41–50 of 191 posts
I'm surprised this is still being worked on I was under the impression that Google abandoned this. Also, I would be interested to see a comparison to the wasm component model as it also seems to want to do the same things docker containers do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a potpourri of stuff over 7 years, sprinkled on a base of confirmation bias re: the common wisdom has a "perception...completely made up out of thin air", and a misunderstanding that speaking publicly in this individual talk represents a step change or something new. I would bet, very, very, many dollars it is not coming to Android in any form, Starnix isn't coming soon if ever, and they're not looking to mov…
Personally, as an outsider, losing what ChromeOS was becoming (Google's spin on desktop Linux) is the saddest part of this for me.
* had to give it up? TL;DR: A key part of my workflow was being able to remote desktop into a Linux tower for heavy builds. Probably could have made it work anyway, obviously you wouldn't try building Android on a laptop, but a consumer app would be fine. I left to try and pick up some of the work I saw a lot of smart people do towards something better. And monetizing that in the short-term requires supporting iOS/macOS, which only compile on Mac
I haven’t watched this talk, but I worked on Fuchsia from the start (I’m no longer at Google) and want to clear up some common questions and misconceptions: 1. Fuchsia is a general-purpose operating system built to support Google’s consumer hardware. 2. It’s not designed to compete with or replace Android. Its goal is to replace Linux, which Android is built on. One big challenge it addresses is Linux’s driver proble…
Thanks for the info. For those of us not familiar with it, what were the main motivations for building Fuchsia instead of just using Linux?
I haven’t watched this talk, but I worked on Fuchsia from the start (I’m no longer at Google) and want to clear up some common questions and misconceptions: 1. Fuchsia is a general-purpose operating system built to support Google’s consumer hardware. 2. It’s not designed to compete with or replace Android. Its goal is to replace Linux, which Android is built on. One big challenge it addresses is Linux’s driver proble…
Having tea leaves instead of a public strategy and roadmap is what's causing the FUD in the first place. Google probably has good reasons for not making any promises but that hedging comes with a cost.
I haven’t watched this talk, but I worked on Fuchsia from the start (I’m no longer at Google) and want to clear up some common questions and misconceptions: 1. Fuchsia is a general-purpose operating system built to support Google’s consumer hardware. 2. It’s not designed to compete with or replace Android. Its goal is to replace Linux, which Android is built on. One big challenge it addresses is Linux’s driver proble…
Thanks for the info. For those of us not familiar with it, what were the main motivations for building Fuchsia instead of just using Linux?
(Historically, that's one big reason that there's lots of Android phones that get a fork of whatever release was current some months before they shipped, and never get substantial updates.)
I haven’t watched this talk, but I worked on Fuchsia from the start (I’m no longer at Google) and want to clear up some common questions and misconceptions: 1. Fuchsia is a general-purpose operating system built to support Google’s consumer hardware. 2. It’s not designed to compete with or replace Android. Its goal is to replace Linux, which Android is built on. One big challenge it addresses is Linux’s driver proble…
Thanks for the info. For those of us not familiar with it, what were the main motivations for building Fuchsia instead of just using Linux?
> One big challenge it addresses is Linux’s driver problem
Android devices have been plagued with vendors having out-of-tree device drivers that compile for linux 3.x, but not 4.x or 5.x, and so the phone is unable to update to a new major android version wit ha new linux kernel.
A micro-kernel with a clearly defined device driver API would mean that Google could update the kernel and android version, while continuing to let old device drivers work without update.
That's consistently been one of the motivating factors cited, and linux's monolithic design, where the internal driver API has never been anything close to stable, will not solve that problem.
I'm surprised this is still being worked on I was under the impression that Google abandoned this. Also, I would be interested to see a comparison to the wasm component model as it also seems to want to do the same things docker containers do.
It never really got released so nobody is depending on it, so why would google abandon it yet?
[0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/18/22630245/google-fuchsia-o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the info. For those of us not familiar with it, what were the main motivations for building Fuchsia instead of just using Linux?
They did say: > One big challenge it addresses is Linux’s driver problem Android devices have been plagued with vendors having out-of-tree device drivers that compile for linux 3.x, but not 4.x or 5.x, and so the phone is unable to update to a new major android version wit ha new linux kernel. A micro-kernel with a clearly defined device driver API would mean that Google could update the kernel and android version, w…
A monolithic kernel with a clearly defined device driver API would do the same thing. Linux is explicitly not that, of course. Maintaining backwards-compatibility in an API is a non-trivial amount of work regardless of whether the boundary is a network connection, IPC, or function call.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the lack of public information about their future plans for the project combined with the “killed by Google” meme got smashed together here and that is actually a really common perception but also one that is completely made up out of thin air. It has been under heavy heavy development for many years now. The fact that they are now starting to talk about it publicly now is probably a sign that they are lookin…
Fuchsia may not be outright dead, but it's definitely on life support and would've been killed a long time ago if senior people at Google weren't personally backing it. It had great foundations but without a concrete use case or product development was constantly pulled in different directions. It seemed like every year a new niche for Fuchsia was on the horizon, 6 months of development time would be dedicated to it,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the lack of public information about their future plans for the project combined with the “killed by Google” meme got smashed together here and that is actually a really common perception but also one that is completely made up out of thin air. It has been under heavy heavy development for many years now. The fact that they are now starting to talk about it publicly now is probably a sign that they are lookin…
Fuchsia may not be outright dead, but it's definitely on life support and would've been killed a long time ago if senior people at Google weren't personally backing it. It had great foundations but without a concrete use case or product development was constantly pulled in different directions. It seemed like every year a new niche for Fuchsia was on the horizon, 6 months of development time would be dedicated to it,…