Slashdot Mirror


Google Working On New 'Fuchsia' OS (digitaltrends.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Google is working on a new operating system dubbed Fuchsia OS for smartphones, computers, and various other devices. The new operating system was spotted in the Git repository, where the description reads: "Pick + Purple == Fuchsia (a new Operating System). Hacker News reports that Travis Geiselbrech, who worked on NewOS, BeOS, Danger, Palm's webOS and iOS, and Brian Swetland, who also worked on BeOS and Android will be involved in this project. Magenta and LK kernel will be powering the operating system. "LK is a kernel designed for small systems typically used in imbedded applications," reads the repository. "On the other hand, Magenta targets modern phones and modern personal computers with fast processors, non-trivial amounts of RAM with arbitrary peripherals doing open-ended computation." It's too early to tell exactly what this OS is meant for. Whether it's for an Android and Chrome OS merger or something completely new, it's exciting nonetheless.

146 comments

  1. Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The OS space has really dwindled to just Unix based OS's and Windows of late. You have QNX still in the embedded space and Contiki and FreeRTOS but noting really interesting in general use area for a while. A new kernel could be really interesting. Of course the apps will be the issue.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Good. by DarkOx · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Apps might not be an issue. If Google can port the JVM to this thing than most of the Android stack could come along with it, mostly effort free. That would give you Android just hosted on a different kernel. The only things that would not be compatible would be 'native' apps.

      So Google would have a huge library of existing software if that is what is being planned.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Good. by jellomizer · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I have to agree The OS market has got really boring.
      Back in the old days we had a bunch of OS
      Dos/Windows for the PC
      MacOS (No X) for Apple
      UNIX/Linux for servers (each one designed for different platforms)
      VMS for digital systems servers.
      Z/OS for IBM mainframes
      PrimeOS for prime mainframes...

      Now in 2016 almost all of our OS are based in 1970's or 1980's technology.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      You left out AmigaOS, BeOS, STOS/GEM, RiscOS, and OS/9.
      VMS wasn't for "servers" it was the OS for VAX super mini-computers.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      True but then it is just another flavor of Android. You do not even really need to port the JVM. You could write a bytecode to native compiler to created native code.
      The issue with that kind of layer is that you can slow down the development of native apps.
      My guess is that Google is going to try what Microsoft really should do. A unified eco system that spans mobile and the desktop. You bring your phone interface it to a keyboard, mouse, and screen and it becomes a desktop. You interface it to your car and it becomes a infotainment/Nav device, "Please use hard buttons that car provides as well as the builtin GPS". Interface it to your TV and it becomes a media device/Gaming system.
      If Microsoft and Intel could get a good mobile system they do it today. They just seem to flounder constantly.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Good. by johanw · · Score: 1

      > A unified eco system that spans mobile and the desktop.

      Would there really be much demand of that? I'm perfectly happy to keep them separate. I have file sharing on my home network with my phone but that's about it. Most people I hear about such things are windows phone fans who often work in systems administration and don't have a personal life. Most other people don't care.

      Merging with a car could be handy, if carkits would give a usable sound quality (and tracking would not be so bad as with the current systems). Given their current quality, I prefer holding the phone next to my ear.

    6. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was? It still is. I still have customers using VMS. It is a rock solid OS.

    7. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too bad they couldn't choose the literally proven seL4 and build on top of it.

    8. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft has exactly what you describe today. It's the WUP (Windows universal platform) and Continuum. It's not perfect but they're the first to have a unified sustem across mobile, desktop and IoT.

    9. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      True but VMS no longer runs on VAXs.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Would there really be much demand of that?"
      I can see it. Today how many people still buy mini computers or workstations? A workstation today is just a high end PC. Servers are more often then not just PCs. IBM and SUN still sell what used to be called mini computers but they are few and far between.
      When a phone has as much power as modern i7 with a GTX 1080 why would you need a PC?
      BTW if you think that is crazy talk just remember a PC with TB of storage, GB of ram, and Ghz of clock speed would have sounded nuts to someone with a 4.77 Mhz IBM PC.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    11. Re: Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes but so much windows software requires an X86 that it has not taken off.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    12. Re:Good. by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      What exactly about the linux kernel is preventing Android from being that single OS that spans IOT, mobile and the desktop already?

      All I can think of is that the linux driver model counts too heavily on everything being open source. I.e., the kernel interfaces are allowed to change to the point that hardware manufacturers - without the motivation to keep up - don't keep up with kernel changes. That holds Android back, since it either has to stick with an old kernel, or obsolete old hardware faster than necessary. But the funny thing is that OEM's are awful at keeping up with Android updates anyway, despite whatever efforts Google makes at backward compatibility for hardware.

      So, unless this new kernel is targeted at having a super-stable binary driver ABI, what does it offer that linux can't?

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    13. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup; The wheel space also dwindled to just round. No square wheels, even though a square wheel could be really interesting.

      Weird.

    14. Re:Good. by rasmusbr · · Score: 1

      Google is focusing a lot now on the "next 5 billion", which I guess is basically people in households that make $2000-20000 a year.

      You can easily see how having a smartphone with multiple user accounts coupled with a cheap wireless keyboard and a cheap monitor could make a big difference for a family in that income range.

    15. Re:Good. by chuckugly · · Score: 0

      A troll who went by the handle Scott Nudds vehemently predicted that we would never see a PC with gigabytes of memory. He's not given credit, but I remember and here is the quote. The internet never forgets.

    16. Re:Good. by mlts · · Score: 2

      I really don't want a unified OS. With the requirements by carriers, device makers, and governments, any cellphone OS will be locked down to keep the user out, while letting in plenty of remote attacks, be it the local country's LEOs, advertisers, or whatnot. I want my desktop OS to remain open, not rendered into some iOS variant where someone else controls my workflow, interaction with apps, ability to use hardware, and physical security of data.

    17. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simply because the 'proven' version only has a limited set of functionality. You would have to introduce all the unproven functionality to make is usable as a fully functioning OS.

    18. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows 10 AKA fuch ya OS

    19. Re:Good. by Guy+Harris · · Score: 1

      I have to agree The OS market has got really boring. Back in the old days we had a bunch of OS
      Dos/Windows for the PC
      MacOS (No X) for Apple
      UNIX/Linux for servers (each one designed for different platforms)
      VMS for digital systems servers.
      Z/OS for IBM mainframes
      PrimeOS for prime mainframes...

      Now in 2016 almost all of our OS are based in 1970's or 1980's technology.

      VMS - from the 1970's.

      z/OS - it's still around (and, unlike VMS, not at end-of-life), but it's a descendant of the 1970's MVS, itself a descendant of the 1960's OS/360 MVT.

