back to article Google's not-Linux OS documentation cracks box open at last

Google has publicly revealed more files documenting its Fuchsia operating system. The last time we updated readers on the OS it needed fair amount of work to get going. Now, Google has decided it's time it gave the world something more informative than a bunch of Git-managed open-source code, and this week published what it …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Meh

    Call me a cynic....

    ...it's open source...but whats the catch?

    Is it like android, where its open source, but unless you agree to have Google's binary blobs, you are pretty much a little kid lost in the woods surrounded by hungry wolves.

    Why should anyone contribute to something that is ultimately to make a multi-billion dollar advertising company even richer?

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Call me a cynic....

      If you look at how successful the Chinese versions of Android are without Google Play Services are, you can see that it can be done.

      1. Dan 55 Silver badge

        Re: Call me a cynic....

        Yes, but apps that call Play Services have problems. It seems only Amazon has a drop in replacement for Play Services, and it's more limited.

        1. Graham Dawson Silver badge

          Re: Call me a cynic....

          Not for much longer, I'd wager. Now that oracle has set the precedent that replicating an api is copyright infringement, Google can sue amazon for their play services stand-in.

          1. Dan 55 Silver badge
            Facepalm

            Re: Call me a cynic....

            Yay progress.

        2. Dave 126 Silver badge

          Re: Call me a cynic....

          Amazon have tried replacing for Play Services, and Samsung too bundle their own equivilent to the Play Store, email, etc which whilst aren't completely ready once served as a hint to Google that Samsung might focus on them if Google's terms aren't to their liking.

          The trouble is many 3rd party apps which use Google Play Services APIs (instead of ASOP), such as those for location.

          1. Mage Silver badge

            Re: Call me a cynic....

            And as a result the Fire is a crippled tablet if you want much outside Amazon's walled garden. The Fire is an attempt at iPad + iTunes, except for Amazon and using Android, because it's free and does most of what they want.

            1. phuzz Silver badge

              Re: Call me a cynic....

              "the Fire is a crippled tablet if you want much outside Amazon's walled garden."

              It's not too tricky to add the Google Play stuff onto a Fire (if that's what you want), which does make them a good source of cheap+good tablets.

              If you do try it, make sure you use exactly the versions recommended, newer or older versions mess up the whole process.

              1. Jason Bloomberg Silver badge

                Re: Call me a cynic....

                If you do try it, make sure you use exactly the versions recommended, newer or older versions mess up the whole process.

                Which is what makes it rather tricky for most people.

                I don't see Fuchsia as being any worse than Linux/Android/Java, other than being harder to spell correctly. I was never expecting Google to make things more open. It is a means to an end for Google, not for others.

              2. JDX Gold badge

                RE: the Fire is a crippled tablet

                Apart from the fact you can as already mentioned get Google on Fire quite easily, you're missing the point.

                To many people, a tablet that can browse the web, do email and stream content from Amazon+Netflix+iPlayer+YouTube is as functional as they need. It can cast to a Fire stick too. Not everyone installs lots of apps on their tablet the way they do on phones.

                In fact to many just being able to watch Netflix & iPlayer is all they want. At the price of a Fire tablet, that's pretty good for them.

        3. Richard Plinston

          Re: Call me a cynic....

          > It seems only Amazon has a drop in replacement for Play Services

          Microsoft/Nokia - for their Android X

          Samsung

          Baidu

          1. GIRZiM
            Boffin

            Re: Call me a cynic.... but a little research can go a long way.

            https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/using-android-without-google/

            https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/magisk-101-switch-from-supersu-magisk-pass-safetynet-0177578/

            https://magiskroot.net/install-systemless-xposed-framework-nougat/

            http://androidflagship.com/22573-install-systemless-xposed-with-magisk-on-android

            https://android.gadgethacks.com/how-to/magisk-101-install-magisk-your-rooted-android-device-0176809/

            https://www.theandroidsoul.com/install-systemless-xposed-magisk-android/

            https://www.xda-developers.com/use-android-pay-with-xposed-without-rebooting-with-magisk/

            Add to this the fact that Oreo includes the facility to authorise sideloading from specific sources rather than an all/nothing approach and and the world is as googly eyed as you want t to be - up to and including not at all.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Call me a cynic....

