4 ms·

"Fuchsia is going to hurt humanity. " You mean the world is the linux ecosystem? Well I disagree and I will just say, that the way I see it, Fuchsia is just p

"Fuchsia is going to hurt humanity. " You mean the world is the linux ecosystem? Well I disagree and I will just say, that the way I see it, Fuchsia is just pragmatic with drivers. You cannot really force the vendors to ship open source drivers for your OS. But you can make it easy for them to write them against a stable ABI. I would love to have a 100% open system. But because of proprietary standards and linux drivers policy, I am forced to use windows on my laptop. I rather would have a open OS and take just the proprietary drivers. Now I have to have the core proprietary and the drivers, with the alternative of messing with linux driver configs and custom kernels again. No thank you. I got work to do. I would take fuchsia instead, if I could. Which is open as far as I know, so I really do not see the way from here to government mandated rootkits. At least not through fuchsia.

fsflover 5y ago
> You cannot really force the vendors to ship open source drivers for your OS. I wish Google did exactly that. > But because of proprietary standards and linux drivers policy, I am forced to use windows on my laptop. How does it force you to run Windows? I don't understand. You just choose hardware designed for Linux and you don't need to care about the drivers at all.
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "You just choose hardware designed for Linux and you don't need to care about the drivers at all. " Yeah well, if you can afford this (money and time) luxery and find what you need, good for you. My hardware needs are not met with "linux designed hardware". I need 2 devices: full powered gaming laptop and lightweight rugged long life battery touchscreen laptop: I found nothing in that realm and I actually did searched a long time. So I have windows and chromeOS on my mobile hardware, but I gladly take fuchsia if it would be avaible.
hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
> "Fuchsia is going to hurt humanity. " > You mean the world is the linux ecosystem? No, humanity in general. There has been a decades-long battle between the powers that would love to have everything tightly controlled by the manufacturer (or a consortium of corporations with admissions for a lofty fee) and users who are aware of the advantages of open computing. It's a dividing line between actually owning a computing device and something like leasing it under certain conditions even though you paid for it. As everybody household has more and more computing device, and as these become much more user-hostile, transparency and openness is needed more than ever.
- pjmlp 5y ago
  There are problems much more relevant, like war, food and health, than whatever OS runs on their TV.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    This doesn't invalidate my argument in anyway. Also, it's not as superficial as what runs on my TV (although there already is some abuse there).
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "and as these become much more user-hostile, transparency and openness is needed more than ever." Yeah, I agree to that. Which is why I do not agree to a statement, that a new and open OS will hurt humanity, because it does not have the same restrictive licence, you would prefer. If anything, this melodramatic mindset is really hurting the struggle to really own your hardware Secondly, to really own your device, we need open hardware anyway. Everything else is a weak compromise.
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    I see your point but Linux was actually designed in this way to be an open operating system, and using closed pieces of code in it, while possible, is discouraged by developers and is causing problems for their users. What is problematic to some (=companies) is actually a boon for others (=users). Designing an operating system specifically for the sake of using closed code in the system is not good news for openness, no matter how you put it. But yes, all things considered, it's a bit similar to Apple using BSD as a base of Mac OS X - it had some positive effects on the overall ecosystem.
    - hutzlibu 5y ago
      "Designing an operating system specifically for the sake of using closed code in the system is not good news for openness, no matter how you put it." It is designed specifically, to give the manufactures the freedom to choose how they write and release their driver. That can be open source, or closed. But it is not designed for proprietary. So I rather see it as designed for openness. It can not be the job of a OS maker, to force change the way, the industry treats intellectual property. This is a way bigger problem to solve, for the whole society. Till then, I want the maximum on openness, I can realistically get, while still getting work done. Fuchsia might help with that.
rvz 5y ago