      (And Prime machines were minicomputers/superminicomputers, not mainframes.)

    20. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is going to be completely open. Unfortunately, it will be MIT licensed, so carriers are free to put in back doors without you knowing it.

    21. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should Google for the Mythbusters episode where they put square wheels on a truck. It's monumental.

    22. Re:Good. by trenobus · · Score: 1

      I particularly would like to see a resurgence of OS research. Things have changed enough in both the hardware and the application landscape since Windows and Linux were designed that I think it would be worthwhile to revisit the questions of what an OS can and should be. But in my view the real problem for the commercial success and/or widespread deployment of a new OS is not so much legacy applications as it is device driver support for the very broad range of devices that are found across the major hardware platforms. It would not surprise me if the volume of device driver code for Windows and Linux (and maybe even Android and iOS) exceeds that of the rest of the OS. In contrast, support of legacy applications can usually be achieved through a compatibility API or container approach.

      Ideally I think device drivers should be written in a language which supports a level of abstraction which is at least somewhat OS-agnostic.Then, even in cases where the device manufacturer was unwilling to provide source code, an OS developer could provide the manufacturer with a compiler that would generate a binary for their OS. But the marketing obstacles to such an approach probably far outweigh the technical challenges of its implementation.

    23. Re:Good. by davester666 · · Score: 2

      The problem with this scenario is UI. You may make UI libraries that support all the features of the various sized devices with various types of hardware attached (buttons/keyboards/touch screen/trackpad/mouse/multiple screens), but, as Microsoft has found out, app developers in general don't have the time, money, expertise, capability, or hardware to make/adjust the UI to work well on a variety of devices. What works great on a 5" touchscreen phone absolutely fucking sucks on a 27" monitor with a keyboard and mouse. Just auto-adjusting the size of screen elements doesn't do the job.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    24. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Integrity by Green Hills is another RTOS that isn't a derivative of Linux or UNIX clone. It is used widely in the transportation sector, especially military applications because it has achieved an EAL6 rating.

    25. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because there are no more VAXen. You can emulate it on your Android phone though.

    26. Re:Good. by robi5 · · Score: 1

      and CP/M and MSX and NeXTSTEP and ...

    27. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I think the license is the main reason they're doing this. Although this has nothing to do with backdoors. Those can easily exist in android devices.

    28. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm excited to see that it's going to be infused with some BeOS talent. That was probably the most advanced desktop operating system to ever exist.

    29. Re:Good. by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      When I was a little kid, I once said I wanted a terabyte floppy disk & a 6 GHz CPU (& was told something similar to that being either never needed or not possible). A terabyte of flash is smaller than a floppy disk, but I still want my 6 GHz CPU. (With air cooling & 85 degrees Fahrenheit ambient, that is.)

    30. Re:Good. by Megol · · Score: 1

      Not if one use the verified correct (to the specification) kernel and then use the provided mechanisms to build the rest of the system. Only the kernel _need_ to be trusted to get a working system. How fast the result would be is another thing - but seL4 have a very fast IPC mechanism...

    31. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think drivers is exactly the issue, but you can fix things while you are at it. Networking and mounting for one.

    32. Re:Good. by DavidRavenMoon · · Score: 1

      NeXTSTEP is now macOS (OS X)

      --
      -- if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic - Lewis Carrol
    33. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to get away from the JVM entirely. The JVM and Java are one of the primary reasons Android is complete garbage.

    34. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They probably want to separate "OSes" for the functions run by other than the application processors and the application universe. "Pick + Purple == Fuchsia" is so fabulous description that it couldn't be meant for anything else than the applications.

    35. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is still some life left in VMS:

      http://www.vmssoftware.com/

      These guys took over from HP.

    36. Re:Good. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The OS space has really dwindled to just Unix based OS's and Windows of late. You have QNX still in the embedded space and Contiki and FreeRTOS but noting really interesting in general use area for a while. A new kernel could be really interesting. Of course the apps will be the issue.

      So is this new OS from a completely different approach from UNIX like OSs as well as Windows OSs? The summary didn't say, and just b'cos Geiselbrech worked on all those other OSs - some of which included UNIX like OSs like webOS and iOS - doesn't automatically mean that the new OS is something completely different - like BeOS or something else.

      Also, is the LK kernel in any way related to the L4 microkernel? Is it a microkernel, or a totally different critter?

    37. Re: Good. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Is Fuchsia supposed to be platform neutral? In fact, given that the only CPU architectures left standing now are x64 and ARM, both of which Windows supports in one version or another, I wonder whether that's even an advantage? Will there be a lot of Loongson (MIPS based) tablets or computers that Windows won't touch, but Fuchsia will?

    38. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at their code. Looks like they are trying to rip off QNX with their mojo framework - although they did acquire the Palm team for Android before.

    39. Re:Good. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Isn't the binary driver ABI something that they could resolve by going BSD instead of Linux? Assuming that they ain't license fanatics about Open Source vs 'libre' software?

    40. Re:Good. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Actually, if one bunches all the UNIX like OSs together - be it SVR4, BSD, OSF/1, Linux, Solaris, HP/UX, AIX, Irix, Ultrix, et al, as well as the Windows flavors together, there were still plenty of OS's. RISCos was an UNIX for MIPS workstations that weren't from SGI or DEC

      • OS/2 for both x86 and for a bit, PPC
      • BeOS for PPC, and later x86
      • NeXTstep for first Motorola 68k, and later PA-RISC and SPARC. Yeah, I know it falls in the UNIX category, but its UI was not the Motif/OpenLook/GNOME/CDE/et al, nor was it the CLI
      • AmigaDOS for Amigas
      • OpenVMS for VAX and AlphaServers
      • Various IBM OS's like OS/400, MVS, et al
    41. Re:Good. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Only as long as their VAX or AlphaServers are around. Those who have to buy HP Integrity servers w/ Itanium are SOL

    42. Re:Good. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      It's very different. The only common platform b/w them is x86. NeXTstep lived on the Mot 68k, and towards the end of its life, the HP 9000 and SPARCstations. OS X lived on first the PowerPC, and later moved to x86.

    43. Re:Good. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Do they now own the OS as well as all the legacy stuff - VAX, Alphas and so on? Please don't tell me they are stuck w/ making/maintaining Itanium servers for anybody

    44. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats my thought too. They should throw everything at android. And some more. Make it run on desktops. Forget chromeos, only android matters.

    45. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah together with all the malware and security flaws that makes Android such a great platform

    46. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually OS X worked on both PowerPC and x86 from the beginning. We just didn't know about the x86 branch until 2005.