            "Microsoft/Nokia - for their Android X

            Samsung

            Baidu"

            Beware of Baidu!

            I have been documenting some disturbing things related to Baidu.

            Here's a little hint: https://www.censys.io/ipv4/220.181.163.3/raw

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Call me a cynic....

        "If you look at how successful the Chinese versions of Android are without Google Play Services are, you can see that it can be done."

        Since Google Play is forbidden in that market, they're not competing against it, so the comparison really can't apply to markets outside China.

        Also (since I did buy Chinese phones) there are plenty of HowTos explaining how to add that missing Google Play back...

    2. se99paj

      Re: Call me a cynic....

      "Why should anyone contribute to something that is ultimately to make a multi-billion dollar advertising company even richer?"

      I'd suspect there is more money in the Google Play Store than Android itself, therefore it would be a pretty terrible business model to make it Open Source, why would they give something away for free that their competitors could re-use to challenge Google? That would be a terrible business model

    3. Jaap Aap

      Re: Call me a cynic....

      Why use the google play store? I've been using Aptoide, and there are other alternatives for the play store.

      Even better: get LineageOS on your android device (if it is supported), the LG L90 I've tried it on runs better than ever.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Call me a cynic....

        "Even better: get LineageOS on your android device (if it is supported), the LG L90 I've tried it on runs better than ever."

        Amen to that!

        It's amazing how much better my device runs after flashing to Lineage.

        Much better camera, doubled the battery life and the BEST part: a functional AppOps and other fine grained permission controls!

  2. Charlie Clark Silver badge
    Thumb Up

    Geiselbrecht was involved on the OpenBeOS / Haiku project and has history with the mircokernel. Anything along those lines gets my vote.

    1. simpfeld

      Fuchia not such a dream future

      An OS I can't contribute to that just gets tossed over the wall every so often. Also combined with the suggestion this will only install over network (with local device caching). Yeah a great win that!

      I'm not sure anyone can realistically replace the Linux kernel (even with Google's resources) and provide the same level of functionality. For all Android's sins (and there are many), I can still get access to standard Linux things that are unlikely to be present in Fuchsia (iptables, monitoring tools, proc filesystem etc) some maybe, but certainly not all and not with the depth of functionality.

      Also Linux will have much greater driver/filesystem support than Fuchia ever realistically could. This allows third parties to take Android AOSP sources and tune the kernel build for new hardware/filesystems.

      As a recent Google ex-employee said, Google are now more interested in competing than brining new technology. This is likely the main motivation (to lock out Amazon and other vendors that use AOSP) from simply taking their OS (even though this was encouraged before they had market share).

      This is unlikely to benefit end users...

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "I'm not sure anyone can realistically replace the Linux kernel"

        LOL! Some people really have a religious awe for Linux. Kernels are not easy to write, but are not huge projects - after all Linus himself started it as his own petty project - without Google's resources.

        And frankly, it's time to see someone invest in new kernels and newer architectures.

        Yet, the most painful outcome of this project could be the hit it could have on Linux worshipers, if they could no longer boast Android is built on Linux and that makes it the most used OS on the planet.

        1. simpfeld

          Re: "I'm not sure anyone can realistically replace the Linux kernel"

          Your joking. In 2008 the Linux Foundation estimated (using other people's tool) the following "Additionally, it would take $1.4 billion to develop the Linux kernel alone. This paper outlines our technique and highlights the latest costs of developing Linux.".

          The kernel at it's very basic isn't over hard (task switching, memory management etc). Making these efficient and reliable plus adding thousands of drivers is really hard.

          Nothing lasts forever, But replacing a fully open project like Linux with a closed tossed over the wall Kernel isn't a big win surely!

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "I'm not sure anyone can realistically replace the Linux kernel"

            Google is not going to rewrite Linux, that's the point.

            First, an OS aimed at mobes will need far less drivers in the beginning. The hardware is fairly standard and no pesky external devices. Even Linux still hasn't great driver support compared to Windows and MacOS.

            Second, it'll need to support a single CPU architecture, with less scalability needs.

            Third, a new kernel will of course use the lessons learned by others to be efficient and reliable.

