_______               __                   _______
       |   |   |.---.-..----.|  |--..-----..----. |    |  |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
       |       ||  _  ||  __||    < |  -__||   _| |       ||  -__||  |  |  ||__ --|
       |___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__|   |__|____||_____||________||_____|
                                                             on Gopher (inofficial)
   URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
       
       
       COMMENT PAGE FOR:
   URI   A Kernel Hacker Meets Fuchsia OS
   DIR   text version
       
       
        jcranmer wrote 4 days ago:
        Something that I haven't seen brought up yet is the "weird C++ vtable
        layout." This is actually the "relative vtable layout" that's first
        described here: [1] , and is usable in clang via the
        -fexperimental-relative-c++-abi-vtables option.
        
        The basic idea is that you don't need to waste a whole 64 bits for
        vtable entry, especially since you can usually assume that code within
        the same DSO will be within 32 bits of each other. So, instead, you do
        a 32-bit offset from a known address (the vtable's address) to get the
        function pointer, and in the rare case you need a cross-DSO entry, just
        emit a thunk for the symbol that's in the same DSO to get an address
        within 32 bits.
        
   URI  [1]: https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26723
       
          ncmncm wrote 3 days ago:
          Space for vtables is almost always negligible, especially so on
          64-bit targets. So the main effect of inflated vtables is cache
          footprint. But where that matters most, you probably shouldn't be
          doing virtual calls anyway.
          
          Compilers don't get to say what you compile. People care about the
          speed of bad code almost as much as good code, and sometimes more:
          what bad code wastes, the compiler might be able to give some of
          back.
          
          Code that has a preponderance of vtables is usually bad code written
          by Java transplants who haven't learned the right way to code C++.
          But that code has to run, too.
       
            surajrmal wrote 3 days ago:
            Almost but not always. Fuchsia saw 1% memory savings (~20MiB) by
            enabling it:
            
   URI      [1]: https://youtu.be/9HGKlDiJy8E
       
            Jyaif wrote 3 days ago:
            > Space for vtables is almost always negligible, especially so on
            64-bit targets.
            
            From the link:
            "I can report that a prototype of this was able to shrink
            Chromium's code size by 9%."
       
              ncmncm wrote 3 days ago:
              I bet that was pre-linked size. But that corroborates my
              expectation about Chrome code quality.
       
            pjmlp wrote 3 days ago:
            Before Java came into the world I remember Turbo Vision,
            Powerplant, CSet++, OWL, MFC, Motif++, VCL, Tools.h++,...
       
        vander_elst wrote 4 days ago:
        Disclaimer: I made some contributions to Fuchsia and I am clearly
        biased.
        
        I am not sure why there's so much negativity around Fuchsia. From a
        technical point of view it's finally a serious attempt to do something
        new in the OS space. It might not be the right and perfect answer, but
        it might introduce new paradigms and maybe some fork of the project
        might be able to provide additional benefits for end users down the
        road. I know that there are lots of hobby/research projects trying out
        new stuff, but i think Fuchsia stands out because it might be able to
        land the innovation and make it accessible for a larger user base.
       
          rvz wrote 4 days ago:
          > I am not sure why there's so much negativity around Fuchsia.
          
          Change is quite scary for some judging from the responses and there
          is finally a serious new OS that abandons the legacy Unix model and
          gives a refreshing approach to doing something new with support for
          only modern architectures.
          
          To see it already running Chrome, Flutter, and being deployed on a
          Nest Hub without the users noticing tells me it is likely going to be
          the base of ChromeOS first and then it will replace Android in a
          couple of years with all Flutter and Android apps all running on Day
          1 on the first phone running Fuchsia.
          
          Won't be surprised to see Fuchsia on Chromebooks.
       
          josephcsible wrote 4 days ago:
          > I am not sure why there's so much negativity around Fuchsia.
          
          Because the real reason for its existence seems to be to slowly kill
          open source, by not requiring hardware vendors to provide
          kernel/driver source anymore.
       
            IshKebab wrote 3 days ago:
            Nonsense. Linux already doesn't require hardware vendors to provide
            driver sources. Fuchsia just makes it easier to upgrade things when
            they don't.
       
              josephcsible wrote 3 days ago:
              > Linux already doesn't require hardware vendors to provide
              driver sources.
              
              Yes it does. The GPL literally does exactly that.
       
                pjmlp wrote 3 days ago:
                It is sooo successful on the Android, IoT ecosystems.
       
                  pabs3 wrote 3 days ago:
                  That will probably change if this lawsuit against Vizio
                  succeeds: [1] If it does, then any recipient of Linux will be
                  able to sue for compliance.
                  
   URI            [1]: https://sfconservancy.org/copyleft-compliance/vizio....
       
                  josephcsible wrote 3 days ago:
                  So just because some people have broken rules and gotten away
                  with it so far, we should get rid of those rules for
                  everyone?
       
                    cogman10 wrote 3 days ago:
                    Nobody has broken rules.  The rules are simply permissive
                    enough that you can still push out a Non-GPL drivers for a
                    GPL mono-kernel.
                    
                    The Fuchsia design is good because it recognizes that
                    reality and creates a world where patching the kernel
                    doesn't require hardware vendors to rebuild their drivers.
       
                    pjmlp wrote 3 days ago:
                    Rules that can be broken in the open without consequences
                    aren't rules.
                    
                    In any case, the transition to MIT based FOSS on embedded
                    platforms like Zephyr, RTOS, NutX,... proves that it won't
                    matter for much longer anyway.
       
          qubex wrote 4 days ago:
          This may show my age, but Fuchsia smells like BeOS meets OS/400.
          
          As to why there’s so much negativity: no clue. I quite appreciate
          the idea of a blank slate devoid of cruft.
       
          michaelbrave wrote 4 days ago:
          I just don't trust google to not abandon it like it has most other
          things they made that I invested in. It's brand erosion same as
          what's happened with Blizzard, used to have a lot of trust, lots of
          disappointments later and now I go in skeptical.
          
