14 ms·

So I'm not clear what the puropse of fuchsia is. I understand it's an os which may replace android or chomeos but why the move away from linux based systems? Bo

So I'm not clear what the puropse of fuchsia is. I understand it's an os which may replace android or chomeos but why the move away from linux based systems? Both are open source platforms.

joshumax 9y ago
I can't say everything I've heard for NDA reasons but I've been under the impression its use is in future resource-constrained IoT devices, which tend to lack a secure, lightweight OS with a unified API. Reverse engineering a certain "smart" nightlight uncovered a minimal Linux 2.6.xx rootfs with telnet open and enabled by default
- awordnot 9y ago
  What does that have to do with Linux though? Surely it's the manufacturer's fault for leaving telnet open and not updating? How would a new OS solve any of these issues?
  - chii 9y ago
    by making these services an OS level concern, the device manufacturer can't screw anything up anymore.
    - awordnot 9y ago
      The OS is going to prevent you from running a userspace telnet daemon? Sounds unlikely.
- remir 9y ago
  Take a look at the repo. Fuchsia is an OS for mobile devices. The UI is clearly made for phones, they use the Flutter framework, which was made specifically for mobile app development and can target iOS and Android too.
  - tyingq 9y ago
    Perhaps. The current set of boot instructions are for a NUC desktop, a laptop, and 2 ARM dev boards though. https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/master/docs/targets/ https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/master/docs/targe...
    - dikaiosune 9y ago
      The hardware in that Acer laptop looks surprisingly similar to what a current flagship phone has in terms of resources if not exact architecture.
      - tyingq 9y ago
        I guess generically in that it has a touchscreen, limited hdd size, etc. It's an i5 Intel x64 CPU though.
        dikaiosune 9y ago
        I believe my phone runs a 64bit ARM with eight 2.3ghz cores and has the same amount of ram as the base Acer model?
        tyingq 9y ago
        The i5 has 2 cores, different memory bus setup, cache setup, etc. If you're saying it has the same rough level of horsepower, that makes sense. Not at all the same architecture though.
        dikaiosune 9y ago
        > similar to what a current flagship phone has in terms of resources if not exact architecture. :)
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    >Take a look at the repo. Fuchsia is an OS for mobile devices. The UI is clearly made for phones No it's not. Fuchsia is device agnostic. It's for mobile devices, personal computers, IOT devices, etc. Just because it uses Flutter does not restrict it to mobile devices.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  >I can't say everything I've heard for NDA reasons but I've been under the impression its use is in future resource-constrained IoT devices. I highly doubt that. "Magenta targets modern phones and modern personal computers with fast processors, non-trivial amounts of ram with arbitrary peripherals doing open ended computation" Magenta is the name of the Fuchsia kernel. https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/HEAD/docs/mg_and_lk.md https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/HEAD/docs/mg_and_...
mythz 9y ago
It's not clear because its purpose has not been made public. Google has the resources to undertake developing a new OS, which they obviously believe will have benefits over being based on Linux like ChromeOS is. Being free of legacy constraints gives them the freedom to explore better ways to achieve they're objectives, e.g Security and UI performance.
- awqrre 9y ago
  security and UI performance... color me doubtful...
catern 9y ago
>open source platforms Part of the motivation is certainly to get away from the GPL requirements of using Linux, so that Google and its partners can release products to users that have proprietary modifications to the kernel, without giving those same users access to the source code of the kernel. That would of course be a disaster for user autonomy and freedom, but why should Google care about that... Edit: This isn't just about the license, but also about the structure of the code. Fuschia is based on a microkernel. "Microkernel" doesn't just mean "modular kernel"[1] it also means "run drivers and systems in a separate process with a separate executable". That imposes performance penalties, but it can enforce a better programming style... and it also allows low-quality proprietary vendor code to be isolated from the base system and not have to pass quality checks or open its source. [1] Linux is very modular despite being monolithic, and there have been academic operating systems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-based_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-based_system which are extremely modular and well designed despite (or perhaps because of) operating entirely in ring 0. Microkernels of course require modularity; but modularity doesn't require microkernel. The key problem with having all your code linked into one executable, of course, is that it requires you to have all your code...
- djsumdog 9y ago
  Companies are embracing open source these days, but not the GPL. We see that with gcc and clang, or in the way MacOS uses older versions of tools just to avoid GPLv3: http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in-community-and-enterprise-software/ http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-... The OSS utopia pushed in the the 1990s, with tools like Gimp being one day comparable to Photoshop, never really happened.
  - catern 9y ago
    OK, but that's irrelevant. Kernels are an entirely different class of thing. I'm fine with permissive licenses for higher-level software such as clang or GIMP. But I'm not looking forward to a world where I can't get the source code for a kernel that will actually run on real hardware. It's already painful to compile and run Android from source. Fuschia will make it just impossible.
mehrdada 9y ago
Probably the same purpose Singularity served for Microsoft. Researchers gotta research.
themacguffinman 9y ago
Fuchsia uses a microkernel (Magenta) which is more secure and technically elegant, but usually comes at the cost of performance. Google's position as the primary/sole developer of Fuchsia also gives them the control to build the OS in commercially lucrative ways that don't necessarily earn the approval of the Linux open source community (programming shortcuts, proprietary/non-GPL extensions, etc).
- kjksf 9y ago
  I'm guessing that you think it's a bad thing but I don't quite understand your position. Is it a new standard that if company develops code, they are morally required to seek "approval of the Linux open source community" ? Are we applying this standard only to Google, or all companies? If writing and open-sourcing code under permissive license is bad if it's done without "approval of Linux open source community", then how bad, in comparison, is what e.g. Apple or Microsoft do (not open sourcing iOS or Windows)?