            If it is a strategic project for Google, spending some hundreds of millions doesn't look beyond their capacity.

            But keep on believing Linux is the greatest achievement of all times and nothing can be better...

            1. JLV

              Re: "I'm not sure anyone can realistically replace the Linux kernel"

              Linux still hasn't great driver support compared to Windows and MacOS.

              Well, depends by what you mean by great. As I recall refreshing drivers from repos via apt and kin is a much less annoying activity on Linux than finding your vendors' download pages on Windows. Sure, if you hit unsupported hardware on Linux, that's less fun, but reasonably you can shop based on compatibility.

              Second, in what parallel universe does macOS support more hardware than Linux??? Asking as a mac user.

              Quite cynical about Google's altruism here, but I welcome experimentation by someone that worked on BeOS. Let's see what comes out of it. Something stripped down for mobiles from the ground up might advance OS knowhow.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: "I'm not sure anyone can realistically replace the Linux kernel"

          Android is IMO the worst thing that ever happened to Linux.

          It's all kinds of fun to have to painfully pretend to figure out adb, fastboot, odin/heimdall, kies, QFIL, and (don't know how many) other mostly-redundant vendor-specific tools. Sometimes I just want to dd and grub-install; although x86 is not the nicest base architecture, it enables some pretty nice and simple things that always work.

          It would be kinda nice if they would learn a simple lesson from Sharp: this SL-C3200 is truly unbrickable because the diagnostic mode (with its bare metal backup&restore utilities) lives in a mask ROM soldered to the board and (gasp) will never need updating. Apparently it's simple enough and they tested it long enough.

          P.S. OK, *I* need to update it because I want to put a flash chip on there bigger than 128MiB. That's not even on a back burner-- it's in the back of the freezer :\

      2. Charlie Clark Silver badge

        Re: Fuchia not such a dream future

        I'm not sure anyone can realistically replace the Linux kernel

        They're not trying to because the Linux kernel is a monolith and not a microkernel like QNX, MACH, lk, or the one in the original BeOS, which demonstrated that drivers don't have to live in the kernel.

        There is no need or point to replace the Linux kernel but there are advantages in some situations in having something less complicated.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Fuchia not such a dream future

        iptables, monitoring tools, proc filesystem etc - ooh prime candidates for systemd to gobble up and hide with an obscure interface

      4. GIRZiM

        Re: Fuchia not such a dream future ... Sailfish?

        I imagine they wouldn't object to a bit of input and support.

  3. fedoraman
    Headmaster

    do - wile

    "Wile the release of this document suggests "

    h-h-h-h-h!

    thankyou

    1. PNGuinn
      Joke

      Re: do - wile

      I thunk 'e ment wil E Coyote?

      1. GIRZiM

        Re: I thunk 'e ment wil E Coyote?

        Get your coat, Sir!

  4. ratfox
    Headmaster

    Counting Oracle's chickens

    The court ordered the internet advertising behemoth to cough up US$9bn to the database giant

    Not quite. The court ordered that Google would have to pay Oracle damages that must be determined in another lawsuit. The $9bn is Oracle's own estimate of how much they should get paid, and they might be biased.

  5. mark l 2 Silver badge

    Surely anything that replaces Android would have to be able to run the millions of Android Apps or else it will become another Windows mobile, Firefox OS, Blackberry etc. Just another ecosystem without any software, which no one is going to be in any hurry to switch to.

    If they do build the ability to install/run Android apps on Fuchsia then either they will have to pay Oracle for a Java license or write code that can emulate the functions of Java without infringing copyright in which case why not just make these changes with Android rather than start with a whole new OS?

    1. Dave 126 Silver badge

      Blackberry's microkernal OS could run Android apps - something about shimming in API calls as required - and Google have more sway with Android app developers than Blackberry did. Maybe Google will just encourage them to develop their apps with tools that easily allow Fuschia as well as Android (and iOS) apps to be built?

    2. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

      "Surely anything that replaces Android would have to be able to run the millions of Android Apps or else it will become another Windows mobile, Firefox OS, Blackberry etc."

      That's an instantiation of a generic class of comment. You could replace the names with CP/M, MS-DOS and any other formerly popular OS you care to think of.

      Right now we need a mobile OS that doesn't allow apps to poach each others' data. Will Google deliver that?