      Still, I think of Rhapsody as more or less "NeXTStep for PowerPC," but from that point on OS X kind of evolved into a different animal from NS and Mac OS.

    47. Re:Good. by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      Besides z/OS, IBM still supports z/VSE on the z systems. It's the latest generation of DOS/VSE from the mid-1960s. We see a fair number of organizations still using it. And there's still zVM, which underpins z/OS and zLinux virtualization (the z hypervisor is basically a stripped-down zVM) but can also be used directly as an OS with CMS as the shell.

      And there's IBM's i OS, which is the latest version of the S/38 and OS/400 line. Still widely used.

      Bull still sells and develops GCOS (two different branches, apparently).

      OS/2 is still around as eCommStation, and there's the announced (I think not yet released) ArcaOS derivative.

      Kids these days. Remember when we used to complain about the "all the world's a VAX" generation?

    48. Re:Good. by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

      The OS space has really dwindled to just Unix based OS's and Windows of late. You have QNX still in the embedded space and Contiki and FreeRTOS [...]

      I don't know what the current breakdown is, but 10 years ago, most houses contained more devices that run ITRON than run any other OS. If you had a digital camera, a smart electricity meter, an aircon, a TV, a DVD player, a microwave oven... chances are it ran ITRON.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    49. Re: Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget "working well"

    50. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It is an issue but if you are going to have a tablet version, mobile version, and desktop/laptop versions of a program why not make it one program?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    51. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I am much older than you. I can remember reading about Intel demoing a 100mhz x86. It was cooled by liquid nitrogen. At the time an 8mhz system was really fast and I thought yeah like that will ever get to the average consumer.
      Then I remember when the 68020 came out and it was a real 32-bit cpu. I thought we will never need more than 4GB of ram so we will never need more than a 32 bit CPU. "Frankly I am still not sure we "need" more than 4GB of ram on desktops except that programers have gotten really lazy.
      I can even remember when we built the first server for my old office. We got a 1GB drive and it was larger than all the drives in the office combined!
      Things do change.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    52. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You would not have to even move off of Linux for that. Just write one for Linux and make the source available.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    53. Re:Good. by Zeroko · · Score: 1

      Regarding lazy programmers: I have written programs where I used packed bitfields & still ended up needing around 4-8 GB RAM. I was counting how many of something existed & marking them off as they were discovered—enumerating in (much) less space would make it take a lot longer, barring a computational complexity breakthrough (or maybe spending weeks discovering a different special-purpose enumeration method).

      But for the most part, programs do seem to take up more space than necessary these days. E.g. a text editor should not need over 1 GB RAM. Even with unlimited undo & 30 or so documents open, each is not very large (under 128 KB), & I cannot type that fast.

    54. Re:Good. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Uh, no, that would have to be blessed & endorsed by Linus and co-opted upstream. I believe the Linux team had already considered and declined the idea, for whatever reason

    55. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Uh, no, that would have to be blessed & endorsed by Linus and co-opted upstream."
      Uh yes. You just have to have your own version of the kernel. It is called forking and as long as you compile with the GPL.
      Linus just has to bless what goes into his fork of the Kernel.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    56. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Regarding lazy programmers: I have written programs where I used packed bitfields & still ended up needing around 4-8 GB RAM."
      I am betting that was not a game, spreadsheet, or any other typical program...
      Yes their are tasks that can use huge memory spaces. I speaking about your average users more than STEM users.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    57. Re:Good. by davester666 · · Score: 1

      Sure, there is nothing technically wrong with making a "universal" application.

      Even with phones getting more and more memory, apps are getting larger and larger, and universal apps will have a bunch of resources and code not needed for the device it is running on. For example, one of my iOS iPhone+iPad weather apps is over 200Mb.

      But the main problem will be, apps built with the framework, in general, will be crappy on most devices. They will be developed for one device, now generally a phone, but offered as a universal app that can run anywhere, so everywhere else, it will be crappy. It may or may not run (as it's not even tested on other devices), UI elements will not be located, sizes and/or work as expected on other devices. It'll basically be a "crapp(tm)" everywhere else.

      Right now that's how it is in Google Play, where apps work for both phones and tablets, but the VAST majority of them aren't reworked so they work well on tablets, just auto-sized up, so the apps suck. You have to hunt for the apps that have tablet-specific UI.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    58. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "cheap wireless keyboard and a cheap monitor"
      Or a chomecast hooked to a cheap HD TV or even a USB 3.1 to HDMI converter hooked to a cheap TV?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    59. Re:Good. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Carriers are not going to keep power of the OS for much longer. Apple does not give carriers control and more and more people are going contract free and buying a phone. When a user buys the phone they become the customer and not the carrier.
      Unified does not have to be any more closed then a desktop OS is.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    60. Re:Good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you fork the kernel, you'd better be prepared to incorporate all upstream changes by hand.

      Because you will be forever cut off from upgrading via the official repository.

  2. Goog by Noah+Haders · · Score: 0

    Imagine what would happen if goog put its energy into developing groundbreaking products, instead of tracking, exporting, profiting from users.

    1. Re:Goog by LWATCDR · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You mean like Google search, Google Now, Google Maps, Google Docs, Android, Android Auto, and Gmail?
      If it stops profiting from it's users it goes out of business and we will be left with Microsoft and Apple.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Goog by TheCreeep · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Imagine what would happen if goog put its energy into developing groundbreaking products, instead of tracking, exporting, profiting from users.

      Their market value would plummet and they would finally be bought by Oracle and dismantled.

    3. Re:Goog by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Just what the fuck should a company do if not profit from its users? Thats the entire point...

    4. Re:Goog by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      you can profit without tracking and abusing them.

    5. Re:Goog by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      every single google product is a tool for tracking its users. Think about it... why do you think they chose to develop Google search, Google Now, Google Maps, Google Docs, Android, Android Auto, and Gmail? because they want to cover all sorts of the parts of somebody's life. soon they'll have google clothes and google pets and google sex toys. ::mind blown::

    6. Re:Goog by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      You mean that they want to develop products that make money??? mine blown....
      Funny but I would much rather see ads that target my interests than those that do not.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    7. Re:Goog by Rob+Y. · · Score: 2

      Or to put it another way, every single google product is a useful service that can be supported by advertising tied to what you're searching for. Obviously, Google is in business to make money - or maybe to be more charitable, to stay in business so that its founders' vision can continue to be realized. Less charitably, well, there have been compromises along the way...