          Personally I think Fuchsia is cool, and there is a lot to like, but I
          expect to hear it was killed by google anyday now.
       
            tomComb wrote 3 days ago:
            Yes, it may well be killed, but that’s Ok - it’s an experiment.
            But, yes, you need to take that into account before investing time
            in it. The other mistake that I think people make is assuming that
            because Google is a giant Corp. these things will move quickly,
            when in fact Google often puts small teams on non-critical
            projects.
       
              cogman10 wrote 3 days ago:
              6 years of development and deployed to actual products is an
              experiment?
              
              The issue I have with Google is it's never clear to outsiders
              when projects are simply "experiments" that google is going to
              kill later.  Dart, GWT, Angular Dart, for example, seemed like
              more than "experiments" yet google did a soft kill on Dart and
              effectively a hard kill on GWT.
              
              You learn that something is "an experiment" when all the sudden
              updates slow or stop and the mailing list stops getting
              responses.
              
              I don't trust google software because google bureaucracy is
              fickle and unpredictable.
       
                ErikCorry wrote 2 days ago:
                > The issue I have with Google is it's never clear to outsiders
                when projects are simply "experiments" that google is going to
                kill later.
                
                Well if it's any comfort that's not clear to the Googlers
                either.
                
                On the other hand if something is done by a startup there's
                also no way to know how much of a future it has.  At least if
                it's open source then you have time to migrate to something
                else if Google stops investing in it.  All the examples you
                name are Open Source.
                
                And I don't think it's accurate to say Google did a "soft kill"
                on Dart.  I don't recall any time when they reduced the
                manpower on the project, excepting perhaps the Dartino/Fletch
                (embedded Dart), which was explicitly labelled as tentative and
                experimental.  These days things are going great for Dart.
       
                abdulla wrote 3 days ago:
                Dart is core part of Flutter: [1] What makes you say it's being
                killed?
                
   URI          [1]: https://flutter.dev
       
                  cogman10 wrote 3 days ago:
                  Before it was a part of flutter it went through years of
                  silence and effective death.
                  
                  From roughly 2013->2015 the mailing list was practically
                  silent on dart.
                  
                  Even then, the language got "rebooted" with a v2 in 2018 to
                  try and stir up some new life in a language everyone thought
                  was dead.
       
          kardianos wrote 4 days ago:
          I love so many ideas Fuchsia brings in.
          Blob storage as a primary FS type, software integrity, software
          archives that can naturally just pull blobs it requires from archives
          to name a few. A system that can as a first class, be atomically
          updated.
          
          I'm concerned that it may not get real use or that Google might
          poison the well it dug.
          
          But I would love to see it become a minimum viable desktop/embedded
          platform. But looking at CLs, sometimes the enemy of better/good is
          perfect.
       
            ncmncm wrote 3 days ago:
            If it were not such bad code, it would seem more valuable.
       
          hosteur wrote 4 days ago:
          > I am not sure why there's so much negativity around Fuchsia.
          
          Easy: this is not the future we want. We don’t trust google. We
          don’t want an OS designed to further their goal of total control
          and surveillance capitalism.
       
            mda wrote 3 days ago:
            Haha..    Take that evil open source OS! Let's see what are you going
            to do against "We" and our strong slogans.
       
            daptaq wrote 4 days ago:
            > We don’t want an OS designed to further their goal of total
            control and surveillance capitalism.
            
            What parts of the operating system design do this?
       
              josephcsible wrote 4 days ago:
              The license, by allowing proprietary forks.
       
                daptaq wrote 3 days ago:
                But that is a matter of licensing, not design (which I
                underdtand to be things like the capability system or the micro
                kernel). I'd prefer a Copyleft license too, but 1. it is not a
                suprise that Google is not interested in that 2. even with
                Android they are able to restrict the user.
       
            qubex wrote 4 days ago:
            It’s hilarious. I’ve been around long enough to remember people
            not trusting IBM and heralding Microsoft as the underdog with
            bright principles. Then it became Google being the white prince on
            a unicorn telling Micro$oft to eff off. For about a decade now
            we’re collectively in Not Trusting Google mode.
            
            “It’s all just a little bit of history repeatin’.”
       
              vander_elst wrote 4 days ago:
              But given that's open source shouldn't it be a bit better? If I
              don't agree with some parts of the OS I can fork the project and
              remove some stuff. Given that's open source you don't have to
              fully trust Google, you can check things yourself. I know I'm
              probably bring native, but I am hoping to see some changes in the
              space.
       
                bobthecowboy wrote 4 days ago:
                MIT means it's only open source for as long as Google feels
                like it should be (and only the parts they want to keep open). 
                Older versions will still be around to fork from, but
                maintaining a fork of an OS is a pretty large task.
                
                Android is also open source, and is notably very difficult to
                simply fork and do your own thing and then actually use the
                thing, unless you happen to be a handset maker.
                
                My OS entirely driven by Google?  No thanks, they're making
                enough of a mess of the web (and Android lately, TBF).
       
        dang wrote 4 days ago:
        Url changed from [1] , which points to this.
        
   URI  [1]: https://swarm.ptsecurity.com/a-kernel-hacker-meets-fuchsia-os/
       
        dmitrygr wrote 4 days ago:
        The people who work on fuchsia are very good engineers - I’ve worked
        with many of them in person. But the project itself has always been a
        staff retention project. It only existed to keep said engineers from
        going to a competitor. I don’t know how any understanding of fuchsia
        is possible without this crucial fact
       
          leucineleprec0n wrote 1 day ago:
          This is not true and it’s odd people still take this bait
          voluntarily. At best this line used to be cheap PR to avoid GPL and
          Linux disciples going ballistic and to keep media off the project as
          much as possible.
          
          They’ve shipped Fuchsia on a real product now - the Nest Hub - they
          have Chrome working on Fuchsia, and an Android syscall interface in
          the works.
          
          They removed this line from the site, possibly since it read as
          provocative, but for a few recent years they had updated Fuchsia.dev
          with “Fuchsia is not a science experiment”. Anyways, Google has a
          tendency to scrap projects as we all know but I don’t know if the
          recent trends point in that direction just yet, but it is possible -
          the project lead did leave recently and reportedly Meta were going to
          use Fuchsia for an AR/VR platform and switched to Android, likewise
          Google.
       
          wheelerof4te wrote 3 days ago:
          If I were a CEO of a multi-bilion $ company, I would definitely put
          my best engineers on a long-term project like Fuchsia.
          
