Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Mar 30, 2017 4:18 UTC (Thu) by roc (subscriber, #30627)
Parent article: Fuchsia: a new operating system

My big question is "what is the point of Fuschia?"

Is it better security? Then why use C++? Alternatively, why not start with seL4 or a derivative?

Is it the non-copyleft license?

Is it full employment for Google engineers?

to post comments

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Mar 30, 2017 6:38 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link] (3 responses)

All other OSes have a fatal flaw.

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Mar 30, 2017 9:53 UTC (Thu) by dgm (subscriber, #49227) [Link] (2 responses)

Wrong choice of color?

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Mar 30, 2017 17:10 UTC (Thu) by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523) [Link]

They didn't write it: http://www.drdobbs.com/windows/a-brief-history-of-windows...

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Mar 31, 2017 10:22 UTC (Fri) by ortalo (guest, #4654) [Link]

Red vs. pink has always been a debate... hence the compromise I guess, with that green natural touch which is currently so trendy.
Anyway, at least it will change from cats: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuchsia#/media/File:Fleurs_...

As a side note, I like the idea with capabilities ; but I wonder how it will go up through the entire software task and reach the user.

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Mar 30, 2017 9:04 UTC (Thu) by xav (guest, #18536) [Link]

My guess is on the license. Maybe one day you'll see a VM for android bytecode on fushia.

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Apr 2, 2017 15:50 UTC (Sun) by yoshi314 (guest, #36190) [Link] (5 responses)

speculation is that they aim to provide a way for better hardware support by not having them rely on shifting abi of the kernel.

kernel maintenance for android (and availability of system updates) is pretty much a nightmare, with vendors on one end and kernel developers on the other.

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Apr 3, 2017 0:41 UTC (Mon) by pabs (subscriber, #43278) [Link] (4 responses)

I'll take the current system over proprietary drivers any day of the week.

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Apr 3, 2017 21:38 UTC (Mon) by aryonoco (guest, #55563) [Link] (3 responses)

You very well might, but Google, and the over a billion people whose Android phones are running outdated software with known root vulnerabilities due to the inability of chipset makers to update their drivers, would very much like to be able to use a system that can be properly updated, binary drivers or not.

Binary drivers are not going to go away. Qualcomm, Imagination Tech., MediaTek, Samsung all rely on closed binary drivers (and this will continue to do so due to patents). The question is not binary drivers vs open source mainline drivers, it is between binary drivers blobs in a kernel that cannot easily be updated, or binary blobs in a kernel that can be.

And Google, rightly in my opinion, is coming to the conclusion that the latter option is better.

Hence Fuchsia.

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Apr 3, 2017 21:44 UTC (Mon) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (1 responses)

> Binary drivers are not going to go away. Qualcomm, Imagination Tech., MediaTek, Samsung all rely on closed binary drivers (and this will continue to do so due to patents).

You forgot to add "despite this being a violation of the GPL"

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Apr 4, 2017 2:40 UTC (Tue) by aryonoco (guest, #55563) [Link]

Good luck enforcing that copyright infringement in court when most kernel developers don't think binary blobs are a GPL violation.

Fuchsia: a new operating system

Posted Apr 11, 2017 10:19 UTC (Tue) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> Binary drivers are not going to go away. Qualcomm, Imagination Tech., MediaTek, Samsung all rely on closed binary drivers (and this will continue to do so due to patents).

Except it looks like the next big bun-fight over patents could kill them (the software version) completely!

One of the biggest pro-software-patent Supreme Court Judges seems to have come to the conclusion that software patents are illogical and cannot be justified. I don't think he quite got there in the last judgement, but it seems as though he is trying to think things through logically, and when dealing with software patents he's suddenly realised he's got his logic in a mobius twist.

Cheers,
Wol