      As a side benefit, though, they've done a lot for the open source movement - if only in promoting the web as the primary platform for application development. That has made it possible for something like ChromeOS to be viable - and along with it, for desktop Linux to also be viable. Not to mention MacOS, iOS and Android. In pre-Google days, MacOS was wholly dependent on the availability of native Microsoft apps for its marketplace viability. Now, Google can't take all the credit for this, but I don't think any other organization has done as much to make sure that open standards ruled the day.

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
    8. Re:Goog by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Thats not what you said tho...

    9. Re: Goog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Google cares jack shit about open standards. They don't give 2 flying fucks about OSS except when hey think it can damage a competitor. If they have even a sense their product can succeed, they won't touch OSS or open standards with a 10 foot pool. Hell they'll even REMOVE already built in open standards when they think they can get away with it (see Hangouts and XMPP). I'm happy to see in that case they badly miscalculated.

    10. Re:Goog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why this new OS is actually pronounced "fucks ya."

    11. Re: Goog by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hangouts and XMPP both suck dead dog shit, so you're in effect complaining about a win-win situation.

    12. Re: Goog by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

      In the case of Android... how?
      When most of the tracking mechanisms are built into their proprietary (non-open source) modules? ... which are then picked up and blindly adopted by cyanogenmod.

      And in the case of the web, Google has made life very difficult by ensuring their trackers are virtually everywhere and thus, almost impossible to block, especially by normal users. Think about GoogleAPIs, Analytics, Doubleclick, Capcha, GoogleTagManager, DNS, etc.

      Go educate yourself: Google is a serial tracker.

    13. Re:Goog by yuvcifjt · · Score: 1

      Wow, sorry but you're super ignorant.

      Firstly, go study the history of Microsoft with their IE5 and IE6 browser and the battle Mozilla launched in making everyone aware of closely following standards.
      Microsoft abused their power by developing many proprietary components, but thanks to Mozilla and Opera, they were forced to change with IE7/8.

      For some reason, especially the new hipster kiddies who code for the web with web-apps, they seem to forget who they owe so so much to - primarily Mozilla and Opera for developing and pushing open standards, semantic web, accessibility, and most recently the HTML5 and CSS3/4 standards, not to mention ES6.

      It's amazing how underrated Mozilla and Opera are, and how little people know history.
      And the concept of the web as an application platform existed with Mozilla (and even Microsoft around 2004/5) long before Google came on the scene and stole the AppleWebKit code and rebranded Safari as Chrome.

      So in essence, Google has done jack all for promoting open standards, rather due to the massive marketing push of Chrome and its inevitable popularity as a result, they are now doing exactly what Microsoft were doing - abusing their power and developing proprietary components in CSS3 and Android and not contributing to the community or the standards.

      Exactly like what Google did with Android - ripped off an open source project, and gave very little to nothing back to the Linux Kernel community.

    14. Re:Goog by Rob+Y. · · Score: 1

      It's not that Mozilla didn't play an important role in keeping open web standards alive, but Google took it a step farther by building applications with what many would've thought an impossible or impractical level of 'desktop-like' functionality. And doing it with a name that gave the efforts credibility. Not saying that only a multibillion dollar company can do that - but it helps in getting the pointy-heads to take notice. Many companies today standardize on Chrome, when those same companies used to refuse to allow employees to install Firefox. That could just be a sign of how much progress has been made, and I don't want to wade into chicken-and-egg scenarios...

      And Google didn't hijack WebKit. Apple took WebKit from KDE, and that's what open source is really about. Both Apple and Google were free to do what they did, and KDE and Apple were not free to prevent it. I think the KDE folks are happy about it - not so sure about Apple. In any case, today we live in a world where Microsoft is struggling to keep up with the open standards embodied by Chrome, Safari, Mozilla and Opera - just to remain relevant. And that's a good thing.

      And then there's Android. Sure, it sits on top of open source technologies that were already there. But somehow nobody else made a success of it. Maybe PalmOS could've been the linux-based mobile OS winner - but somehow I doubt it. Palm was trying to be Apple. Google was trying to be the Open Source Microsoft - and, yeah, there are problems associated with that, but without Android, it would've ended up iOS vs Windows phone - tightly coupled with Office and Exchange. I think today's mess is a whole lot better than that...

      And ChromeOS. Whether you like it or not, it serves the purpose of defining a set of use cases where a standards-compliant browser (any one of them) really can be the OS. And any other OS is free to emulate those use cases with open source tools. ChromeOS ends up being a big competitor for 'I set my mom up with a Linux desktop' scenarios, but then again, it makes it so that real linux desktop users aren't left out in the cold, application-wise, for banking, e-commerce, printing, etc.

      So, yeah, Google may have been given credit in the popular view for some stuff with a much more complex history - but then the GNU/Linux crowd would claim the same about Linux itself. Those who care about such things know about them, and I guess those who care even more that others don't know about them are out of luck...

      --
      Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  3. Pick + Purple = Polka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Fix the typo at least please

  4. I wouldn't advertise doing WebOS by jellomizer · · Score: 0

    WebOS was made under a big set of shady dealing. With it designed to trick iTunes to think it was a different model iPod. Causing Apple to fix their iTunes which caused a back and forth fight between the two companies causing WebOS users to be the real victims.
    A big company like Palm advertising iTunes support makes people figure they got some sort of license with Apple. No they just hacked Apple thinking that Apple wouldn't do anything about it.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:I wouldn't advertise doing WebOS by spire3661 · · Score: 0

      I loved WebOS and I loved that Palm stuck their finger right into Apple's eye. The USB ID shenanigans were small potatoes compared to the crap Apple has pulled.

      --
      Good-bye
  5. A simple matter by fubarrr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They want to throw out a Linux kernel outa android and gpl compliance matters with it. Qualcomm already has a unit that writes a HAL midware for it.

    1. Re:A simple matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, that's the only reason, LK is BSD. Google is a Corporation and want to protect its IP and impose its ecosystem, it just doesn't take money directly from users as Micro$oft but it's doing the same shit as all others.

    2. Re: A simple matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So cool that you call them Micro$oft in a thread about Google abusing users for profit. Double funny for the thread above about how much they love openness when GP here points out this is all about getting out of GPL. LOLs all around.

    3. Re: A simple matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two corporations are different, but both are corporations after all more look alike than at first sight. Both brought us good things... what we should be careful about is what are they taking from us in return.

  6. Best OS would be Reactos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just waiting for version 1.0 of ReactOS. Linux, Fuschia, *BSD, OSX etc. are all great in their own right but what about huge existing base of code that's been written for Windows, that isn't open source but people like me still use ?

    And more importantly the data that's been produced by these programs which is held in closed source, binary formats ?