  - nxtrafalgar 9y ago
    As I interpreted it, that's not their position. They're saying that if Google were to pursue their OS goals, specifically using Linux as a base, then they would likely end up doing things that would earn the scorn of the Linux community (at least; it's more likely that what they want to do is GPL-violating).
  - geofft 9y ago
    I don't think that comment was expressing a clear opinion either way, just stating that as long as Google is basing their software on Linux they are definitely legally obligated to follow certain rules (e.g., no direct linking of proprietary drivers provided by a vendor) and vaguely politically obligated to follow others (e.g., there's a fair bit of C++ in Magenta; adding C++ to a fork of Linux is technically straightforward but would upset people and also make it hard for patches to your fork to go upstream).
- sitkack 9y ago
  The other way we get separation is run multiple VMs under KVM which also has an overhead. The Microkernel arch that Linus never wanted is in fact, what we have right now. Exokernels and safe languages are necessity for getting having a good lifetime under battery power and having decent level of security.
jnwatson 9y ago
It looks to be a capability-based microkernel in the spirit of L4 and Green Hills' Integrity.
klodolph 9y ago
I don't know what Google's purpose for Fuchsia is, but Linux was originally designed for a security model which is uncommon these days. The Linux security model protects different users from each other, but these days it's much more common that a computer will only have one user, and you want to protect that one user from potentially harmful code. Capability-based security is a big step in that direction. I don't know what "they're both open-source" has to do with it, obviously there are other reasons to choose between different pieces of software besides the license.
armitron 9y ago
Linux is a disaster security-wise (look at how massive things like grsecurity are) and that won't change anytime soon. Android has inherited all of that and it's by far the shittiest mobile OS out there in terms of how easy it is to own. It makes sense that Google would like to move away from Linux given how important mobile security is and will become in the future. They certainly have the resources to get it right, starting from a clean slate.
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  >Android has inherited all of that and it's by far the shittiest mobile OS out there in terms of how easy it is to own. Then why don't you try? Google has $200,000 USD waiting for you to exploit a fully patched Pixel. Or are you too rich to make it worth your while? If you're going to say something that silly at least have the technical prowess to walk the talk.
  - armitron 9y ago
    First, is there a point that you are trying to make because I didn't see any. Second, 200k USD for a vulnerability of such caliber is peanuts. Third, you must have missed this: http://blog.trendmicro.com/results-mobile-pwn2own-2016/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/results-mobile-pwn2own-2016/
    - bitmapbrother 9y ago
      I think my point is pretty clear - your comments regarding the state of Android security are very lacking. I suggest you watch this video by Adrian Ludwig at Next 2017 for an overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6ziX5pqt8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6ziX5pqt8 >Second, 200k USD for a vulnerability of such caliber is peanuts. I think that's the going rate offered by companies that buy exploits like Zerodium. Do you know of a company offering a better price? >Third, you must have missed this: http://blog.trendmicro.com/results-mobile-pwn2own-2016/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/results-mobile-pwn2own-2016/ First, the hack was impressive because of all of the exploits they had to chain. Perhaps this gives you an understanding of just how difficult it really is and why I called your comments regarding Android security silly. Secondly, I don't believe their hack was possible via RCE and needed physical access to the device. Third, you neglected to mention that not only was the iPhone hacked, but it was done so twice. Additionally, the 2 iPhone hacks earned more money than the Nexus 6P hack. Did you also want to comment on the state of iOS security?
bitmapbrother 9y ago
I think it's pretty clear. They want an OS that can scale to any device. Whether Fuchsia replaces Android is unclear, but having their own PC OS in which Android can seamlessly integrate with much like iOS and MacOS can is very appealing.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Integration between iOS and Mac OS may just be because Apple controls both of them tightly. It doesn't tell us much about OS similarity or any deeply shared code. You can make two very different OSes integrate seamlessly with each other given full control over the OS code.
izacus 9y ago
The other explanation is that it would be easier to maintain - right now Android kernel is not the same as mainline kernel and has a few rather large functional patches (things like Binder, some modified permissions, wakelock system, support for BIG.little) which are really tough to port ahead. This is why most of devices are still running rather old kernels - e.g. even Pixel is on 3.18. Patches for these largest features weren't accepted into mailine - they're not really fully fit for a general-purpose kernel and Google's and Linux kernel teams differ in opinions if they're even required and how they should be implemented. As such, it probably makes sense for Google to use their own, fully internally developed, kernel which is built from ground up to handle IPC, security and mobile chips in the way Android/ChromeOS expect it to.
cwp 9y ago
I'm interested in it from a purely technological point of view. Linux is almost 30 years old, and it's architecture is almost 50 years old. Xnu, which is the kernel of iOS is a bit more modern, but Apple has gradually moved it back towards a monolithic BSDish, posix-compliant kernel over the years. We've actually learned a few things about operating systems since 1970, and today's hardware vastly different from the time-sharing systems of that day. It would be really useful to just implement an OS based on more modern ideas and see where it goes. I have no idea what Google is planning for Fuscia, but I hope that's part of it.
coldtea 9y ago
>but why the move away from linux based systems? Both are open source platforms Perhaps because whether it's "open source" is not that much of a concern, but rather whether it has the kind of control (over its evolution) and/or next generation design they want?
naiveattack 9y ago
Proprietary drivers allow a lock in to fuschia os and devices allowing Google more control over the platform. We probably need open source hardware for this to go away and to be free.

