41–45 of 45 posts
With this, China is ahead. HarmonyOS is a modern (post-Liedtke) microkernel, multi-server OS. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is stuck with the likes of Linux (monolithic), Windows NT (ugly hybrid) and MacOS (pre-liedtke Mach, hybrid, ugly). Good technology exists (e.g. seL4, genode, RISC-V) but we seem to be stuck investing into bad tech.
We should have known that if we limited China from accessing our tech, they'd just grow their own. The game is afoot, and China knew to de-risk and decouple. I don't think that it can be stopped at this point. HarmonyOS, RISC-V, DeepSeek, domestic EUV, etc. China is standing up its own tech pillars. So I suppose American lawmakers see this as a game of slowing down the competition rather than fully impeding it. China…
When you prevent somebody from accessing what is out there, they release their own. The problem with that?? Well, only they mastered it since it was developed with local tech, by the time the goods are sent worldwide, you are blindfolded. Still, I would never buy a Chinese tech device, you are buying a surveillance system to allow its government to spy on you.
ftfy
With this, China is ahead. HarmonyOS is a modern (post-Liedtke) microkernel, multi-server OS. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is stuck with the likes of Linux (monolithic), Windows NT (ugly hybrid) and MacOS (pre-liedtke Mach, hybrid, ugly). Good technology exists (e.g. seL4, genode, RISC-V) but we seem to be stuck investing into bad tech.
2026 will be the year of the hurd desktop!
Unless it does, it is unlikely there'll ever be a year of the hurd desktop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quite easy when you are a state apparatus
Statements like this are just lazy justifications, born out of the desire to reinforce a certain world view, rather than genuine effort to understand. Much has already been said about why Huawei is not simply a state apparatus, so I won't repeat that. The point I rather want to make is this: having a factually wrong image of the counterparty is dangerous, especially if you view the counterparty as an enemy (justified…
Calling Huawei a “counterparty” suggests it has real independence. But in China’s system, especially with big tech, that’s just not how it works. The CCP doesn’t need to own a company to control it. There are legal, political, and financial levers that ensure Huawei stays on track. That’s not comparable to how companies operate in the U.S. or EU, where they can push back on the state without fear of retaliation.
I get why my comment came off as simplistic, but it’s not baseless. If we want to understand what we’re dealing with, we have to be honest about the structure Huawei operates in. Misreading that is a bigger risk than calling it what it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Statements like this are just lazy justifications, born out of the desire to reinforce a certain world view, rather than genuine effort to understand. Much has already been said about why Huawei is not simply a state apparatus, so I won't repeat that. The point I rather want to make is this: having a factually wrong image of the counterparty is dangerous, especially if you view the counterparty as an enemy (justified…
Fair point on the need for nuance—I could have made that clearer. But the core idea still stands: Huawei can’t operate outside the CCP’s interests. Sure, the Party isn’t managing daily tasks, but it sets the rules of the game. Everything Huawei does ultimately aligns with national goals, whether by design or necessity. That makes it a de facto state apparatus. Calling Huawei a “counterparty” suggests it has real inde…