To be honest, I've been waiting for the Linux ecosystem to do something about the desktop and the phone and it seems that they can't get it as consistent as Apple. Anything Linux, Google always has to step in, hand-hold them and run with their own creation in the end. Essentially, they 'used' Linux as a test-bed for Android and now replacing it all with Fuchsia which aims to be as consistent as macOS and iOS. Starting with the Nest Hub [0] where the user won't notice anything different, which that is the point. Due to the mess created by the Linux distro ecosystem, the free form swapping of system components by the user and driver maintenance hell vendors dealing with an unstable kernel API, I won't be surprised to see Fuchsia overtake ChromeOS and Android even by this decade. Not surprised to see Fuchsia attempting to run existing Linux apps too. This just makes the process even quicker and everyone is watching them out in the open in real time™ [0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/18/22630245/google-fuchsia-os-nest-hub-rollout-release-date https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/18/22630245/google-fuchsia-o...
nextaccountic 5y ago
Linux was responsible to open countless drivers, and is the reason that I can enjoy my laptop with free drivers. But fear not, you can still use non-free drivers with Linux! edit: you said about chromeOS in another post. Congratulations, it uses Linux!
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  Thx. I am aware of chromeos using linux. But it is very strongly modified and reshaped and is still no open system I can control or own. But it works. With standby times for example, my 100% linux laptops could not even dream about (and that is, with all the quirks and optimisations hacked into them) as they are worlds apart. (standbydrain is something like from 100% to 0% battery in 2 days on full linux and over 4 weeks with chromeOS. My windows laptop lasts at least twice the time under windows, compared to linux. With more power. Mainly because of good and bad drivers.
  - nextaccountic 5y ago
    Okay, but.. there are good open source drivers too. I am actually incredulous - do you _prefer_ to use proprietary drivers, given a choice? Proprietary drivers are often locked to certain kernels, so this means you can't get updates.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Arguably even Linux has given up in open drivers by allowing opaque firmware blobs.
codewiz 5y ago
> You cannot really force the vendors to ship open source drivers for your OS. But currently, mobile SoC vendors _are_ shipping open source drivers. They must release the source code of kernel-mode drivers in compliance with the GPL. The problem with SoC drivers is that they're not upstreamed and upstreaming them would require major effort and specialized knowledge. SoC vendors work under intense scheduling pressure and feel the need to cut corners. In other words, this code remains outside the mainline kernel because it doesn't meet the quality bar set by Linux maintainers. Many mobile hardware vendors don't even see value in maintaining a single kernel tree supporting all their SoCs: their approach is to freeze on an LTS kernel early in the development cycle of a particular generation and then never rebase their changes onto newer kernels. They also work mostly in secret until the new SoC is unveiled. A stable driver API would appear to solve this problem, but actually causes huge constraints for kernel development while not solving the actual driver quality issue. GKI is an attempt to go down this path, but several kernel hackers disapprove it: https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/generic-kernel-image https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/gener...
- hutzlibu 5y ago
  "A stable driver API would appear to solve this problem, but actually causes huge constraints for kernel development while not solving the actual driver quality issue. " Why do you think that is? (the criticism of GKI seems to be because of different issues) As far as I understand, it is quite a deliberate choice of linux to actually force vendors to open source their drivers. So what happens now is what you describe: the drivers get written against one lts kernel and then shipped and mostly forgotten. (Which is why I cannot really use my old android tablet anymore, despite the hardware did not degrade) With a stable driver ABI, I could update to a newer android and keep the drivers as they are. And with vendors writing drivers for a small and clear API - they could deliver better quality drivers, and update them - because they do not have tp deal with the very expensive whole kernel integration they have to redo for every kernel and every driver. So yeah, in rainbow fairy unicorn world they all just open source everything and work in harmony and collaboration for the greater good of humanity. But in reality right now, with proprietary being the standard mode, it is just a mess. And I prefer pragmatic solutions that actually improve the status quo.