So I'm not clear what the puropse of fuchsia is. I understand it's an os which may replace android or chomeos but why the move away from linux based systems? Both are open source platforms.

joshumax 9y ago

I can't say everything I've heard for NDA reasons but I've been under the impression its use is in future resource-constrained IoT devices, which tend to lack a secure, lightweight OS with a unified API. Reverse engineering a certain "smart" nightlight uncovered a minimal Linux 2.6.xx rootfs with telnet open and enabled by default

awordnot 9y ago
What does that have to do with Linux though? Surely it's the manufacturer's fault for leaving telnet open and not updating? How would a new OS solve any of these issues?
- chii 9y ago
  by making these services an OS level concern, the device manufacturer can't screw anything up anymore.
  - awordnot 9y ago
    The OS is going to prevent you from running a userspace telnet daemon? Sounds unlikely.
remir 9y ago
Take a look at the repo. Fuchsia is an OS for mobile devices. The UI is clearly made for phones, they use the Flutter framework, which was made specifically for mobile app development and can target iOS and Android too.
- tyingq 9y ago
  Perhaps. The current set of boot instructions are for a NUC desktop, a laptop, and 2 ARM dev boards though. https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/master/docs/targets/ https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/master/docs/targe...
  - dikaiosune 9y ago
    The hardware in that Acer laptop looks surprisingly similar to what a current flagship phone has in terms of resources if not exact architecture.
    - tyingq 9y ago
      I guess generically in that it has a touchscreen, limited hdd size, etc. It's an i5 Intel x64 CPU though.
      - dikaiosune 9y ago
        I believe my phone runs a 64bit ARM with eight 2.3ghz cores and has the same amount of ram as the base Acer model?
        tyingq 9y ago
        The i5 has 2 cores, different memory bus setup, cache setup, etc. If you're saying it has the same rough level of horsepower, that makes sense. Not at all the same architecture though.
        dikaiosune 9y ago
        > similar to what a current flagship phone has in terms of resources if not exact architecture. :)
- bitmapbrother 9y ago
  >Take a look at the repo. Fuchsia is an OS for mobile devices. The UI is clearly made for phones No it's not. Fuchsia is device agnostic. It's for mobile devices, personal computers, IOT devices, etc. Just because it uses Flutter does not restrict it to mobile devices.
bitmapbrother 9y ago
>I can't say everything I've heard for NDA reasons but I've been under the impression its use is in future resource-constrained IoT devices. I highly doubt that. "Magenta targets modern phones and modern personal computers with fast processors, non-trivial amounts of ram with arbitrary peripherals doing open ended computation" Magenta is the name of the Fuchsia kernel. https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/HEAD/docs/mg_and_lk.md https://fuchsia.googlesource.com/magenta/+/HEAD/docs/mg_and_...