          Google is one of few companies with capacity, capital and mindshare
          to make these kinds of projects.
       
          refulgentis wrote 4 days ago:
          So I have, this isn't true except in a facile way—"it felt to me
          like they would have left otherwise." It shipped, in an important
          way.
       
            dmitrygr wrote 3 days ago:
            What way? As an update to the least important possible device, that
            all users hate since it “crashes daily now”? Big way indeed.
       
              refulgentis wrote 3 days ago:
              I very much doubt you work at Google, and if you do, shame on
              you. This is quite an evil comment, thread, and line of thought.
              
              None of what you're saying is true, you've gone for extreme
              hyperbole in every comment you've made, from Fuchsia being a
              "retention project", to the Nest Hub being the "least important
              device" to "all users hate it" "it crashes daily now."
       
          sydthrowaway wrote 4 days ago:
          This seems like sour grapes.
       
            kortilla wrote 3 days ago:
            It’s a compliment about the people and the fact that there
            isn’t a clear monetization path for an open source project is
            another good thing.
       
          goodpoint wrote 4 days ago:
          Unlike Linux, Fuchsia is not under GPL. Another attempt at making
          Android less open.
       
            forgotpwd16 wrote 4 days ago:
            >Unlike Linux, Fuchsia is not under GPL.
            
            It's under MIT (the kernel Zircon specifically since comparing with
            Linux). Whether a license allowing even more freedom is worse is
            arguable.
       
              goodpoint wrote 4 days ago:
              I know - it provides google the freedom to lock down the OS
              further and the freedom to implement proprietary drivers.
              
              Yay for arguable freedom.
       
                leucineleprec0n wrote 1 day ago:
                I love the freedom Android provides what with the utter
                clusterfuck that is the Linux kernel’s driver interface and
                GPL. Yay freedom.
                
                An MIT license is fine. Great, even, because Fuchsia is in fact
                still an open source OS.
                
                Hardware OEM’s don’t owe the public transparent firmware
                blobs.
       
                forgotpwd16 wrote 3 days ago:
                >the freedom to implement proprietary drivers
                
                That exists already. Vast majority of Android devices require
                binary blobs in kernel for essential functionality.
       
                  goodpoint wrote 3 days ago:
                  > require binary blobs
                  
                  That's the point. With something like fuchsia there can be
                  entire closed forks of the kernel instead of having to blobs,
                  making closed source easier to develop.
       
          tyingq wrote 4 days ago:
          Does that mean you don't believe it's going to replace Android/AOSP? 
          It's in some Nest devices right now.
       
            summerlight wrote 4 days ago:
            Not sure if it's ever feasible to replace Android (it's going to
            take at least a decade even assuming that Google becomes serious)
            but I think ChromeOS seems a reasonable target. It's not going to
            be as spectacular as Android but a decently successful migration if
            done properly. At that moment, I guess people can make more serious
            investments into Fuchsia.
       
            carapace wrote 4 days ago:
            Plausible real-world applications make it more effective as a
            "staff retention project", eh?
       
            rvz wrote 4 days ago:
            I'm sure in the next 10 years it will replace both Android and
            ChromeOS. Starting with ChromeOS first, then Android itself.
            
            Otherwise, why is Fuchsia already running the Chrome web browser?
            [0]
            
            [0]
            
   URI      [1]: https://9to5google.com/2022/03/04/full-google-chrome-brows...
       
              leucineleprec0n wrote 1 day ago:
              Right. This is what I think Fuchsia and Zircon probably are
              headed for long term but people really felt the compulsive
              contrarian need to stake out the experiment/retention project
              angle since so many saw the obvious but were hyperbolic about the
              timescale.
       
            pjmlp wrote 4 days ago:
            Android is being ported into Fuchsia, [1] What is more likely to
            happen is to replace Linux with the Fuchsia infrastructure.
            
   URI      [1]: https://android-review.googlesource.com/q/fuchsia
       
          the_duke wrote 4 days ago:
          A company might persue projects for all kinds of reasons.
          
          As a research project to inform design design, as a long term bet and
          sure, for staff retention.
          
          You have more insight, but it's sort of hard for me to see even
          Google put that many millions into an OS and, more importantly, put
          it into production usage on actual hardware (Nest) if that were the
          case.
          
          One factor here is that Fuchsia is in direct competition with both
          Android and Chrome OS.
          
          Maligning it as just a staff retention project might serve those
          teams quite well... either as a coping mechanism or as a political
          tool to kill it off.
       
        bitwize wrote 4 days ago:
        The great thing about Fuchsia is it's like a Google version of Plan 9.
        
        The bad thing about Fuchsia is it's like a Google version of Plan 9.
       
          dhodell wrote 4 days ago:
          Ironically, several folks who worked on Plan 9 later worked (or
          continue to work) at Google, although none of them worked on Fuchsia.
          
          To me the major overlap between them is their designs are clearly
          informed by the contemporaneous shape of network architectures.
          Fuchsia is a take on what an OS design would be as a set of named
          microservices that can be routed. Plan 9 noticed network topologies
          of compute labs and clusters weren't too different, and both graphs
          could be represented in filesystems. The major visible difference to
          me is that the visibility of routing is much more apparent in Plan 9
          than it is in Fuchsia. It's still a little difficult to understand
          how and where capabilities propagate through the system.
          
          Implementation-wise, FIDL is a much different take than 9P2K. Though
          much simpler, 9P2K forces every API to exist via a filesystem
          interface (many of the higher level protocols also involve quite a
          lot of string passing) and struggles with throughput of streaming
          operations. Individual FIDL APIs might have similar problems, but the
          message encoding itself is relatively more efficient.
       
          kramerger wrote 4 days ago:
          The bad thing about Fuchsiais that it's a Google product.
          