    I'm got 30 years worth of data that I've produced in various utilities on the Windows platform (mostly audio and video related) and I'd love to be able to convert it to a new, open, format or even to be able to load it in something that ran on Linux. Sadly this isn't possible (believe me I've tried) so I'm stuck still using the old programs.

    I am not installing Windows 10 and becoming a subservient, monitored node in the Microsoft botnet but it would be wonderful if I could still run the original programs (I have all the installers on CD or on disk) on something other than my aging XP machine (which is now disconnected from the 'net)

    And Fuschia will no doubt be another system in the same vein. e.g. a locked down, semi walled garden offering where you have to sign in, where you're allocated unique IDs which are used to crapvertise at you and where you don't have the root password. No thanks.

    So as far as OSes are concerned the only one I'm interested in is ReactOS !

    1. Re: Best OS would be Reactos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude... WINE is your friend. It runs those old apps better than Windows.

    2. Re: Best OS would be Reactos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes thats it. I have a few old utils from windoze i use but have no time to port them. So i use wine on my macbook to run them. Works ok.

  7. Re:GPL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hello,

    Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

    Although we met several technical challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of good universal wifi support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext4 file system), all in all the process went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.

    So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.

    Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

    Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 10.

    I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Public License". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.

    Thank you for your time.

    As a fellow consultant, the fact that you didn't bother to research the license, don't know ext4 doesn't need to be defragmented by design, and primarily targeted the newest version of an OS that hasn't reached much penetration in the enterprise market yet makes me question the quality of your work. Being caught by an obscure corner in the license is one thing, but not to have done even the most basic research is pretty bad for someone who's entire job is based around that aspect - you also don't appear to separate your personal from your professional feelings, nor are you willing to take responsibility for your own mistake.

    You might want to consider leaving the field of consulting, or at the very least, seriously work in these points - there is no purpose in performing a job who clearly either have no interest in doing or lack the support to carry out effectively, and you don't want to be miserable your whole career.

  8. D-Wave OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can this be an OS for their D-Wave Quantum computer?

    1. Re: D-Wave OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh yeah, totally. Quantum computers need a port of the LK bootloader. Definitely not another stupid wearables project.

  9. fuschia brother by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is watching you!

  10. How to mix colors by freeze128 · · Score: 1

    How to mix colors:

    First, start with at least 2 colors. (NOTE: "pick" is *NOT* a color!)

  11. Can we finish Android please? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Rant:

    They have: 1) Chrome OS, which is basically Chrome browser and a few extensions 2) Android, can run Chrome browser aswell 3) Android Wear, a small OS seeking a market.

    Now they've already shown Chrome OS running Android apps, which is the dumbest thing ever, when Android is perfectly capable of running the Chrome browser why would you run a browser under Android under another browser! What is the f-ing point of Chrome OS to an Android user? And to the Chrome OS market (basically schools who want locked down minimal machines), what is the point of Android to them?? Do you think they want their Bejeweled on their school laptops?

    Then we have Android, it is a big win for Google, but doesn't scale to large tablets. It's been held back by the lack of side-by-side apps. FINALLY they're adding multi-window support this month in Android Nougat... like only 4 years after Samsung introduced it on their Note range..

    Big heap? I should be able to consume 90% of memory on a single app if its needed. Yet Big Heap limits me to 512MB on a 3GB tablet.

    Limited stylus support. Samsung did a good job years ago, the only support on generic Android tablets is the mouse handler. If you pull out a stylus on Android, on most non-Samsung devices it looks to the program like a mouse pointer. With no information on when the stylus has been pulled out of the holder, or when its been removed from the screen. Because the software thinks its a mouse.

    Crapware, every device loaded with unwanted surveillance crapware, some of which is yours. Don't ever ask me again if I "Agree" to send Wifi data to Google for a better location calculation, the answer is "Disagree", just like the last 50 times your shitting spyware app asked.

    I have money, I want a powerful Android tablet to upgrade from my Galaxy Note pro 12.2.... if Google can't deliver a decent Android someone else should. Really Apple are the slowest at software development, yet their iPad Pro was out last year and Google can't even keep up with Apple, let alone Samsung. /rant

  12. Re:GPL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we were unable to defrag its ext4 file system

    That's funny

  13. Re:GPL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The concept of having access to source code

    Yeah. Imagine that.

  14. WTF is an imbedded application? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imbedded? Is that like what I do to your mom every night, or did you mean "embedded"?

  15. Wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A new OS from an advertising company, I'll jump right on that!

  16. License by lkcl · · Score: 4, Insightful

    https://fuchsia.googlesource.c...

    the consequences that we've seen from google's failure to use a self-protecting license includes:

    * companies incorporating GPL'd code into Android (particularly video players) and not releasing the source
    * performing DRM or other lock-downs ("Tivoisation") and in the case of qualcomm ending up with 900 million devices that are basically landfill
    * causing confusion in the minds of corporations over the fact that the linux KERNEL (and u-boot) is still GPL'd

    do i need to continue the list? i don't but i believe a reference to mjg59's list is appropriate:
    http://www.codon.org.uk/~mjg59...

    google seems unable to comprehend the severe detrimental consequences of its actions, and the effects that their decisions have on the rest of the software libre community. i appreciate that they're an advertising company so are required to maximise the effective distribution of devices so that they can thus maximise the number of devices through which they can advertise, but pissing all over the free software community that MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR THEM TO HAVE A BUSINESS AT ALL is completely unethical, not to mention the detrimental consequences and money that users have to throw away when devices turn out to have major security flaws that the designers CAN'T FIX IN THE FIELD. http://arstechnica.com/securit...

    1. Re:License by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      Agreed. They could put it into the public as GPL, and as they require a CLA for contributors anyway, they can still do as much tivoisation as they want. That would be eons better than what they are doing now.

  17. I hope they do a better job than with Android by ilsaloving · · Score: 2

    I hope they do a better job stewarding this thing than they did with Android. Todays Android is repeating all the same mistakes that Microsoft made with earlier versions of Windows. They gave way too much power to developers, so now Android may be an extremely flexible and powerful mobile OS, but it also requires every user to act as a sysadmin, constantly monitoring resources, manually killing apps, etc etc. Battery life is abysmal, and malware is ripe in the android ecosystem. And that's on top of the myriad landfill android devices which are so breathtakingly shotty that they arn't even fit for purposes as simple as a basic e-reader.

    The fact is, is that you can't trust developers to code properly. Whether by design, lack of competence, or due to time crunches that result in taking short cuts, an OS *must* guard against rogue applications. Google's finally starting to understand that, based on what I'm reading in the release notes for Android 6 and 7, but they still have a ways to go.