mythz 9y ago

It's not clear because its purpose has not been made public. Google has the resources to undertake developing a new OS, which they obviously believe will have benefits over being based on Linux like ChromeOS is. Being free of legacy constraints gives them the freedom to explore better ways to achieve they're objectives, e.g Security and UI performance.

awqrre 9y ago
security and UI performance... color me doubtful...

catern 9y ago

>open source platforms Part of the motivation is certainly to get away from the GPL requirements of using Linux, so that Google and its partners can release products to users that have proprietary modifications to the kernel, without giving those same users access to the source code of the kernel. That would of course be a disaster for user autonomy and freedom, but why should Google care about that... Edit: This isn't just about the license, but also about the structure of the code. Fuschia is based on a microkernel. "Microkernel" doesn't just mean "modular kernel"[1] it also means "run drivers and systems in a separate process with a separate executable". That imposes performance penalties, but it can enforce a better programming style... and it also allows low-quality proprietary vendor code to be isolated from the base system and not have to pass quality checks or open its source. [1] Linux is very modular despite being monolithic, and there have been academic operating systems like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-based_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language-based_system which are extremely modular and well designed despite (or perhaps because of) operating entirely in ring 0. Microkernels of course require modularity; but modularity doesn't require microkernel. The key problem with having all your code linked into one executable, of course, is that it requires you to have all your code...

djsumdog 9y ago
Companies are embracing open source these days, but not the GPL. We see that with gcc and clang, or in the way MacOS uses older versions of tools just to avoid GPLv3: http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-in-community-and-enterprise-software/ http://penguindreams.org/blog/the-philosophy-of-open-source-... The OSS utopia pushed in the the 1990s, with tools like Gimp being one day comparable to Photoshop, never really happened.
- catern 9y ago
  OK, but that's irrelevant. Kernels are an entirely different class of thing. I'm fine with permissive licenses for higher-level software such as clang or GIMP. But I'm not looking forward to a world where I can't get the source code for a kernel that will actually run on real hardware. It's already painful to compile and run Android from source. Fuschia will make it just impossible.

mehrdada 9y ago

Probably the same purpose Singularity served for Microsoft. Researchers gotta research.

themacguffinman 9y ago

Fuchsia uses a microkernel (Magenta) which is more secure and technically elegant, but usually comes at the cost of performance. Google's position as the primary/sole developer of Fuchsia also gives them the control to build the OS in commercially lucrative ways that don't necessarily earn the approval of the Linux open source community (programming shortcuts, proprietary/non-GPL extensions, etc).

kjksf 9y ago
I'm guessing that you think it's a bad thing but I don't quite understand your position. Is it a new standard that if company develops code, they are morally required to seek "approval of the Linux open source community" ? Are we applying this standard only to Google, or all companies? If writing and open-sourcing code under permissive license is bad if it's done without "approval of Linux open source community", then how bad, in comparison, is what e.g. Apple or Microsoft do (not open sourcing iOS or Windows)?
- nxtrafalgar 9y ago
  As I interpreted it, that's not their position. They're saying that if Google were to pursue their OS goals, specifically using Linux as a base, then they would likely end up doing things that would earn the scorn of the Linux community (at least; it's more likely that what they want to do is GPL-violating).
- geofft 9y ago
  I don't think that comment was expressing a clear opinion either way, just stating that as long as Google is basing their software on Linux they are definitely legally obligated to follow certain rules (e.g., no direct linking of proprietary drivers provided by a vendor) and vaguely politically obligated to follow others (e.g., there's a fair bit of C++ in Magenta; adding C++ to a fork of Linux is technically straightforward but would upset people and also make it hard for patches to your fork to go upstream).
sitkack 9y ago
The other way we get separation is run multiple VMs under KVM which also has an overhead. The Microkernel arch that Linus never wanted is in fact, what we have right now. Exokernels and safe languages are necessity for getting having a good lifetime under battery power and having decent level of security.

jnwatson 9y ago

It looks to be a capability-based microkernel in the spirit of L4 and Green Hills' Integrity.

