22 ms·

The bad thing about fuchsia is how closed the development process is. There is no community around it, they don't advertise it, don't encourage broader use and

The bad thing about fuchsia is how closed the development process is. There is no community around it, they don't advertise it, don't encourage broader use and adoption. The contribution process is quite centralized to. It feels like it's google project and they and only they would decide its direction. So no spontaneous order, it's their way or no way.

mythz 7y ago
Which is expected for their own funded project that's still under active development which they've explicitly decided against publicizing what its strategic purpose or intentions are for it. > It feels like it's google project and they and only they would decide its direction. So no spontaneous order, it's their way or no way. Of course they're going to have full discretion of this multi-year heavily resourced investment for which they've spent years developing and haven't officially released yet. You can re-asses the merits of the project after they've released it, as to whether it's something you want to use or contribute to or not. It's clear at this stage they're not developing Fuchsia with reliance on external OSS contributions.
- ernst_klim 7y ago
  >Which is expected for their own funded project that's still under active development which they've explicitly decided against publicizing what its strategic purpose or intentions are for it. Sure, the OP's question was what's bad about it. That's bad. >You can re-asses the merits of the project after they've released it There would be no merits. It's an OS. Who would write the thousands of drivers and layers for various purposes. If there will be no community, there would be no decent OS. And no, google doesn't invest enough in it. It's either you hire a dev team of thousands people, as Microsoft does, or draw the community. Google did neither so far, and so Fuchsia has fewer drivers than Haiku. Most they want it to be a system working on a few selected phones, or maybe google doesn't even consider it seriously, and it's an initiative of a small group of enthusiasts within google.
  - mythz 7y ago
    > Sure, the OP's question was what's bad about it. That's bad. Why exactly is it bad, bad for who? It's likely driven by a highly talented focused team, there are numerous high quality OSS projects that are commercially backed and developed internally - not relying on external OSS contributors is not an indicator of software quality. Apple/Microsoft/Google have already done quite well developing their own successful OS without relying on external OSS contributors. > There would be no merits. It's an OS. I don't understand what you're trying to say, that OS's don't have value? > Who would write the thousands of drivers and layers for various purposes. It doesn't need to support thousands of drivers, Apple has no problems getting drivers developed for their own hardware. It's not even clear it's going to be a general purpose OS, it could be for embedded / or a close knit of selected approved devices. Regardless it's not even released yet so any conclusions to this point is moot, after they're happy for it to have wider adoption they'll open their invitations to participate and add support for it then. > And no, google doesn't invest enough in it. How do you know how much Google has invested in it? You don't even know the purpose of it, how could you possibly know how much resources they need to accomplish what they want to achieve? > Google did neither so far, and so Fuchsia has fewer drivers than Haiku. So? It's still in active development, maybe they want it stable and battle tested before freezing public APIs and inviting others to build on it, maybe they only want to support selected devices/hardware. No one will know their intentions until after its released or what their plan for adoption will be. Given they already have experience developing and distributing the worlds most popular OS I'm sure they have a good chance at making a Fuchsia a success for their goals.
- naraic0o 7y ago
  nah, it's MIT licenced. they're rebuilding, while redesigning, linux - without GPL. i think it's in a way that makes driver development less expensive for hardware manufactuters. stable driver apis mean a hardware manufacturers can care less about maintaining them while the kernel can still update without worrying as much about breaking drivers. it doesn't really matter if it's currently in secretive development, or not - the result will be that fewer people have access to the code their phone/other device is actually running. in essence: there's still cause for concern.

mythz 7y ago

Which is expected for their own funded project that's still under active development which they've explicitly decided against publicizing what its strategic purpose or intentions are for it. > It feels like it's google project and they and only they would decide its direction. So no spontaneous order, it's their way or no way. Of course they're going to have full discretion of this multi-year heavily resourced investment for which they've spent years developing and haven't officially released yet. You can re-asses the merits of the project after they've released it, as to whether it's something you want to use or contribute to or not. It's clear at this stage they're not developing Fuchsia with reliance on external OSS contributions.

ernst_klim 7y ago
>Which is expected for their own funded project that's still under active development which they've explicitly decided against publicizing what its strategic purpose or intentions are for it. Sure, the OP's question was what's bad about it. That's bad. >You can re-asses the merits of the project after they've released it There would be no merits. It's an OS. Who would write the thousands of drivers and layers for various purposes. If there will be no community, there would be no decent OS. And no, google doesn't invest enough in it. It's either you hire a dev team of thousands people, as Microsoft does, or draw the community. Google did neither so far, and so Fuchsia has fewer drivers than Haiku. Most they want it to be a system working on a few selected phones, or maybe google doesn't even consider it seriously, and it's an initiative of a small group of enthusiasts within google.
- mythz 7y ago
  > Sure, the OP's question was what's bad about it. That's bad. Why exactly is it bad, bad for who? It's likely driven by a highly talented focused team, there are numerous high quality OSS projects that are commercially backed and developed internally - not relying on external OSS contributors is not an indicator of software quality. Apple/Microsoft/Google have already done quite well developing their own successful OS without relying on external OSS contributors. > There would be no merits. It's an OS. I don't understand what you're trying to say, that OS's don't have value? > Who would write the thousands of drivers and layers for various purposes. It doesn't need to support thousands of drivers, Apple has no problems getting drivers developed for their own hardware. It's not even clear it's going to be a general purpose OS, it could be for embedded / or a close knit of selected approved devices. Regardless it's not even released yet so any conclusions to this point is moot, after they're happy for it to have wider adoption they'll open their invitations to participate and add support for it then. > And no, google doesn't invest enough in it. How do you know how much Google has invested in it? You don't even know the purpose of it, how could you possibly know how much resources they need to accomplish what they want to achieve? > Google did neither so far, and so Fuchsia has fewer drivers than Haiku. So? It's still in active development, maybe they want it stable and battle tested before freezing public APIs and inviting others to build on it, maybe they only want to support selected devices/hardware. No one will know their intentions until after its released or what their plan for adoption will be. Given they already have experience developing and distributing the worlds most popular OS I'm sure they have a good chance at making a Fuchsia a success for their goals.
naraic0o 7y ago
nah, it's MIT licenced. they're rebuilding, while redesigning, linux - without GPL. i think it's in a way that makes driver development less expensive for hardware manufactuters. stable driver apis mean a hardware manufacturers can care less about maintaining them while the kernel can still update without worrying as much about breaking drivers. it doesn't really matter if it's currently in secretive development, or not - the result will be that fewer people have access to the code their phone/other device is actually running. in essence: there's still cause for concern.