      1. PNGuinn
        Devil

        @ Dr Syntax

        "Right now we need a mobile OS that doesn't allow apps to poach each others' data. Will Google deliver that?"

        Quite. Have an upvote.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        > need a mobile OS that doesn't allow apps to poach each others' data

        iOS..

      3. Ken Hagan Gold badge

        "Right now we need a mobile OS that doesn't allow apps to poach each others' data. Will Google deliver that?"

        Do we? An OS that prevents apps from *accessing* each other's data is one where you can't use several tools together to achieve something that none of them can manage alone. It's an OS that cannot have an image editor unless you accept whatever crappy camera app the image editor's authors chose to bundle with it. It would be an exercise in frustration for any normal human being who would end up screaming at their device "I JUST TOLD YOU THAT YOU STEAMING PILE OF SHIT!!!!".

        Of course, what you said was *poaching* and I presume you mean by that a mobile OS that magically determines whether a requested data access is malicious or beneficial (in the eyes of the device's owner). That problem is Hard. The good news is that if you can actually make that determination, then the security model in Linux (and Windows and probably most other even vaguely modern OSes) is more than capable of granting or denying access.

      4. dajames

        ... we need a mobile OS that doesn't allow apps to poach each others' data.

        Agreed, but ... It's a little bit more complicated than that.

        We need a mobile OS that doesn't allow apps to poach each other's data, but that doesn't prevent the user from saving data wherever he wants and accessing it again afterwards.

        All Google's attempts at doing this, in Android, have been broken in both respects. They create headaches for users, prevent popular file-manager apps from working, stop apps from being able to write portable files wherever the user wants on the SD card ... but don't adequately protect against snooping by malicious apps.

        It's almost as though they were doing this on purpose!

    3. fuzzie

      The article mentions Fushsia presents a POSIX system call interface and that libc will be available. Between those two items, you're close as damnit to drop-in user land tools, e.g. Dalvik/ART/Play Services. Android currently uses a Googly variant of libc, but libhybris has made it possible to run the rest of the Android stack on stock libc. I suspect Dalvik and ART (more so because they're pre-compiled) apps won't notice an OS change. As long as the same POSIX/Linux, OpenGL, OpenCL, etc APIs are available, native apps may also not notice.

      Oreo's separation of the OEM blobs from the main OS also helps. Fushsia, like SailfishOS, LineageOS, etc, could just piggyback off the existing Android HAL blobs.

      This is probably the road Samsung had been aiming for with Tizen, i.e. being able to just swap it out under the waterline, but Google's progressive moving of functionality out of AOSP into Play Services scuppered that idea. The locking down of the Play Store against "uncertified" devices may well be one more ratchet of that thumb screw.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "it will become another Windows mobile"

      Apple switched OS and architectures letting old app work for a while. Nothing hinders Google to make most actual Android apps work somehow while they are replaced, ending support as soon as it feels it is needed.

      Moreover, when you customers have little other places to go, it's far easier - and the only competitor of Android is iOS - which only runs on quite expensive devices.

    5. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Surely anything that replaces Android would have to be able to run the millions of Android Apps

      If you have something that runs POSIX stuff it's not that difficult. FreeBSD will happily run Linux binaries, with no overhead, with the relevant libraries installed.

      On top of a microkernel Google should be able to recompile most of Android fairly easily, though it's not entirely clear whether they're planning to do this with Fuchsia.

    6. GIRZiM

      anything that replaces Android would have to be able to run the millions of Android Apps

      Get to work on Sailfish then.

  6. quxinot

    impress me

    Lets see this little open source trinket get installed as an option against Android. If it closes the way to help get end-users root access, then we're there. Actually, if I can have root control straight out of the box, I'm not bothered all that much on which it is. As misquoted from Pitr: "God, root, what is the difference?"

    1. Teiwaz

      Re: impress me

      If it closes the way to help get end-users root access

      If anyone thinks an open source (to allow passers-by to drop in 'of a lunchtime' and do some work the staff haven't) mobile phone O.S by a corp. that really just wants to peddle adverts and collect marketing info is going to enable Software user freedom the likes of which the FSF dream of...