          They may decide to kill it next week and switch to XNU or symbian or
          templeos and no one would be surprised.
       
            ryandvm wrote 4 days ago:
            Google's proclivity for aggressively wiping the spaghetti off the
            wall is starting to work against it. I think maybe they need to
            start promising to open source any products they lose interest in.
       
            layer8 wrote 4 days ago:
            That’s fine as long as it’s open source and a self-contained
            local piece of software (as Fuchsia is). The problem with Google
            killing products is that they’re closed source and/or require
            huge server resources and/or ML models.
       
              e3bc54b2 wrote 4 days ago:
              From what I've read Fuschia is not at all self-contained. The UI
              is fully driven by and targeted towards Google the search and
              ecosystem.
              
              But those write-ups were years ago and there hasn't been new
              reviews with much UI focus since then.
       
                surajrmal wrote 4 days ago:
                Operating Systems are not a very well defined subject. Linux
                doesn't include a UI layer for instance and that isn't
                considered a problem. Being tied to a particular experience
                limits the potential applications of the OS, so in many ways I
                would consider the lack of opinionated experience a good thing.
                
                There is now a UI experience available as part of Fuchsia in
                the workstation product, but I wouldn't overly index on it as
                it's just one take on what you could use Fuchsia to build.
       
                layer8 wrote 4 days ago:
                You’re probably right, though for an OS that’s the kind of
                dependency people would prefer to have removed anyway.
       
        native_samples wrote 4 days ago:
        I think the more interesting thing here is the fact that so much code
        in their repository appears to be bit-rotted or half baked, despite
        being documented. KASLR is mentioned all over the place but doesn't
        work and the answer is "we know, it's there only to stop it
        bit-rotting". You need to patch the system to do kernel debugging
        because otherwise the toolchain hangs. Syscalls are documented as
        enforcing security rules yet the actual checks are //TODO comments (and
        they are still willing to assign CVEs so apparently they just
        forgot?!). The syzcaller tool is advertised as working with Fuschia,
        yet despite trying multiple different versions he can't even compile
        them due to API churn. Apparently downloading and executed a binary
        isn't even an option, despite their vision being that Fuschia is a sea
        of components downloaded and run from the internet.
        
        It's hard not to feel like maybe Google has lost the ability to develop
        operating systems. Fuschia has been in development for years now, it
        has no users outside of Google yet if you flick through their docs
        you'll notice a whole bunch of pages talking about deprecated
        components, migrations, etc. When I last looked at their docs, they
        read like it's been around for 20 years and has millions of apps, even
        though that's not true. Oh yeah and of course the giant BLM banners
        everywhere they have/used to have. Just checked, now those banners are
        replaced with "Honoring Asian Pacific American Heritage Month", lol.
        Apparently their vision of a futuristic OS is one in which every page
        in the docs has some random totally US centric bit of virtue signalling
        in it. No wonder they somehow can't even finish a microkernel, a design
        that reduces performance in return for a much smaller syscall surface
        area.
       
          staticassertion wrote 4 days ago:
          Building an OS takes time, they're doing it incrementally, the bugs
          were known and even had issues for them already. I wouldn't draw any
          crazy conclusions from this research, this is a hacker's exploration
          of a foreign OS, which is very interesting, but isn't something I'd
          draw judgments from.
       
          xmodem wrote 4 days ago:
          Or maybe it's just that building a kernel, network stack, etc from
          scratch, and getting it to the point where it's stable, secure,
          sufficiently performant, compatible etc, compared to what's already
          out there is a massive undertaking - microkernel or not - and they
          just need more time.
          
          Let's not forget that Android didn't even have smooth 60fps scrolling
          until well into the 2010s.
       
          shp0ngle wrote 4 days ago:
          I think you are downvoted because you touch on the BLM/Asian Pacific
          stuff, which tickles people. But yeah you are also very right.
       
            ignoramous wrote 4 days ago:
            Just because they have those banners up doesn't mean those point to
            some latent reason for whatever is responsible for their woes.
            Granted it gives a window in to the culture of the Fuschia team at
            Google, but to me, personally, it doesn't come off as
            virtue-signalling at all but rather a conscious effort to put
            diversity and inclusion in the front and center of what they do. As
            another example, Google has had socio-political doodles for
            decades, but I never considered those as virtue-signalling.
       
              jeltz wrote 4 days ago:
              To me it comes off as inclusive of Americans while excluding the
              rest of the world. As a European I do not feel welcome, and I
              imagine people further from US culture feel even less welcome.
       
                Commodore63 wrote 1 day ago:
                As a European you are welcome by default. Look around; you are
                not a persecuted minority.
       
                skavi wrote 4 days ago:
                Would you mind going into why these banners make you feel
                unwelcome? Do you feel similarly about using the US Google
                homepage?
       
                  jhugo wrote 3 days ago:
                  Not European, but not American either. It's weird to me
                  whenever popular American (and they're always American)
                  political issues get plastered all over tech documentation.
                  
                  It feels irrelevant to the purpose of the page, and makes it
                  feel like the page is targeted to people who have a specific
                  viewpoint on a specific political issue (usually an issue
                  that non-Americans have little context for).
       
              native_samples wrote 4 days ago:
              It's relevant because it reflects their priorities and how they
              view developers.
              
              The giant banners say this: although these are technical docs you
              may need to do your job, the most important thing you must see
              above all is an announcement of how morally pure we (think we)
              are. Once isn't enough. On our blog isn't enough. It must be the
              biggest and most eyecatching thing on literally every single page
              of our documentation. This indicates a lack of respect for the
              time and attention of devs. The implementation is also
              incompetent - the banner text appears to have leaked into search
              result snippets, thus reducing the utility of their docs search
              engine.
              
              When Steve Ballmer jumped around on stage yelling "developers!
              developers! developers!" he was ridiculed because the outburst of
              energy seemed absurd and out of place for a CEO. But many of us
              appreciated the sentiment - that if you're developing an
              operating system then developers matter and their time/attention
              matters. Ballmer knew that. Platforms aren't chicken/egg
              situations where it's unclear what comes first. Apps come first.
              Users come for the apps. Then more apps come to follow those
              early adopter users, but ultimately, there had to be some apps to
              kick things off.
              
