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.
Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system
191–200 of 285 posts
Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system
#192Earlier 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…
Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system
#193Ah, 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".
Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system
#194Earlier 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…
Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system
#195Earlier 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.
Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system
#196Earlier 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.
Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system
#197Earlier 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…
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
#198A 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.
Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system
#199The technical reasons for Fuchsia to exist are debatable. The real reason it exists is because Linux is GPL.
Re: Playing around with the Fuchsia operating system
#200Earlier 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.
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.