      Not to mention that the first phone carrier/phone manufacturer isn't going to totally ruin it with some floppy ill-fitting skin-dance like demented cannibals.

      ....They're deluding themselves.

  7. Tom 7

    Operating sytems introducing new looping techique.

    The "do what" loop has been introduced to identify developments above and beyond the useful or needed.

    Interested to see its using 32bit pointers when even my fridge needs 64bit for non-real ale drinks management.

    1. /dev/null

      Re: Operating sytems introducing new looping techique.

      32-bit handles, not pointers. So a limitation of 2^32 objects, not bytes.

  8. T. F. M. Reader

    Java API vs. OS

    It is absolutely not clear to me what the prospect of losing a Java API lawsuit to Oracle has to do with the OS. Java is not an OS, Java's runtime is just an application, and Java doesn't even support many essential OS primitives or system calls. If Google has to drop the Java API for legal reasons that would mean exactly nothing as far as using the Linux kernel is concerned. Developing a completely new application infrastructure would probably still be easier/cheaper on Linux rather than on an unproven and not widely used OS.

    If Google do have strategic thoughts about a different OS that will be about its potential advantages over Linux, e.g., on mobile devices or specifically on ARM, maybe better performance, streamlined resource management, whatever. It would then make sense to port Java - or whatever the Android-specific version with a similar API is called - to that new OS and keep all those apps working without modification.

  9. Mage Silver badge
    Coat

    Why C?

    Why not C++ and ban use of insecure C and C++ libraries in building/developing the OS?

    So there will be the same stupid mistakes in array and string processing that have been a source of exploits and crashes in every other commonly used OS?

    1. fuzzie

      Re: Why C?

      Good point, though that's probably still just because world + dog can link against C libraries. Rust probably has not-invented-here problems for Google, there's Go... though that requires its own runtime.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "world + dog can link against C libraries"

        Moreover, you can still re-use a lot of code and tools which aren't GPL-only...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why C?

      Speed, flexibility, size and if they fixed or replaced some libraries hopefully they'll share share those. Google have everything they need to create their own OS including their own in house programming language(s). The fact that they've written this OS in C and C++ has to say something about the value and usefulness that those languages still possess.

      I'd really like to see is the device drivers open sourced.

      1. Charles 9

        Re: Why C?

        "I'd really like to see is the device drivers open sourced."

        Blame the manufacturers for the Black Box trwatment, but their market is SO cutthroat that open-sourcing may as well be Giving Information To The Enemy.

    3. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Why C?

      Why not C++ and ban use of insecure C and C++ libraries in building/developing the OS?

      Why use C++ in the kernel?

      BeOS had a C kernel and a C++ object-oriented OS. You can do this without coming up with Win32…

    4. HmmmYes

      Re: Why C?

      Well ....

      C++ is a much better C - offers great user type safety, I like generics/templates.

      But .... people fuck up and turn an everything into an object from Object. I've been working with C++ - from MFC (horrid), to C++89 (promising), C++98, C++1x. Then there's the programming style - everyhtigsanobect, now everything a pattern, now everything's different. Sometimes Ive worked with code that uses all language versions and styles, all in a single, 10K LOC file.

      The problem with C++ is its not OOP enough. Its doesn't go all he way, sort of hovering between procedural and object. The method dispatch fucks up mainly as based on function calls rather than some inter-object messaging/actor model thing. And it gets completes and nasty, and the stack frame fucks up, then someone uses exception, then someone puts RTTI, then the linker breaks.

      I have come across some good C++ frameworks - QT - and even that bodges the language a bit. And QT works as GUI stuff is hierarchical.

      Most stuff outside of GUI is not hierarchical. But that does not stop C++ coders trying to force a heir achy on stuff.

      1. dajames

        Re: Why C?

        The problem with C++ is its not OOP enough.

        C++ isn't an OOP language ... it's a multi-paradigm language that supports OOP among other design methods.

        Sometimes OOP is the right approach to a problem, often it isn't.

        Most stuff outside of GUI is not hierarchical. But that does not stop C++ coders trying to force a heir achy on stuff.

        It is an OOP approach that results in hierarchies. C++ itself does not do that, but believing that C++ is just an OOP language may do so.