              When the first thing you see at the top of the Fuschia docs is
              something totally unrelated to programming / the reason you were
              at that site, and which is irrelevant to most of the world as
              well, this sends a powerful message that the Fuschia devs are:
              
              a. Staggeringly US centric. Their mindset isn't international at
              all. This is offputting to those of us outside the US. Fuschia's
              front page claims it's "an inclusive, open source effort". Not
              only have they never even tested it with a non-English locale,
              but they ignored the critical locale bug for so long other people
              had to fork the project to even make the emulator start up for
              non-English users [1]. That's about as non-inclusive as you can
              get yet is also absolutely predictable. Did we really need the
              blog to tell us that? Not really, we could guess it quite easily.
              The sort of people who demand such banners always seem to be
              hypocrites. It's called virtue signalling for a reason - people
              who do it announce their principles but never seem to live by
              them.
              
              b. Not really rewarded for making developers happy. It reinforces
              a general impression about modern Google, that the personal
              success of the employees and executives is tied to things like
              the size of a giant black banner as much as whether their kernel
              is secure or their API docs are actually accurate.
              
              c. As such extremely likely to manipulate their platform to
              prioritize the happiness of activists over that of developers.
              It's a bold statement of ideological allegiance. Who in their
              right mind is going to write an app for Fuschia that's braver
              than a shopping cart when they see that? Nobody smart, because
              you can guess what will happen if Fuschia actually does get apps:
              half of them will end up banned for some inane, impossible to
              understand reason, probably related to mundane use of language
              that's inexplicably become unacceptable since yesterday in
              California. The financial risk of developing for this platform is
              huge.
              
              BTW: the Google doodles are pretty political these days, but in
              the beginning they were mostly reflecting things like national
              holidays.
              
   URI        [1]: https://github.com/assusdan/fuchsia-patches
       
                ignoramous wrote 4 days ago:
                > It's relevant because it reflects their priorities and how
                they view developers.
                
                Yes, that they constantly think about diversity and inclusion.
                Though, I agree that encouraging workplace / employee activism
                is a tricky slippery slope. Companies like coinbase and
                basecamp eschew it, for instance.
                
                Re: a: You gotta start somewhere. Besides, work to add a banner
                is probably a one-day / one-week low-hanging fruit, whereas
                i18n is not. In comparing those, you're comparing something
                that takes months to deride something that probably took hours
                to build and ship.
                
                Re: b: Not privvy to today's culture at Google, so can't say
                for sure other than speculate.
                
                Re: c: You view that as a bad thing. Such markers (drastic
                measures as it may seem to you) is how any of this changes. As
                a thought-experiment / deriving example from tech: do you
                oppose DNS encryption (a drastic measure in many a eyes [0])
                because it nullifies existing cheaper surveillance apparatus
                deployed by schools, corps, governments; or do you embrace it
                and firmly want Browser and OS vendors to push forward with it?
                
                [0]
                
   URI          [1]: https://www.zdnet.com/article/uk-isp-group-names-mozil...
       
                skavi wrote 4 days ago:
                You’re comment and a sibling both express that these messages
                are off-putting to international audiences? Why is that?
                
                BLM originated in the US, but black people definitely
                experience racism elsewhere. The movement is not necessarily US
                exclusive.
                
                I’ve seen plenty of tech companies with Ukraine banners on
                their websites, and have not seen a single criticism.
                Wouldn’t such banners exclude US developers under that logic?
       
                  native_samples wrote 4 days ago:
                  "I’ve seen plenty of tech companies with Ukraine banners on
                  their websites, and have not seen a single criticism"
                  
                  The Ukraine banners are dumb. They have no place in technical
                  docs. Like everyone else I want them to win their war, but
                  spamming blue and yellow flags everywhere isn't going to help
                  achieve that. Moreover the murky nature of their military
                  alliances (Azov etc) makes it hardly a Disney movie-esque
                  conflict with pure good and pure evil.
                  
                  You see no complaints because why bother? The sort of people
                  who do that never care if their actions are unpopular with
                  other people, in fact they take a perverse joy in it.
       
                  Banana699 wrote 4 days ago:
                  >You’re comment and a sibling both express that these
                  messages are off-putting to international audiences?
                  
                  Non-American distinct from both of them here: They're right.
                  
                  >black people definitely experience racism elsewhere
                  
                  Persuambly you think BLM is a generic "Racism Bad" message,
                  so 3 things to say about this
                  
                  1- BLM is not a generic "Racism Bad" message. It's the name
                  of a movement whose leaders used donor money to accumulate
                  personal wealth. It's the chant used by protestors who burned
                  down homes and stole from people's business. It's the motto
                  that people who write books to argue that disputing a racism
                  accusation is a sign of guilt and fragility. I consider
                  myself a non-racist, and this movement is not the kind of
                  things I support.
                  
                  2- The kinds of people and media outlets who support BLM
                  tends to be selective and hypocritical. Wouldn't an honest
                  person who shout "BLM" when a black man is killed by a police
                  officer, wouldn't that person also be obligated to shout
                  "White Lives Matter", WLM, when white innocents are killed by
                  a black criminal because of their race ? This last event
                  happens to be a real thing that actually happened ( [1] ), by
                  a self-confessed black terrorist. Searching for "Black
                  Supremacy", the only response in the first page is a short
                  Wikipedia page, the rest is articles talking about White
                  Supremacy instead. I have a feeling things are not so
                  balanced here.
                  
                  3- Even granting that BLM is a good moral cause to support,
                  how is it relevant to a tech document ? Let us grant the
                  following causes are all worthy of moral solidarity ["Climate
                  Change", "China's Treatment of Uyghur Muslims", "Sexual
                  Harrasment", "Child Abuse", "Animal Cruelty"]. All of the
                  elements of this list are morally abhorrent things to me that
                  I want to prevent or reverse. Now, where and when should I
                  say this? at my home? to each and every one of my friends or
                  family ? at work ? on the street ? Is there any time and
                  place where I can safely lie down and not speak about
                  atrocities, for once?
                  
                  >I’ve seen plenty of tech companies with Ukraine banners on
                  their websites
                  
                  I'm very very annoyed by this too. Seeing Github and
                  JetBrains issue a statment about this conflict is the most
                  pathetic, hypocritical and forced thing I have seen in a very
                  long while.
                  