    If they don't correct this mistake while creating Fuscia, it won't matter how excitig and awesome it is. It will already have a major uphill battle, competing against established systems, so it will need to be solid right out of the gate just to compete.

    1. Re: I hope they do a better job than with Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck off. Closed systems are the problem. The last thing we need is another locked down system. Some people like controlling their system. Some of us are leaders. Not followers.

    2. Re:I hope they do a better job than with Android by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I hope they do a better job stewarding this thing than they did with Android. Todays Android is repeating all the same mistakes that Microsoft made with earlier versions of Windows.

      I'm not sure what's funnier, the idea that the most popular mobile OS somehow is somehow a failure worth avoiding in the future, or that Microsoft made a mistake by giving people too much power.

      Both statements are absolutely absurd at first glance, and a second glance, realising we're on a pro-open source, pro choice forum the statements seem outright insane.

    3. Re:I hope they do a better job than with Android by bayankaran · · Score: 1

      They gave way too much power to developers, so now Android may be an extremely flexible and powerful mobile OS, but it also requires every user to act as a sysadmin, constantly monitoring resources, manually killing apps, etc etc. Battery life is abysmal, and malware is ripe in the android ecosystem. And that's on top of the myriad landfill android devices which are so breathtakingly shotty that they arn't even fit for purposes as simple as a basic e-reader.

      An open OS / image will be used by people/organizations to their liking or preferences. This will include everything you mentioned, including the fact that the low entry barriers make the ecosystem affordable to all and sundry.

      When I am in Mumbai, the guy who owns vegetable shop uses a slightly advanced Samsung Note, and the youngsters manning the counters use a cheap entry level Android. Both play videos, and allows most common apps. In other words, they are using the same software, and that's what matters. This is a revolution of unimaginable magnitude. The entry levels Androids - the $30 to $50 versions - are the first communication device for most of its customers.

      The attitude Google showed towards Android is the reason smartphones became a commodity, as ubiquitous as the older feature-phone Nokia's. This is by large a positive development for society.

      --
      Tat Tvam Asi
    4. Re:I hope they do a better job than with Android by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      My statements are only insane if you completely ignore the greater context that the mobile industry lives in, which is apparently what you are choosing to do. The way you phrased your comment, I can only assume that you consider it equally absurd that Google put restrictions on their app store in order to reduce the number of malicious applications that were being submitted? Perhaps you should stop using the Google app store and switch to one of the unregulated app stores, which have a 1 in 3 chance of you downloading trojan copy of an otherwise legitimate app?

      Your argument that it is ironic that we're discussing this on a "pro-choice" forum is as nonsensical as what you are trying to accuse my post of being. Slashdot is *free*. The fact that it is pro-open source and pro-choice is irrelevant. If every member was required to pay so much as a penny for a lifetime membership to Slashdot, it's visitor count would collapse.

      Also bear in mind that I am not arguing for some Orwellian clampdown on an entire ecosystem. All I am saying is that *anyone* who has *ever* done anything remotely resembling sysadmin work knows that developers cannot be trusted with carte blanche access to a given system, because there is an excellent chance that a good number of those developers are going to do something bad, whether through laziness, time pressure, intentionally, or what have you.

      The idea that Microsoft won the industry on merit is absurd. Microsoft is ubiquitous because they used various shenanigans to gain an industry wide monopoly, including going so far as to subvert internation standards bodies to stack the deck in their favour. On top of that, Microsoft considered security to a distant second place, and the end result is a vast ecosystem of computers that have been trivially compromised by the hundreds of millions.

      There are countless cottage industries including antivirus, third part support services, etc, whose entire existence exploits the fact that Windows is a breathtakingly unsecure pile of crap. They *still* haven't been able to clean up the mess, although they have put a great deal of effort into doing so. But that's irrelevant because Windows continues on because of enertia. People are used to Windows and all it's warts, so they want to keep using Windows. Ditto with Office, etc.

      Android is ubiquitous in the market for one reason, and one reason alone: It was relatively simple, and it was given away freely. These are the two things that nobody seems able to resist, both to copy-cat manufacturers who want to crank out devices no matter how shoddy they are, and to consumers who care more about the cost of a device than any other conceivable factor. Android isn't a product to Google. Google doesn't make money from android directly. Android *facilitates* the actual product: us. Google makes money from ads produced by the aggregate data they collect. They make money from the manufacturers who bundle all the various Google Apps into their devices in order to be Google certified.

      That is why Android is designed with virtually zero security, because security gets in the way of data slurping. And as more and more manufacturers gravitate towards being able to spit out low-cost mobile devices, it was inevitable that Android would take the lions share of the market. Now it's a choice between Android and iOS because there is literally no other viable option. Nobody even wants to try other options at this point. Even Microsoft can't compete.

      Meanwhile, Android has *zero* checks on what developers do. If a developer wants their app running all the time, no matter what, Android will do nothing to stop it. For example: I ran into this situation when I had a Samsung Galaxy S3. Worse, it was some Samsung crapware, so my only option was to root the device and install Cyanogenmod. The result? My battery life immediately improved about 30%. I won't even get started talking about the ridiculously sloppy way Android handles application permissions, which actively tak

  18. but we do know what it's meant for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's too early to tell exactly what this OS is meant for.

    New OS from biggest behavioral and personal data aggregator on the planet... Actually, I think we do know what it's meant for.

  19. Re:pick == pink by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for encouraging me to visit the project page.

    Now I can see that it's pure vapor.

  20. Re:GPL Problem by danda · · Score: 1

    wow did I just get time-warped back to 1995 or so? Tell us more of this strange GPL license you speak of...

  21. Re:GPL Problem by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    ... its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.

    Bit player?! Do a thought experiment dude - imagine that Linux suddenly popped out of existence at this moment, and picture what would be left of the Internet and the www. As for the rest of your comment, you've already been modded down to hell - so just fuck off, shill.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
  22. So Typical Google, Android Becomes Abandonware by macs4all · · Score: 1, Insightful

    So, in typical Google fashion, rather than fix Android, they just walk away from it like every other Project, and create ANOTHER OS, but this time with a brand new luster of Vulnerabilities.

    What a bunch of arrogant, ADHD children are Google...

    1. Re:So Typical Google, Android Becomes Abandonware by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This has nothing to do with ADHD, and everything to do with the GPL. The GPL is seen as something negative by many companies like google or apple. Apple has rewritten gcc, google is now rewriting linux.

      I am partly a fanboi of linux because of its license.