  10. Missing Semicolon Silver badge
    WTF?

    C++????

    Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh!

    1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Re: C++????

      I think you'll find it's !Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh;

      1. GIRZiM

        Re: C++????

        I see you've both read the guide to the sex life of the computer programmer:

        C

        Every time you make love to your girlfriend your penis points in a different direction, but you don't notice until, one day, it points right up your own arse.

        C++

        You make love to both your girlfriend and her cousin at the same time. Unfortunately they both learned their technique from their uncle and you waddle home sporting an anus like the Japanese national flag.

        1. Tim Bates

          Re: C++????

          At least they're not VB6, which apparently gives you AIDS, Rabies, the Flu, and various other diseases... And that's just from installing the IDE.

  11. handleoclast

    OOOS

    Oooh, Object-Oriented Operating System.

    That means it's going to be radically different from Linux. Either a fuck of a lot better or a fuck of a lot worse.

    My experience of OOP is that it can be very good in some problem domains and a right cunt in other (most) problem domains. Some problems are a very good fit to OOP and many problems are a very bad fit to OOP (which is probably why many OOP languages let you escape from OOP hell if you need to).

    I'd expect an OOOS to be a bad fit to most things that run on it.

    Yes, I expect a lot of downvotes from the OOP fanboys. For them I offer this quote from Tom Christiansen's Object-Oriented Tutorial for Perl (emphasis below is mine):

    Using a code reference to represent an object offers some fascinating possibilities. We can create a new anonymous function (closure) who alone in all the world can see the object's data. This is because we put the data into an anonymous hash that's lexically visible only to the closure we create, bless, and return as the object. This object's methods turn around and call the closure as a regular subroutine call, passing it the field we want to affect. (Yes, the double-function call is slow, but if you wanted fast, you wouldn't be using objects at all, eh? :-)

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: OOOS

      If you're going to talk about OOP why would you mention Perl, especially when talking about developing an OS?

      Compiling is what will give you the most speed and OOP makes a lot of sense for a lot of problem domains, especially GUIs and APIs. C is reserved for the kernel where the speed matters most.

      1. handleoclast

        Re: OOOS

        If you're going to talk about OOP why would you mention Perl, especially when talking about developing an OS?

        Don't you think it would be inconsistent of me to slag OOP for implementing a kernel and then suggest the kernel be implemented in perl, after I'd just explicitly stated that perl has OOP? Which is why I didn't say that.

        I mentioned Christiansen's comment because he was one of the key people who added OOP to perl, so if anybody understands its weaknesses, he does. And he points out that it's slow. Not just slow in perl, but slow in any language. Which is not something you want in a kernel.

        As others said, OOP is designed to be better understood by humans. But missed the fact that the understandability depends very much on the problem it's applied to. Where OOP is a natural fit to the problem it is more readable; where OOP is not a natural fit to the problem it is a pain in the arse to understand and maintain.

        With a non-OOP kernel you can always add an OOP wrapper if that makes your app easier to maintain. With an OOP kernel it's hard to wrap it in a way that gets rid of its OOPishness, and certainly can't compensate for the speed penalty.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: OOOS

      "My experience of OOP is that it can be very good in some problem domains and a right cunt in other (most) problem domains."

      Well yes, but that applies to anything. OOP's advantages are the Human factor, OOP programs are much easier to maintain and understand for Humans. That maintainability is essential for business applications of which there may be many, which are rarely worked on/updated.

      And this is the balance, you pay for that maintainability with increased overhead, but as the poster above said, for most uses (APIs, GUI applications), that is a fair trade-off.

      Where it's less of a fair trade-off is in a kernel, but the Human factor is less of an issue here too, as kernel developers don't generally need to read the code to understand how the kernel should function/behave, they're kernel developers dealing with a very specific problem domain, not business developers dealing with a multitude of applications from all over the place.

      This is the same reason you don't see much assembler these days, because that is the opposing end of the spectrum to OOP and there are limited places the trade-off is worth it.

      1. JLV

        Re: OOOS

        Agree that the OP hasn't a clue about OOP (PERL's weakpoint). But arguing that OOP automatically means simple? It's a tool, like functional or procedural.

        Read this guy. http://csis.pace.edu/~bergin/patterns/ppoop.html

        Total PatternWankitis.