                  Point 3 above applies to it straightforawrdly with no
                  explanation, point 1 and 2 also apply as follows
                  
                  1- Pro-Ukraine sentiment isn't a neutral "War Bad" message,
                  it usually encodes within it pretty dubious and very partisan
                  assertions, such as the belief that all Russians are to - and
                  should be - blame and punish for Putin's action, as well as
                  unhealthy and fanatic support for the Ukrainian government
                  and its actions.
                  
                  2- Tons of countries, everywhere and all the time, have
                  experinced invasions and other illegal military actions. The
                  example off the top of my head is Yemen. Children dying of
                  starvation, civilaians bombed and hospitals wrecked, *Since
                  2015*. Did any of those companies issue statments then ?
                  Let's forget about the past. Do we have a right to expect
                  those companies to protest every single war and illegal
                  military actions, regardless of the position of US
                  politicians and US foreign policy, in the future?
                  
   URI            [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_Christmas_par...
       
                    skavi wrote 4 days ago:
                    I do feel that BLM is a worthy cause to support. This is
                    mainly because I feel the movement can be seen separately
                    from any formal organizations or individual people. I
                    understand how you may disagree.
                    
                    Regardless, the real disagreement seems to be in where it
                    is appropriate to represent the movements you believe in.
                    
                    Even granting that a technical document page may not be the
                    best place for such advertising, I still do not understand
                    why the presence of these messages would offend an
                    international audience.
                    
                    If they are truly irrelevant, then surely it should be at
                    worst unsightly?
       
                      Banana699 wrote 4 days ago:
                      >then surely it should be at worst unsightly?
                      
                      What me and other people are trying to get across to you,
                      is that you only feel this way because you support the
                      cause.
                      
                      The practice of filling every place and institution with
                      your partisan beliefs is a sign of disrespect,
                      essentially a power move. "You're here to read up on an
                      OS, but joke on you, you actually can't escape the
                      all-pervasive hand of my religion. Here's some propaganda
                      diet before you read anything".
                      
                      To know what that feels, imagine if every time a mainland
                      Chinese scientist published an academic paper they were
                      forced to write at the end "Long Live The CCP" with big
                      bold letters. Or imagine if every time a Muslim scientist
                      published a paper they must write "In The Name Of Allah,
                      God Of All Creation" in the beginning. Etc... Can you see
                      why this is ridiculous to a non-communist or a non-Muslim
                      ?
                      
                      Why is this ridiculous belief-signalling an expression of
                      power ? 2 reasons :
                      
                      1- Like I said above, it asserts existence in a space
                      where its competitors don't. No Christian, Jew or Hindu
                      declares their religion in the academic papers they
                      author, it feels fair that Muslims also shouldn't, it's
                      like an unspoken agreement on keeping Academia free of an
                      irrelevant controversial subject that gets people riled
                      up and generates more heat than light. When Muslims (in
                      the hypothetical world) violate this, it's a unilateral
                      violation of the agreement that signals power and
                      superiority. "Rules Don't Apply To Us". It's a fighting
                      stance.
                      
                      In the concrete case we're discussing here, only
                      progressive tech companies signal their beliefs in this
                      vulgar way, no conservative tech firm have ever put "Blue
                      Lives Matter" or "Make America Great Again" on their
                      technical docs, although there are tens of millions of
                      people who believe just as sincerly as you that those
                      causes represent worthy and moral goals. The reason sane
                      well-adjusted people refrain from expressing politics and
                      religion in workplaces is because of common sense social
                      protocols and unspoken consensus, when you break those,
                      you're deliberately asserting power and inviting
                      challenge.
                      
                      2- It's probably forced. Just like the vast majority of
                      Chinese scientists or Muslim scientists would probably do
                      the above hypothetical signalling out of fear (of being
                      labelled a traitor and a heretic, respectively), the vast
                      majority of people in progressive-dominated social
                      bubbles probably virtue-signal out of fear, rather than
                      any geniune conviction. It's morally disgusting to force
                      people to express beliefs they don't actually hold, or
                      hold in lesser intensity than being forced to express.
                      It's tyranny 101, straight from 1984.
       
                        skavi wrote 3 days ago:
                        I really can’t see the equivalency between a
                        political stance (imo a movement for racial equality)
                        and religion. The former mixes, often by necessity,
                        with technical documents all the time. See GNU or the
                        Apollo program.
                        
                        > In the concrete case we're discussing here, only
                        progressive tech companies signal their beliefs in this
                        vulgar way, no conservative tech firm have ever put
                        "Blue Lives Matter" or "Make America Great Again" on
                        their technical docs, although there are tens of
                        millions of people who believe just as sincerly as you
                        that those causes represent worthy and moral goals. The
                        reason sane well-adjusted people refrain from
                        expressing politics and religion in workplaces is
                        because of common sense social protocols and unspoken
                        consensus, when you break those, you're deliberately
                        asserting power and inviting challenge.
                        
                        No, but many will willingly participate in the US
                        military industrial complex, which causes significantly
                        more actual harm. So I think we have different ideas
                        regarding who can claim to be “sane”.
                        
                        > 2- It's probably forced. Just like the vast majority
                        of Chinese scientists or Muslim scientists would
                        probably do the above hypothetical signalling out of
                        fear (of being labelled a traitor and a heretic,
                        respectively), the vast majority of people in
                        progressive-dominated social bubbles probably
                        virtue-signal out of fear, rather than any geniune
                        conviction. It's morally disgusting to force people to
                        express beliefs they don't actually hold, or hold in
                        lesser intensity than being forced to express. It's
                        tyranny 101, straight from 1984.
                        
                        You say all this, but “probably” is doing a lot of
                        work. This kind of banner is uncommon even among
                        Silicon Valley companies. It’s not as if there would
                        be outrage if it weren’t there, or if it disappeared.
                        
                        Finally, these are all reasons why someone who
                        doesn’t agree with BLM would feel excluded by the
                        banner. My original question was why people outside of
                        the US would feel excluded. 
                        Do you feel that most people outside of the US view BLM
                        negatively or indeed have an opinion at all? Enough
                        that the banner can be said to exclude international
                        audiences in general?
       