klodolph 9y ago

I don't know what Google's purpose for Fuchsia is, but Linux was originally designed for a security model which is uncommon these days. The Linux security model protects different users from each other, but these days it's much more common that a computer will only have one user, and you want to protect that one user from potentially harmful code. Capability-based security is a big step in that direction. I don't know what "they're both open-source" has to do with it, obviously there are other reasons to choose between different pieces of software besides the license.

armitron 9y ago

Linux is a disaster security-wise (look at how massive things like grsecurity are) and that won't change anytime soon. Android has inherited all of that and it's by far the shittiest mobile OS out there in terms of how easy it is to own. It makes sense that Google would like to move away from Linux given how important mobile security is and will become in the future. They certainly have the resources to get it right, starting from a clean slate.

bitmapbrother 9y ago
>Android has inherited all of that and it's by far the shittiest mobile OS out there in terms of how easy it is to own. Then why don't you try? Google has $200,000 USD waiting for you to exploit a fully patched Pixel. Or are you too rich to make it worth your while? If you're going to say something that silly at least have the technical prowess to walk the talk.
- armitron 9y ago
  First, is there a point that you are trying to make because I didn't see any. Second, 200k USD for a vulnerability of such caliber is peanuts. Third, you must have missed this: http://blog.trendmicro.com/results-mobile-pwn2own-2016/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/results-mobile-pwn2own-2016/
  - bitmapbrother 9y ago
    I think my point is pretty clear - your comments regarding the state of Android security are very lacking. I suggest you watch this video by Adrian Ludwig at Next 2017 for an overview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6ziX5pqt8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm6ziX5pqt8 >Second, 200k USD for a vulnerability of such caliber is peanuts. I think that's the going rate offered by companies that buy exploits like Zerodium. Do you know of a company offering a better price? >Third, you must have missed this: http://blog.trendmicro.com/results-mobile-pwn2own-2016/ http://blog.trendmicro.com/results-mobile-pwn2own-2016/ First, the hack was impressive because of all of the exploits they had to chain. Perhaps this gives you an understanding of just how difficult it really is and why I called your comments regarding Android security silly. Secondly, I don't believe their hack was possible via RCE and needed physical access to the device. Third, you neglected to mention that not only was the iPhone hacked, but it was done so twice. Additionally, the 2 iPhone hacks earned more money than the Nexus 6P hack. Did you also want to comment on the state of iOS security?

bitmapbrother 9y ago

I think it's pretty clear. They want an OS that can scale to any device. Whether Fuchsia replaces Android is unclear, but having their own PC OS in which Android can seamlessly integrate with much like iOS and MacOS can is very appealing.

dingo_bat 9y ago
Integration between iOS and Mac OS may just be because Apple controls both of them tightly. It doesn't tell us much about OS similarity or any deeply shared code. You can make two very different OSes integrate seamlessly with each other given full control over the OS code.

izacus 9y ago

The other explanation is that it would be easier to maintain - right now Android kernel is not the same as mainline kernel and has a few rather large functional patches (things like Binder, some modified permissions, wakelock system, support for BIG.little) which are really tough to port ahead. This is why most of devices are still running rather old kernels - e.g. even Pixel is on 3.18. Patches for these largest features weren't accepted into mailine - they're not really fully fit for a general-purpose kernel and Google's and Linux kernel teams differ in opinions if they're even required and how they should be implemented. As such, it probably makes sense for Google to use their own, fully internally developed, kernel which is built from ground up to handle IPC, security and mobile chips in the way Android/ChromeOS expect it to.

cwp 9y ago

I'm interested in it from a purely technological point of view. Linux is almost 30 years old, and it's architecture is almost 50 years old. Xnu, which is the kernel of iOS is a bit more modern, but Apple has gradually moved it back towards a monolithic BSDish, posix-compliant kernel over the years. We've actually learned a few things about operating systems since 1970, and today's hardware vastly different from the time-sharing systems of that day. It would be really useful to just implement an OS based on more modern ideas and see where it goes. I have no idea what Google is planning for Fuscia, but I hope that's part of it.

coldtea 9y ago

>but why the move away from linux based systems? Both are open source platforms Perhaps because whether it's "open source" is not that much of a concern, but rather whether it has the kind of control (over its evolution) and/or next generation design they want?

naiveattack 9y ago

Proprietary drivers allow a lock in to fuschia os and devices allowing Google more control over the platform. We probably need open source hardware for this to go away and to be free.