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

161–170 of 334 posts

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#161

Post by bogwog »

peey wrote: post #145

AOSP is an open source project, which is impractical for any business to run because of apps' reliance on proprietary google play services. Chromium is an open source project, but proprietary chrome has the largest browser market share and they like to abuse their position to not play well with standards bodies. Google can develop Fuchsia. It'll even be cool piece of tech, but I do not for a second believe that contr…

Hopefully Google is broken up before they decide to discontinue Android and replace it with Fuchsia 10 years from now.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#162

Post by random3 »

kerneis wrote: post #33
outside1234 wrote: post #11

That is the most hideous source control system ever. Do they really need to be developer hostile just because Github is owned by Microsoft? I mean seriously, who has time to commit to a project with a random set of tooling.

You may want to browse it using https://cs.opensource.google/fuchsia . Much nicer interface. (disclosure: I work on Fuchsia at Google)

Wow! That's so fast it feels good :) I'd actually prefer that as a default for GitHub. Is it based on a public tool? Does it render server-side?

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#163

Post by rodgerd »

outworlder wrote: post #110

> Fuchsia is a long-term project to create a general-purpose, open source operating system Why do we need this? We have Linux. It works. It is open-source, general purpose. It needs more support to become more mainstream (like what Valve has done with Proton). Don't like Linux? Start with one of the BSDs. Heck, start with Haiku. Any of these projects are lightyears ahead of anything that's just starting. The most lik…

> Why do we need this?

So Google own the kernel under a license that lets them add secret sauce.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#164

Post by bogwog »

ori_b wrote: post #116
ceras wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I think there's a couple examples of these open source projects gaining non-Google traction: - The new Edge, Opera, and Brave are based on Chromium - China has a huge ecosystem of non-Google Android devices Google does exert strong control of their open source code, and Google is clearly the prime beneficiary of them, but the external world has still leveraged these projects nonetheless

> The new Edge, Opera, and Brave are based on Chromium Largely because Google has pushed enough complexity into the browser that maintaining a browser engine is unaffordable, so you use Chrome as is. Have any of these projects successfully managed to contribute meaningfully, or are they just adding alternative window trimming to chrome?

And the Android in China example doesn't really say much because because the only way that was possible was through the forceful intervention of the Chinese government.

Nowhere else in the world is there a market where Android is free from Google's iron grip, outside of tech enthusiast/hacker circles.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#165

Post by heavyset_go »

bogwog wrote: post #161
peey wrote: post #145

AOSP is an open source project, which is impractical for any business to run because of apps' reliance on proprietary google play services. Chromium is an open source project, but proprietary chrome has the largest browser market share and they like to abuse their position to not play well with standards bodies. Google can develop Fuchsia. It'll even be cool piece of tech, but I do not for a second believe that contr…

Hopefully Google is broken up before they decide to discontinue Android and replace it with Fuchsia 10 years from now.

Agreed, but commenting to say that they'll probably try to push Fuchsia much sooner than 10 years.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#166

Post by tesmar2 »

bogwog wrote: post #161
peey wrote: post #145

AOSP is an open source project, which is impractical for any business to run because of apps' reliance on proprietary google play services. Chromium is an open source project, but proprietary chrome has the largest browser market share and they like to abuse their position to not play well with standards bodies. Google can develop Fuchsia. It'll even be cool piece of tech, but I do not for a second believe that contr…

Hopefully Google is broken up before they decide to discontinue Android and replace it with Fuchsia 10 years from now.

Hopefully not. They are not a monopoly and doing so would be a severe overreach.

Edit: Looks like many don't understand that you have alternatives to Google and you can use them.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#167

Post by barnacled »

I am a Linux kernel contributor and former golang and chromium contributor and to be honest the latter experiences makes me leary about contributing to another Google project.

There generally tends to be an insular 'cathedral' rather than 'bazaar' approach to Google projects where those working for the company get considerably more say and control than outside contributors.

The whole issue I have with it is that they pretend otherwise. With go many people laboured under the misapprehension that they could have more input than was actually possible. Not so different with chromium.

The cathedral model is fine but be honest about it.

With the Linux kernel if you have a good idea and can defend it you have a genuine chance of contributing. So I know my limited spare time efforts aren't wasted. With fuchsia I couldn't be so sure.

I hope I am wrong but the fact they are only now taking potential contributions suggests otherwise.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#168

Post by bogwog »

CivBase wrote: post #53
EvilEy3 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on Android part?

I believe he's referring to how Android phones have slowly become more and more dependent on the closed-source Google Play Services to provide essential functionality. Despite Android itself being "open source", many Android devices and apps are useless without Google's proprietary services.

> many Android devices and apps are useless without Google's proprietary services.

And not, in fact, open source. Due to the non-GPL license, every single Android device out there is effectively running a closed-source fork of AOSP.

I had an old Samsung device automatically install TikTok when I powered it on after sitting in a drawer for years. TikTok didn't even exist when I bought the phone, yet someone with more control over my device than me sold the remote access (they gave themselves, without my consent) to TikTok.

Of course this is not a new development, but the proprietary BS and Google's increasingly evil actions over the past decade really highlight how much of a problem that is. Trusting Fuchsia is just repeating that mistake.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#169

Post by mtgx »

Still seems like a wasted opportunity not to have Fuchsia or at least Zircon developed in Rust.

Who knows how many development man hours and security bugs and data breaches will that single decision saved over the next several decades.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#170

Post by gpm »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #91
CogitoCogito wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I want to distribute derivative works of the Linux kernel, I need to release those works to all. My competitors can take advantage of this, but in the end they are bound by similar rules. This produces a feedback loop in which contributions back may be used by everyone under pretty much equal terms. If you assign your copyright to Google, they may make use of those changes and integrate them into further developme…

> If I want to distribute derivative works of the Linux kernel, I need to release those works to all. This is false. The GPL does not require you to make source code available to anybody who asks, only those you distribute the software too (in source or binary form). If you modify a GPL'ed application and then distribute that to 3 friends, those friends have the right to ask for the (modified) source code. Nobody els…

Incorrect, under GPLv3 if you do not distribute the source with the object, anyone with a copy of the object code is entitled to request the source code if you do not distribute the object code with the source code. I.e. if those friends give it to someone else your obligation to provide source follows the object to someone else. (This is a short and incomplete summary of section 6).

GPLv2 is even more stringent, if you do not accompany the source with the object than any third party with or without access to the object is entitled to request the source code. (This is a short and incomplete summary of section 3).

Post reply on HN