                          Banana699 wrote 3 days ago:
                          >I really can’t see the equivalency between a
                          political stance (imo a movement for racial equality)
                          and religion.
                          
                          Politics and religion are notoriously related. They
                          are both morally charged subjects that infamously
                          degrade people's ability to see the world clearly and
                          discuss pros and cons rationally. I can cite plenty
                          of pro-BLM speech and actions that disturbingly
                          mirror religious language and actions. The fact that
                          most BLM supporters might not speak or act like this
                          is irrelevant too, most Christians don't go to church
                          either.
                          
                          >The former mixes, often by necessity, with technical
                          documents all the time. See GNU or the Apollo
                          program.
                          
                          I'm really puzzled as to how this supports BLM
                          banners in OS design documents though. You said "by
                          necessity", is BLM mottos and iconography necessary
                          to understand micro kernels as much as Cold War terms
                          and timeline is necessary to understand the Apollo
                          program ? that would be an... interesting point to
                          argue.
                          
                          Even ignoring this, not all politics is created
                          equal. "The Apollo program was created as a
                          demonstration of technical supramecy by the US
                          intended to intimidate the USSR" is politics. "The
                          Apollo program was when we showed those dirty commies
                          who's the boss" is also politics. I hope you agree
                          the first statment is vastly more palatable and
                          neutral than the second. The vast majority of
                          progressive mottos and rallying cries strike my ears
                          like the second statment.
                          
                          >No, but many will willingly participate in the US
                          military industrial complex, which causes
                          significantly more actual harm.
                          
                          This is a strange thing to say for more reasons than
                          1
                          
                          1- Conservative tech companies aren't any more likely
                          to cooperate with the US military than progressive
                          tech companies. Amazon and Google, hardly bastions of
                          conservatism, are both known contractors to the US
                          military. So if you hate this, you should hate all
                          influential US tech companies, conservatism is not a
                          useful predictor of this any more than random chance.
                          
                          2- I'm not assessing who is "doing more harm
                          overall", I'm assessing who's asserting ideological
                          power over people in vulgar ways. US military power
                          projection is an entirely different topic for a
                          different conversation, we're now talking about who
                          brings their obnoxious politics into the workplace.
                          There are different ways of disliking things, I
                          dislike the US military power posturing and US
                          progressives power posturing in 2 different ways.
                          
                          >This kind of banner is uncommon even among Silicon
                          Valley companies.
                          
                          Which is all the more reason to think it's forced
                          virtue signaling.
                          
                          >It’s not as if there would be outrage if it
                          weren’t there, or if it disappeared.
                          
                          I see you're unfamiliar with Twitter.
                          
                          >Finally, these are all reasons why someone who
                          doesn’t agree with BLM would feel excluded by the
                          banner.
                          
                          When it comes to religions and religion-like things,
                          "disagree" is anything that isn't "agree". Any
                          Non-Muslim "disagrees" with Islam, not because they
                          have read the history of the prophet (which is awful)
                          or studied Islamic Theology's arguments for why Islam
                          is true (which is weak), but simply because
                          Non-Muslims don't say "No God but Allah" and don't
                          pray 5 times a day. They are non-believers, not
                          dis-believers.
                          
                          >Do you feel that most people outside of the US view
                          BLM negatively or indeed have an opinion at all?
                          
                          I can't speak for all the world off course, but I do
                          feel that BLM is entirely irrelevant and unknown in
                          my country, even if the events that sparked and
                          galvanized it was internationally known. Again, no
                          need for intense, explicit disagreement here,
                          although I personally do think it's a destructive
                          obvious scam\religion mix that every person who knows
                          what it does and what kind of people run it should
                          oppose it intensely, but there's really no reason to
                          go that far.
                          
                          Do you think you need hate or disagree with Islam to
                          despise and hate the hypothetical practice of Muslims
                          writing religious verses in completely unrelated
                          writings? Do you think you need to hate or disagree
                          with Communism to despise the hypothetical practice
                          of Chinese Scientists writing pro-CCP mottos in
                          completely unrelated writings?
                          
                          My answer to the above question is No, I hate
                          ideological spamming as a pathetic authoritarian
                          practice regardless of the ideology doing it. In
                          fact, sometimes I will hate the ideology itself, for
                          no other reasons but the spam that its fanatics
                          continually pump, and I think my view is a fairly
                          popular and widespread to view things.
                          
                          Whatever merits BLM might have had, it's completely
                          eclipsed by the fact that their true believers seem
                          to believe that micro kernel developers must hear
                          them when they are reading up on their work.
       
                            afr0ck wrote 2 days ago:
                            Let people say and express whatever they want. Why
                            do you want to censor anything that you "hate" or
                            anything that looks "ideological" to you? I don't
                            see anything wrong with someone supporting BLM or
                            mentioning a verse from the Quran or from the Bible
                            on a technical website. For me, it would be an
                            interesting short read/observation, I don't care if
                            I don't agree, it doesn't matter. If I read a
                            scientific paper from a Chinese researcher that
                            mentions "Glory to the CCP", it would probably give
                            me a short laugh, then I'll just move and focus on
                            my goal (the science).
       
                              Banana699 wrote 2 days ago:
                              >Let people say and express whatever they want
                              
                              Does this extend to letting people control other
                              people and harass them with politics in their
                              workplace to coerce them into expressing their
                              politics ?
                              
                              >Why do you want to censor
                              
                              Quote 1 part of my comments where I advocated for
                              censorship.
                              
                              >anything that looks "ideological" to you
                              
                              Is this meant to imply that "ideological" is
                              subjective? Because I'm pretty sure all the
                              examples I mentioned  would all be recognized as
                              partisan Ideology to the vast majority of people
                              (except possibly the believers of said ideology,
                              who would predictably disagree that it's anything
                              but the plain obvious truth).
                              
                              As for why I mock people who bring their ideology
                              or religion to their workplace and why I think
                              they are immature and unworthy of respect or
                              cooperation, it's because I believe in not
                              burning bridges.
                              
                              Humans differ on uncountable millions of things,
                              the exception is when we agree for once. A
                              workplace is already full of potential and actual
                              work-related conflicts enough, without somebody
                              bringing in another certified-infinite source of
                              conflicts that serves nothing except heat
                              generation.
                              
