3 ms·

You're right, it was bizarre to say the least. The entire thread is full of well-sourced, accurate info, and then this tweet was thrown in, then immediately aft

You're right, it was bizarre to say the least. The entire thread is full of well-sourced, accurate info, and then this tweet was thrown in, then immediately after it was accurately disclaimed. Anyone who works at a BigCo knows there's no way in hell anyone's made a decision about something 5 years out. There's a lot of risky dev between here and there I think they meant to suggest Fuchsia could replace the Linux kernel in that timeframe

emn13 8y ago
I mean, I know you're suggesting the claim has no merit because the poster doesn't know what they're talking about; but you know, even if the poster were a genius with intimate knowledge of the project, a claim like this is bogus. If somebody with a modicum of common sense and software experience says some software of this kind of complexity that they're working on "can" be good enough in 5 years that basically means: it's a herculean task, and they have no clue whatsoever as to how long it's actually going to take. Also, they probably don't really know what they're really trying to do, only general aims, not actually how they're achievable. There's no way in hell anybody can plan something that novel and hugely complex, with that many people involved in an ecosystem that's constantly changing not to mention a business that's not known for its long term perseverance, with any kind of accuracy for 1 year. 5 years is a complete joke. Who knows - it might happen. It might in just 1 year. Or maybe 50. Or more likely, never. But I cannot believe that estimate to have any kind of sane grounding. The only way they're actually going to follow through on a schedule that long term is by giving up on scope and quality, which is to say - sure, something will be delivered, but perhaps nothing resembling today's expectations.
- anoncareer0212 8y ago
  You seem to be vigorously agreeing with me beyond the first paragraph, but I must be reading you wrong?
  - emn13 8y ago
    Nope, totally agreeing with you! :-)
    - anoncareer0212 8y ago
      Doh, the poster != me, it's the person whose posts we're discussing :)
      - emn13 8y ago
        oh yeah, sorry - that's indeed what I meant.

emn13 8y ago

I mean, I know you're suggesting the claim has no merit because the poster doesn't know what they're talking about; but you know, even if the poster were a genius with intimate knowledge of the project, a claim like this is bogus. If somebody with a modicum of common sense and software experience says some software of this kind of complexity that they're working on "can" be good enough in 5 years that basically means: it's a herculean task, and they have no clue whatsoever as to how long it's actually going to take. Also, they probably don't really know what they're really trying to do, only general aims, not actually how they're achievable. There's no way in hell anybody can plan something that novel and hugely complex, with that many people involved in an ecosystem that's constantly changing not to mention a business that's not known for its long term perseverance, with any kind of accuracy for 1 year. 5 years is a complete joke. Who knows - it might happen. It might in just 1 year. Or maybe 50. Or more likely, never. But I cannot believe that estimate to have any kind of sane grounding. The only way they're actually going to follow through on a schedule that long term is by giving up on scope and quality, which is to say - sure, something will be delivered, but perhaps nothing resembling today's expectations.

anoncareer0212 8y ago
You seem to be vigorously agreeing with me beyond the first paragraph, but I must be reading you wrong?
- emn13 8y ago
  Nope, totally agreeing with you! :-)
  - anoncareer0212 8y ago
    Doh, the poster != me, it's the person whose posts we're discussing :)
    - emn13 8y ago
      oh yeah, sorry - that's indeed what I meant.