fsflover 5y ago

> You cannot really force the vendors to ship open source drivers for your OS. I wish Google did exactly that. > But because of proprietary standards and linux drivers policy, I am forced to use windows on my laptop. How does it force you to run Windows? I don't understand. You just choose hardware designed for Linux and you don't need to care about the drivers at all.

hutzlibu 5y ago
"You just choose hardware designed for Linux and you don't need to care about the drivers at all. " Yeah well, if you can afford this (money and time) luxery and find what you need, good for you. My hardware needs are not met with "linux designed hardware". I need 2 devices: full powered gaming laptop and lightweight rugged long life battery touchscreen laptop: I found nothing in that realm and I actually did searched a long time. So I have windows and chromeOS on my mobile hardware, but I gladly take fuchsia if it would be avaible.

hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago

> "Fuchsia is going to hurt humanity. " > You mean the world is the linux ecosystem? No, humanity in general. There has been a decades-long battle between the powers that would love to have everything tightly controlled by the manufacturer (or a consortium of corporations with admissions for a lofty fee) and users who are aware of the advantages of open computing. It's a dividing line between actually owning a computing device and something like leasing it under certain conditions even though you paid for it. As everybody household has more and more computing device, and as these become much more user-hostile, transparency and openness is needed more than ever.

pjmlp 5y ago
There are problems much more relevant, like war, food and health, than whatever OS runs on their TV.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  This doesn't invalidate my argument in anyway. Also, it's not as superficial as what runs on my TV (although there already is some abuse there).
hutzlibu 5y ago
"and as these become much more user-hostile, transparency and openness is needed more than ever." Yeah, I agree to that. Which is why I do not agree to a statement, that a new and open OS will hurt humanity, because it does not have the same restrictive licence, you would prefer. If anything, this melodramatic mindset is really hurting the struggle to really own your hardware Secondly, to really own your device, we need open hardware anyway. Everything else is a weak compromise.
- hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
  I see your point but Linux was actually designed in this way to be an open operating system, and using closed pieces of code in it, while possible, is discouraged by developers and is causing problems for their users. What is problematic to some (=companies) is actually a boon for others (=users). Designing an operating system specifically for the sake of using closed code in the system is not good news for openness, no matter how you put it. But yes, all things considered, it's a bit similar to Apple using BSD as a base of Mac OS X - it had some positive effects on the overall ecosystem.
  - hutzlibu 5y ago
    "Designing an operating system specifically for the sake of using closed code in the system is not good news for openness, no matter how you put it." It is designed specifically, to give the manufactures the freedom to choose how they write and release their driver. That can be open source, or closed. But it is not designed for proprietary. So I rather see it as designed for openness. It can not be the job of a OS maker, to force change the way, the industry treats intellectual property. This is a way bigger problem to solve, for the whole society. Till then, I want the maximum on openness, I can realistically get, while still getting work done. Fuchsia might help with that.

rvz 5y ago

To be honest, I've been waiting for the Linux ecosystem to do something about the desktop and the phone and it seems that they can't get it as consistent as Apple. Anything Linux, Google always has to step in, hand-hold them and run with their own creation in the end. Essentially, they 'used' Linux as a test-bed for Android and now replacing it all with Fuchsia which aims to be as consistent as macOS and iOS. Starting with the Nest Hub [0] where the user won't notice anything different, which that is the point. Due to the mess created by the Linux distro ecosystem, the free form swapping of system components by the user and driver maintenance hell vendors dealing with an unstable kernel API, I won't be surprised to see Fuchsia overtake ChromeOS and Android even by this decade. Not surprised to see Fuchsia attempting to run existing Linux apps too. This just makes the process even quicker and everyone is watching them out in the open in real time™ [0] https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/18/22630245/google-fuchsia-os-nest-hub-rollout-release-date https://www.theverge.com/2021/8/18/22630245/google-fuchsia-o...

nextaccountic 5y ago

Linux was responsible to open countless drivers, and is the reason that I can enjoy my laptop with free drivers. But fear not, you can still use non-free drivers with Linux! edit: you said about chromeOS in another post. Congratulations, it uses Linux!

hutzlibu 5y ago
Thx. I am aware of chromeos using linux. But it is very strongly modified and reshaped and is still no open system I can control or own. But it works. With standby times for example, my 100% linux laptops could not even dream about (and that is, with all the quirks and optimisations hacked into them) as they are worlds apart. (standbydrain is something like from 100% to 0% battery in 2 days on full linux and over 4 weeks with chromeOS. My windows laptop lasts at least twice the time under windows, compared to linux. With more power. Mainly because of good and bad drivers.
- nextaccountic 5y ago
  Okay, but.. there are good open source drivers too. I am actually incredulous - do you _prefer_ to use proprietary drivers, given a choice? Proprietary drivers are often locked to certain kernels, so this means you can't get updates.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago

Arguably even Linux has given up in open drivers by allowing opaque firmware blobs.

codewiz 5y ago

> You cannot really force the vendors to ship open source drivers for your OS. But currently, mobile SoC vendors _are_ shipping open source drivers. They must release the source code of kernel-mode drivers in compliance with the GPL. The problem with SoC drivers is that they're not upstreamed and upstreaming them would require major effort and specialized knowledge. SoC vendors work under intense scheduling pressure and feel the need to cut corners. In other words, this code remains outside the mainline kernel because it doesn't meet the quality bar set by Linux maintainers. Many mobile hardware vendors don't even see value in maintaining a single kernel tree supporting all their SoCs: their approach is to freeze on an LTS kernel early in the development cycle of a particular generation and then never rebase their changes onto newer kernels. They also work mostly in secret until the new SoC is unveiled. A stable driver API would appear to solve this problem, but actually causes huge constraints for kernel development while not solving the actual driver quality issue. GKI is an attempt to go down this path, but several kernel hackers disapprove it: https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/generic-kernel-image https://source.android.com/devices/architecture/kernel/gener...

hutzlibu 5y ago
"A stable driver API would appear to solve this problem, but actually causes huge constraints for kernel development while not solving the actual driver quality issue. " Why do you think that is? (the criticism of GKI seems to be because of different issues) As far as I understand, it is quite a deliberate choice of linux to actually force vendors to open source their drivers. So what happens now is what you describe: the drivers get written against one lts kernel and then shipped and mostly forgotten. (Which is why I cannot really use my old android tablet anymore, despite the hardware did not degrade) With a stable driver ABI, I could update to a newer android and keep the drivers as they are. And with vendors writing drivers for a small and clear API - they could deliver better quality drivers, and update them - because they do not have tp deal with the very expensive whole kernel integration they have to redo for every kernel and every driver. So yeah, in rainbow fairy unicorn world they all just open source everything and work in harmony and collaboration for the greater good of humanity. But in reality right now, with proprietary being the standard mode, it is just a mess. And I prefer pragmatic solutions that actually improve the status quo.