    2. Re:So Typical Google, Android Becomes Abandonware by Megol · · Score: 2

      LLVM isn't GCC, isn't inspired by GCC, isn't fully compatible with GCC and uses a completely different design than GCC.

      Any OS that isn't Linux isn't a rewritten Linux...

      Really, is this a troll or are today's /. users this clueless?

    3. Re:So Typical Google, Android Becomes Abandonware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LLVM isn't even an Apple project. It's from the University of Illinois. Apple has been primarily involved with the Clang compiler front-end.

      The University of Illinois release LLVM with the University of Illinois license, which is based of the MIT license. Apple had nothing to do with the choice of license, and probably didn't even know that the project existed until years after its first release.

    4. Re: So Typical Google, Android Becomes Abandonware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're missing the point. Apple switched replaced gcc with llvm in their tool chain because they didn't want to use gpl code. The fact llvm was better suited for their engineering requirements was another bonus.

      The point is that the motivation to avoid gpl software is so strong, companies will go to great lengths to develop and/or support the development of an alternative, if none exists--which is manifestly the case with llvm, for both Apple and Google.

    5. Re:So Typical Google, Android Becomes Abandonware by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      LLVM/Clang may use a different design than GCC, but it appears that one of the reasons apple did it is to give people a GPL free alternative of the GCC compiler.

      And gcc and clang do have many things in common: many of their non standard (as in: not part of the C/C++ ISO standard) language extensions and macros are replicated by the other (either by llvm because initially gcc was the more popular one, now llvm is the more popular one ...).

      Fuchsia IS a rewritten Linux because Linux was THE OS that google worked with. They even give their own linux distro to their own employees as desktop/laptop machines (not chromium but goobuntu). Its the major if not almost only OS their servers run on (at least AFAIK), and that has been the case since the very early days. They even give it to their customers with android and chromium. So google has had a long history with Linux, and if it is developing Fuchsia for their own use, then it will do a task that was previously done by a linux based OS, so it might not be a clear "rewrite", they probably don't aim to implement all syscalls the same way linux does (don't even know if fuchsia is an unixoid), but it certainly will be a replacement for linux.

      Clang has been made as replacement for GCC, and Fuchsia for Linux. And in both cases, the license was a reason.

  23. Re:GPL Problem by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    I see you finally caught and fixed the ext2 reference.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  24. Re:GPL Problem by macs4all · · Score: 1, Troll

    Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 10.

    So, my question is: Why didn't you simply port it to OS X? It would have been infinitely simpler than rewriting from scratch, and a far better decision than subjecting the company to the spyware horrorshow that is Windows 10.

    And please don't EVEN try to talk about the cost of replacing hardware with "expensive Macs". That (already suspect) argument would not have stood up against the immense cost of starting from scratch, rather than making a few simple tweaks to run under OS X.

    Heck, even if your software was married to X11 in some way, you could have had that under OS X/macOS, too.

    So, did you even ONCE stop to think of this ready alternative to the tyranny of the GPL?

    BTW, this is why Apple never uses the GPL to license it's own F/OSS Projects (of which they have several).

  25. Re:GPL Problem by chuckugly · · Score: 4, Informative

    Now this, gentlemen, is what a well crafted troll looks like.

  26. Re: GPL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Butt fucker!

  27. Re: GPL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, take the advice of "macs4all" and port your enterprise system to OSX. No way that "macs4all" would have any motive other than what's best for your product. And lastly, let's test "macs4all"'s assessment of Windows 10 privacy because what the hell, "macs4all" would never try to bullshit you into using a Mac.

  28. CIA Psychology 101 -- Fuchsia is FUCK CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No worries, they will all go to Hell for 9/11.

  29. Re: GPL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you aren't aware of the privacy issues in Windows 10 then you need to leave this field immediately.

      Ohhhhhhhh you just reinstall the factory OS for your friends and family, you really have no idea how a computer works. My bad.

  30. Fucksia. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And everyone complains I use M$.

  31. What's the point? by mr100percent · · Score: 1

    I don't know WHY Google is doing this. That description doesn't sound like it will do anything significantly better than an existing OS. QNX is a Realtime Operating System that also runs on a small hardware footprint, Android and Chromium already scale to mobile devices and desktops, what niche will this Fuschia run in?

    1. Re: What's the point? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1 for QNX. Unfortunely, BlackBerry is too incompetant to fully leverage this asset.

  32. Re:GPL Problem by NotInHere · · Score: 0

    The GPL is only tyrant to tyrants. Tivoisation should have no place in this world.

  33. Back 2 the Fuchsia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hop in the DeLorean DMC-12 and we'll go back in time, flirt with our own moms and prevent android ever being created.

  34. Please Abandon Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please abandon Android while there is still time. Android came from trying to clone Blackberry by Java developers and then hamfistedly copy parts of iOS so it's the worst of everything.

    If you're going to create a new OS, start by avoiding the mistakes Linux, and by extension Android made.

    1) Don't break ABI with every new version (Hello, you can still run Windows 2.x and 3.x apps on 32-bit Windows 10 16-bit WoW if you wanted to), while there hasn't been a single version of Linux that hasn't broken ABI.

    2) Create a universal binary format (eg arm, x86, x86-64) for both programs, drivers and firmware. Allow the OS to copy the binary parts it's compatible with into a secured cache so that compromising the filesystem doesn't compromise the OS even upon reboot. Allow the kernel to binary patch updates without restarting.

    3) Keep user-space out of hardware space. You should not need to "su" to run everything that interfaces with hardware, which is the problem linux and unix-likes have, you should be able to just have a user-mode driver shim that interfaces with the kernel-mode driver and intelligently decides if the hardware can be shared in that way, and if it recognizes/authorizes that hardware-software pairing. The first time you run a game for example, it needs to communicate with the "vulkan" interface, not the nVidia CUDA interface. If something else is using the Vulkan interface (Eg desktop compositing) then the OS needs to create a virtual "compositor" device that is supported by the driver instead of trying to "soft render" a translation like what happens on every OS currently.

    4) Stop using the web browser as a platform. This needs to be said, but all the tricks in the world is not going to create native performance inside a web browser. The web browser should support downloading and running universal signed binaries seamlessly once authorized. If the binary hash changes, it then needs to be re-authorized, and still remain cached.

    The key thing here is a "universal binary" that can run on all platforms, not Java-style, but rather compiled to a statically compiled specification that requires no third-party libraries (eg statically compiled), and uses only Vulkan/OpenGL/OpenAL/OpenCL/OpenTCPIP/OpenUI/etc interfaces that the universal runtime has.

    Right now there is no "universal runtime" because compiling software for one platform often requires UI wizardy and network/sound hardware initialization that is completely different on every platform.

