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

Fuchsia, a new operating system

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 175 posts

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#161

Post by arprocter »

abarth wrote: post #35
hackaflocka wrote: post #31

I consider myself fairly tech savvy, and have done a little programming here and there. But from the linked page I couldn't figure out where any of the documentation of this "thing" is, nor how to install it, nor what platforms it's for. Was it just me?

Instructions for getting and building the code are here: https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/manifest/+/master/README.md It runs on arm, arm64, and x64.

I tried the Ubuntu instructions on a Debian box but it errors out with:

fuchsia/.jiri_root/tmp/src/v.io/x/lib/cmdline/cmdline.go:236: undefined: os.Unsetenv

I suspect it is because the version of go in the repo is too old, I tried manually installing the newer version but still no joy

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#162

Post by ufuk »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #131
jpfed wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why a single wavelength would be considered the "real" stimulus that results in a color perception while other metamers for that perception are somehow less "real".

That's why I put "real" in quotes. There isn't really another single word I can think of that gets the idea across.

"Pure"?

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#163

Post by Ericson2314 »

snarfy wrote: post #111
c3534l wrote: post #83

Fuchsia is not a combination of pink and purple. It is the color your brain comes up with when it sees contradictory color signals (such as very high and very low wavelengths without the appropriate middle stimulation). It's the only color not in the rainbow. As you can see from this additive color program ( http://trycolors.com/?try=1&ffb5d9=0&c31cff=0 ), pink and purple create a lavender color. Whereas fuscia is wh…

A rainbow starts at red and ends a violet. In your brain, the rainbow wraps around in a circle, connecting red and violet. This is not the reality of the wavelengths, so your brain makes up a color that fits between red and violet.

It's also almost an octave of color---I cut my brain some slack

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#164

Post by sangnoir »

sroussey wrote: post #152
sangnoir wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> To build a new OS from scratch takes a huge effort. If you're going to do it then you should really try to advance the state of the art in big ways I do not get the impression that Fuchsia is a "research project", and it's purpose is not to advance the state of the art. > When Microsoft did their own new OS research project, Midori, that's the path they walked. How did it work out for them?

Midori was really interesting. I don't know of another that removed context switching.

> Midori was really interesting

No doubt, and so are some art-house movies I've watched - they usually leave me thinking (or flummoxed).

There is a place for art-house movies and a place for more commercial fare (e.g. blockbusters) - it is important not to confuse the two.Some gifted auteurs manage to blend the two, but IMO,it is wrong for anyone to say "if you're taking the time to make a movie, make it intellectual"

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#166

Post by craigcowley32 »

ansible wrote: post #56

I'm calling it now: this is for augmented reality displays and similar. You want an RTOS for loss and predictable latency. And current GUIs aren't really suited to 3D environments you can walk around inside. This is Google's next Android, with a low latency rendering pipeline for the next generation of mobile devices.

Good job

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#167

Post by pfalcon »

cyphar wrote: post #121
slavik81 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You clearly have a better understanding of this issue than I do. My reading was that they were calling theirs the "FreeRTOS open source license", and it just referenced the GPL.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what the FSF's opinion on it would be. Since they don't call it the GPL (I must've skipped over that part) then they might be in the clear -- though they're still modifying the license text by prepending restrictions to it that make the rest of the license text contradictory.

I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net.

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#168

Post by pfalcon »

emmelaich wrote: post #36
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #29

> It is good alternative to commercial offerings like FreeRTOS [1] FreeRTOS is GPL with an exception for static linking making it effectively free if you make no modifications. There is, however, an onerous clause prohibiting the publication of comparative benchmarks. [2] [1] https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/HEAD/docs/mg_and_... [2] http://www.freertos.org/license.txt

There doesn't seem to be much point to that benchmark clause. If it's GPL the source is effectively mine to do what I like. I could make a trivial change to the source (or not perhaps), and call the result a FreeRTOS derivative and publish my derivative's benchmarks.

I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net.

[sorry for cross-post]

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#169

Post by pfalcon »

slavik81 wrote: post #37
emmelaich wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There doesn't seem to be much point to that benchmark clause. If it's GPL the source is effectively mine to do what I like. I could make a trivial change to the source (or not perhaps), and call the result a FreeRTOS derivative and publish my derivative's benchmarks.

No, you couldn't because it's not GPL. It's a license that is nearly identical to the GPL, but slightly different. I think that added restriction actually makes it GPL incompatible, and disqualifies it from being an actual open source license.

I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net.

[sorry for cross-post]

Re: Fuchsia, a new operating system

#170

Post by cyphar »

pfalcon wrote: post #167
cyphar wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what the FSF's opinion on it would be. Since they don't call it the GPL (I must've skipped over that part) then they might be in the clear -- though they're still modifying the license text by prepending restrictions to it that make the rest of the license text contradictory.

I'm very glad to have found this discussion, as I have concerns (as expressed above) with FreeRTOS for some time. I would be really interested what FSF would say too. cyphar, emmelaich, slavik81, et al. - would anyone of you be interested enough in this case to actually try to follow with FSF/related parties? Please reply here if you're interested, or feel free to get in touch at pfalcon-at-users.sourceforge.net.

Email rms@gnu.org. That's literally all there is to it. If he thinks there's a valid case then he'll forward it to the right FSF people.
Post reply on HN