I'm being pernicious but I think fuchsia is great tech and I want it to succeed. I feel compelled to cheer you on in seeing the bazaar…

Sorry, I am doing a poor job communicating. I agree with your assessment of how the bazaar model works.

When I said "in this regard", the intent was to signal that "bazaar" explicitly doesn't mean an anarchic situation where all change is accepted. It's maybe more anarchic than the cathedral model, but it's controlled anarchy.

The reality is that most projects fall somewhere between the two models. The people most heavily invested in the projects tend to drive change, and this is sometimes at the behest of the community. That doesn't automatically make the project a cathedral.

Similarly, while Google controls the direction and funds the development of Fuchsia, our development process (which we publish on fuchsia.dev in the Governance section) is very much bazaar-like. This is difficult to see because we haven't been open about our processes, and we haven't engaged externally with developers. To that extent, we've been very much "cathedral". This expanded model is us inviting folks to join us in the bazaar.

Post reply on HN