  12. Anonymous Coward
    Linux

    Who Cares?

    Whatever Google's intention for Fuchsia is, it's unlikely to benefit anyone else. I assume it's just an engine overhaul for Android, yielding only incremental gains in execution/developer efficiency IF it succeeds.

    Google is now a pariah to consumers and manufacturers alike. Independent Android forks will probably deliver more practical benefits than anything Google does. Dunno about you folks, but I say TO HELL with Apple, Microsoft, Google, and any wannabes. FREEDOM!!!

    Android Apps may seem to have a lock on the market today, but there's no technical reason we can't have efficient cross-platform phone & desktop apps (phone apps in tiny desktop windows, at least, if the developer can't be bothered to make a desktop UI). Java, Flash, and HTML5 came close to filling that void. Sooner or later it will be done right.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Who Cares?

      To be fair, Fuchsia may provoke this. Personally I expect an embrace-extend-extinguish tactic here. Google will release Fuchsia with Android app support (Embrace). Then will come the Fuchsia-only extensions, then Android will become incompatible (extinguish). Mission accomplished.

      What I'm hoping will happen is the manufacturers/OSS community anticipate this too, and are working on an open source equivalent of the "Play store" for Android, which they'll donate to the Apache Foundation to run. The Apache Foundation will also take over development of AOSP after Google abandon it, maintaining the official (Google-free) release with performance, security and privacy in mind. Samsung and what-not can then use this, or fork it to provide their device OSs. Google, foot, shot.

      Oh, apparently I have to come back to reality now.

      1. Richard Plinston

        Re: Who Cares?

        > What I'm hoping will happen is the manufacturers/OSS community anticipate this too, and are working on an open source equivalent of the "Play store" for Android,

        """F-Droid is both a repository of verified free software Android apps as well as a whole “app store kit”, providing all the tools needed to setup and run an app store."""

    2. GIRZiM

      Re: Who Cares?

      > I assume it's just an engine overhaul for Android

      More likely an attempt to wrest the dev stack back from Facebook

    3. Tim Bates

      Re: Who Cares?

      I honestly would love a common Linux distro as my phone OS... I'd be OK with losing Pokemon Go and Minecraft PE in exchange for "apt-get install nmap" and similar.

      I know I could use a chroot thing, but it kind of feels like driving a Ferrari on the back of a truck. And the truck driver is telling me where I'm allowed to go.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Up

        Re: Who Cares?

        The good news is we can already plug USB cell radios into a RPi. If I were going that route, I'd keep it in a pocket and use a headset. I think I just decided to do that. The last two phartsmoans I bought are disappointing and whatever it is has to also be my internet connection. Why not one with a proper RJ-45?

  13. Irongut

    Lots of people in this thread don't understand the difference between the Google Play Store and Google Play Services. The former is a place to buy apps and can be sideloaded or replaced by alternatives from Amazon, Samsung, etc. The latter is a massive library that provides a lot of the functionality that you think of as Android. It is not open source and it requires signing a licensing agreement with Google to include on a phone. That is what cheap knockoffs and Fire are missing which causes problems with a lot of apps.

    1. GIRZiM

      Re: people don't understand the difference between the Play Store and Play Services.

      Seems a lot of people don't know anything about Android development, Facebook's successful positioning of its stack as the devs' RADE of choice and why Google might want to put a spanner in that works either.

      I'm not an Android dev myself but even I pay enough attention to be aware of that much and able to add 2+2.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "Web runtime"?

    Why does this make me think it is some sort of Javascript 2020, designed to make it 'easy' to snarf people's data...

  15. Lotaresco

    What's that you say Johnny?

    No Fuschia, No Fuschia, No Fuschia for me

    1. Charles 9

      Re: What's that you say Johnny?

      What happens when (not if) it becomes an inevitability, where it's either a Fuchsia phone, an iPhone, or NO phone? Do you just throw up your hands and go, "Stop the world, I wanna get off!"?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    With the increasing levels of distrust of OS providers, Internet searches, and cookies I'm hoping to see a resurgence of computer magazines; sadly, doubtlessly a niche hope. It is convenient that so much of and on the Internet is "free" but we give up a lot for this convenience.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like