  35. Re:GPL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

    This is news to me... /eyeroll

  36. And After Fuchsia? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're accelerating to Plaid!

  37. Re:GPL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    defrag for Linux

    #!/bin/sh
    echo -n "Defragging all disks, this may take up to 2 minutes ..."
    sleep 120
    echo " done"

  38. Re:GPL Problem by blindseer · · Score: 1

    Now this, gentlemen, is what a well crafted troll looks like.

    Agreed. It pushes all the right buttons.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
  39. HW Drivers is always the problem. by FithisUX · · Score: 1

    FOSS drivers is the problem, not the OS. They should sit with all HW makers and find a way to release FOSS drivers for everything while protecting their IP and even standardize interfaces. This problem is what impedes OS research and new OSes. Nothing else.

  40. Fuchsia the devil girl by Luckyo · · Score: 1
  41. Re:GPL Problem by ed.mps · · Score: 1
    --
    !sig
  42. CIA Psychology 101 --- Fuchsia is FUCK CIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    CIA Psychology 101 -- Fuchsia is FUCK CIA

  43. Re:GPL Problem by Keybounce · · Score: 1

    ... It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.

    Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

    Your Lawyer got one thing right. Yes, if you are using the work done by Torvalds and many, many other people, you are doing so on the condition that your improvements are shared with them, just as their work and improvements are shared with you.

    It is a "common work" system. Everyone works together to make the whole thing a little better. If you really improved Linux? Then lots of people around the world -- not just your competitors, but everyone who uses Linux -- will benefit from this.

    That's not a "Gnu Protective License", that's a "Gnu Public License".

    Now, not only did you get the title wrong, but the whole "it was compiled by gcc, therefore must be made public" is false. If your lawyer told you that, then your lawyer is an idiot.

    It simply is not true.

    Your improvements to Linux must be shared with everyone else; that's the condition of a no-cost, relatively bug-free, operating system with access to the source.

    Your personal programs, even if compiled with Linux tools, are your personal programs.

    Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux. ... Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.

    YES! That is exactly it.

    You were asked by this firm to use Linux.
    You did so.
    Now your improvements benefit both this firm *and the rest of the world*.

    Bill your client for the work that includes helping others. That is the nature of Linux.

  44. Re:GPL Problem by Keybounce · · Score: 1

    *Warning*

    While there is nothing wrong with using Apple's systems to work on, develop, and deploy your systems, *do not use any Apple technology in your system*.

    Apple is full of discarded/dead enterprise-level technologies. Just look at Web Objects/EOF. Now consider what came before it. Now consider that you cannot even run those older OS's/systems inside virtual machines -- I think 10.7 was the first one that you could legally license for use in a virtual machine, and every Apple-specific technology was dead by then.

    Now, to address the parent:

    BTW, this is why Apple never uses the GPL to license it's own F/OSS Projects (of which they have several).

    No, it is because of the changes in GPL 3.

    In GPL 2, it was possible to have full access to the source code, and the ability to compile it, but be unable to install the new version on the device. This was called "tivoing", after it was discovered that Tivo did this -- the software to be installed had to be signed and approved by the firmware in the box. Since it was not possible to replace the system and update the software, this was technically compliant, but against the spirit of the license.

    GPL3 made changes for two major reasons: one, some of the terms used in 2 had legal definitions in some jurisdictions that did not match the intent of the Gnu team (solution: new terms with precise definitions in the license), and two: *making sure that you can actually change the software on a device if that device is using GPL software*. This is the part that Apple, and others, cannot stand.

  45. Re:GPL Problem by macs4all · · Score: 1

    Apple is full of discarded/dead enterprise-level technologies. Just look at Web Objects/EOF. Now consider what came before it. Now consider that you cannot even run those older OS's/systems inside virtual machines -- I think 10.7 was the first one that you could legally license for use in a virtual machine, and every Apple-specific technology was dead by then.

    Every OS is full of discarded/dead "enterprise-level" technologies, FFS! OS X/macOS is, on balance, pretty much the same as every other modern, overbloated OS (Linux included).

    I don't think you've even been able to buy WebObjects for over a decade; and if OS X/macOS SERVER still includes a limited license for it (which it very well may not at this point), that's about the extent of continuing WO support.

    But WO was some pretty cool stuff in the day; too bad it didn't see wider adoption.

    You are dead wrong about the virtualization licensing for OS X/macOS: it is actually worse than you misstated. Unless Apple has recently changed their Virtualization stance, there is only ONE version of OS X that is allowed to be virtualized: OS X SERVER 10.6.8 You can actually STILL order a DVD Install disc of that version from Apple Tech Support. And you can install it on a VM.

  46. Re:GPL Problem by Keybounce · · Score: 1

    Oh, I thought Apple had made it "All server versions from now on can be vitualized".

    Only the 10.6.8? Not 10.7.5?

    Well, at least you can have a virtual Rosetta :-).

    ===

    As for discarded Enterprise-level stuff: Microsoft, for all it's ... behavior, manages to keep things in Windows long past any reasonable expiration date, because there are things out there that depend on it.

    Linux? What part of the OS (and we're talking about distributions at this point) contains enterprise-level tools that cannot be installed on a current system?

    ===

    EOF: EOF used to be a standard part of the operating system. Then, it was bundled as part of Web Objects, again part of the operating system. Then it was moved to Java, and Java was a 'first-class language'. Then the toll-free bridge died, Java became less than first class, and EOF/WO became a pure java library. Then it just ... died.

    Later, there came out a Core Data system, which had most of EOF for non-database apps. But ... well, apparently there was no way to actually implement persistent storage, despite Apple providing an API that should have permitted it, but after a couple of years, several developers said it was demonstrably not possible in a real-world application. It isn't clear that Apple ever provided a sample, working, tested usage of that API.

  47. Re:GPL Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a fellow consultant, the fact that you didn't bother to research the license, don't know ext4 doesn't need to be defragmented by design

    Yes it does: e4defrag

  48. Fuch, fuch, fuchsia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice choice of name for when your OS crashes.

    (Credits to Annie M.G. Schmidt for the Dutch song text Do you want a cutting of the fuch, fuch, fuchsia" )

  49. Why not Linux? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dont think they threw out Linux out of Android because of GPL, the problem Google had with Android is Java. Linux has worked fine for a decade in Android. I think the reason they discard Linux is something else. Maybe some technical reason.

  50. Magenta (Fuchsia kernel) reminds me of Windows NT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Magenta kernel's use of ref-counted "kernel objects" and handles is straight out of NT. Except that Magenta uses fugly_function_names.