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

261–270 of 334 posts

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#261

Post by asadlionpk »

wmf wrote: post #152
evil-olive wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The OWNERS file is typically used, sometimes by automated tooling, to answer the "who should I ask to code review these changes?" question. https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/src/+/HEAD/docs/c... https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/creat... https://docs.gitlab.com/ee/user/project/code_owners.html It's not meant to be a place for developer bios. If for no other reason than one developer coul…

Let me add some context. I was looking at the governance links on the site and found https://fuchsia.dev/fuchsia-src/contribute/governance/eng_co... which at the bottom simply says "The current members of the Fuchsia Eng Council are listed in this OWNERS file." I think it would improve the transparency/accountability of the project to have more than a list of email addresses here.

Probably not in the OWNERS file though, as it’s a machine-consumable file, heavy used inside and outside google for automation.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#262

Post by dannyw »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #236
peey wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's open source alternatives to Play Services that Google neither litigates against nor seems to actively fight against AFAIK these are reverse-engineered. Do you sincerely believe that developers' time is best spent reverse engineering and maintaining play services alts to undo a blockade that Google put in, just to be able to get full freedom over their android derivative? Wouldn't it be better spent in playi…

What freedom are they lacking without Play Services?

The ability to get notifications.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#263

Post by wojciii »

Arelius wrote: post #94
wojciii wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for writing this so that I don't have to. :) This would probably be a good time to mention https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr .

Can you give extra context? It's unclear to me how Zephyr relates other than being an operating system. It doesn't on initial look seem to be designed with the same goals as Fuchsia.

This is an OS which can be used to create IOT devices - it works on many devices and architectures without binary blobs other than some firmware for stuff like BLE or WiFi.

"Fuchsia is an open source effort to create a production-grade operating system that prioritizes security, updatability, and performance. Fuchsia is a foundation for developers to create long-lasting products and experiences across a broad range of devices."

"The Zephyr ProjectTM strives to deliver the best-in-class RTOS for connected resource-constrained devices, built to be secure and safe."

This sounds a lot like the same to me - Fuchsia is perhaps more a general OS, but I would think that Zephyr can solve the same problems as Fuchsia.

What I like about Zephyr is that it is developed in the open and not in some google lab.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#264

Post by pabs3 »

rhencke wrote: post #259
pabs3 wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of them could have agreements with Google that let them do that.

Let's say this is true. If I fork one of the aforementioned Chromium packages, is my fork covered under that agreement? Is my right to build and produce my own binaries from the original unmodified source still intact?

Presumably not.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#265

Post by ewoodrich »

bogwog wrote: post #164
ori_b wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Amazon Fire tablets and Fire TV use Android without the Google parts and seem to be pretty successful.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#267

Post by dingaling »

actuator wrote: post #79
jmnicolas wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah the base open sources Android is barely usable. Even simple things like getting a local notification at the right time are not a given. If they do the same with Fuschia, they'd better make it closed sources then.

Sorry, not familiar with Android core. For your example, how would it work without proprietary technologies? AFAIK, Android uses GCM for notifications. Adding integrations for it don't seem to make much sense in core open source Android as that will make you tied to Google's ecosystem.

IMAP Idle works fine for e-mail so long as Android doesn't kill the background process. No need for proprietary service.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#268

Post by TheMatten »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #266
dannyw wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ability to get notifications.

It's possible to get notifications without Play Services. See ADM, OpenPush, etc.

It's not about what is possible, it's about what developers eventually pick. While some privacy-focused companies seem to use more open alternatives or even implement the system themselves, most of developers simply stick with Play Services, which makes use of many (even FOSS) apps cumbersome without them.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#269

Post by sanxiyn »

kortilla wrote: post #241
olladecarne wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> those working for the company get considerably more say and control than outside contributors As someone who knows little about open source politics, I'm genuinely curious about how people expect this should work. What are the large open source projects that have the gold standard for this that I can learn about? My initial reaction is that if a company contributes considerably more to a project, shouldn't they hav…

These kind of projects are just “open washing” at that point. The source is available, but outsiders can’t meaningfully contribute stuff outside of the preordained roadmap nor is the project beholden to community consensus. As an open source contributor, it’s very unfulfilling and disappointing to find out you’re essentially an unpaid contributor to a company project.

I think unpaid internship is unquestionably a good thing. It's consensual, and unpaid interns are usually happy to do unpaid internship.

It makes sense you are not happy to do unpaid internship, but the only thing it shows is that you are not the target audience.

Re: Expanding Fuchsia's open source model

#270

Post by bayindirh »

sterlind wrote: post #238
bayindirh wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, OS research is always good. Experimenting from ground up is even better. But Minix, the hero of the Microkernel research, became the guardian of Intel systems and preventer of tinkering and exploration. Can we certainly say that Fuschia will be Free and mild natured like BSD and Linux or will it become another silent "hard-layer" like Minix? GP (and I) certainly fear about the latter. Given Google's transform…

why did Intel pick Minix, anyway? Licensing or something?

Partly license, partly memory footprint it seems. Even Tenenbaum doesn't know exactly why [0].

[0]: https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/

Post reply on HN