                              It's selfish and disgusting, like an army
                              breaking a peace agreement to score a quick
                              victory.
       
                          jhugo wrote 3 days ago:
                          I think the issue is simpler than the above
                          discussion.
                          
                          I have no idea what to think about BLM. I'm not
                          American, so it's not part of my zeitgeist. I hear
                          all kinds of differing opinions about it from
                          Americans. One thing is clear to me: "BLM good" is
                          more complicated than just "racism bad".
                          
                          When I see something supporting BLM in tech
                          documentation, it's confusing (I don't know why it's
                          relevant to tech documentation, and I don't know what
                          to think about BLM), and alienating (the banner
                          presupposes knowledge about BLM that most of the
                          world doesn't have).
       
                            pasabagi wrote 1 day ago:
                            My guess is the only reason why Europe has a more
                            sophisticated discussion about race and racism now
                            than it did in the 50's is because of American
                            influence. I say this as a European. There simply
                            are not the sizeable minorities in europe to push
                            these issues into the public discourse, and as
                            such, without exposure to US culture, most people's
                            views on race tend to be only lightly modified from
                            traditional views, which are extremely racist.
       
                              jhugo wrote 13 hours 4 min ago:
                              Yes, I think you're right. And in many parts of
                              Europe, there still isn't much sophisticated
                              discussion about race and racism. (That's my
                              observation as an outsider though; I'm not
                              European.)
                              
                              But pro-BLM is not the same thing as anti-racism,
                              as I noted.
                              
                              If you want to write down your values and plaster
                              them at the top of every page of your tech
                              documentation, I'll think that's a bit weird but
                              I guess I'll mostly be fine with it?
                              
                              But if you distill your advertised values into a
                              single message of support for a political group
                              that is virtually unknown in most of the world,
                              that's more complicated. It makes it harder to
                              understand the message, and it gives it an air of
                              exclusivity, as the real meaning of the message
                              is only understood to a subset of the people who
                              see it.
       
                                pasabagi wrote 10 hours 29 min ago:
                                > But pro-BLM is not the same thing as
                                anti-racism, as I noted.
                                
                                I guess for me the BLM movement goes back to
                                the roots of the struggle for civil rights in
                                the west. The west has always had this tension
                                between a strong history of formal equality
                                (probably going back to the Roman citizenship
                                tradition) and an equally strong tradition of
                                slavery and segregation.
                                
                                You can go back to the 1800's anti-slavery
                                campaign slogan 'Am I not a man and a
                                brother?', or to the MLK-era billboard 'I am a
                                man', to 'Black Lives Matter', and you can see
                                the basic line of attack is the same. Equally,
                                every step of the way, their opponents have
                                always said that contemporary forms of
                                anti-racism are not really connected to the
                                past forms, they're going too far, even though
                                their slogans and basic politics are more or
                                less the same.
                                
                                If you're not from the west, I guess you can
                                say, 'not my dog, not my race', but I think
                                just as nations around the world have adopted
                                western models of economics, and western models
                                of citizenship, they also have to wrestle with
                                the implications those models have for minority
                                groups within their polities.
                                
                                > But if you distill your advertised values
                                into a single message of support for a
                                political group that is virtually unknown in
                                most of the world, that's more complicated.
                                
                                I guess in the 70's, villagers in China knew
                                about Huey P. Newton, but probably had a very
                                shaky understanding of McDonalds. If there's
                                one cultural export from America I'm rather
                                pleased about, its the great work of their
                                anti-racism campaigners. I'd be quite happy if
                                the BLM message was as ubiquitous as the Coca
                                Cola message, for instance.
       
                goodpoint wrote 4 days ago:
                > Steve Ballmer ... was ridiculed because the outburst of
                energy ...
                
                It was much, much worse than that.
                
                Putting aside the crass yelling and dancing; also putting aside
                any rumor of cocaine abuse; putting aside how cultish it
                looks...
                
                Having a large crowd of adults yelling "dentists! dentists!" or
                be it lawyers, accountants, etc in a frenzy would be seen as
                very unprofessional.
                
                > But many of us appreciated the sentiment
                
                I hope not.
                
                > It's called virtue signalling for a reason - people who do it
                announce their principles but never seem to live by them
                
                And how do you know that? Some people can be hypocritical, yes.
                
                Are all people with principles hypocritical?
       
                  jimbob45 wrote 4 days ago:
                  >Having a large crowd of adults yelling "dentists! dentists!"
                  or be it lawyers, accountants, etc in a frenzy would be seen
                  as very unprofessional.
                  
                  If the CEO of a large dental organization has the balls to go
                  on stage and yell, "Hygienists! Hygienists! Hygienists!", it
                  shows that he's willing to prostrate himself to show his
                  commitment to the company he serves. People appreciate that.
                  There are certainly enough CEOs ignoring the needs and
                  desires of their employees sitting inside their ivory towers
                  these days. We don't need more of them.
       
                  Banana699 wrote 4 days ago:
                  >Are all people with principles hypocritical?
                  
                  I think the issue here is not "People With Principles", but
                  "People With Principles They Are Dying To Tell You About".
                  This makes the standard for judging you much much higher :
                  You not only think those principles are superior to a lot of
                  other competing ones, You not only advocate (sometimes, a lot
                  of times to be honest, obnoxiously) for those principles, You
                  do all of those things in times and places where it doesn't
                  make much sense, and right in the middle of other people who
                  might very well disagree with you to heaven and back on those
                  things but choose to stay silent and cooperate with you on
                  unrelated matters nonetheless, cooperation which you break
                  and impede by loudly and non-ceaseingly declaring views they
                  find disagreeable. This makes the people around you,
                  understandbly, model you as the truest possible expression of
                  an X-ism follower: you're at least as sincere as any other
                  X-ist, so any failings or deviation from you principles you
                  have or do is something that the whole X-ism movement along
                  with all its followers also have or do.
                  
                  I'm biased against what typical US progressives advocate for,
                  so I will choose one of my own principles to make an example
                  of.
                  
                  I'm a (still booting up) vegetarian, I try not to eat any
                  meat for ethical reasons. I did manage to successfully banish
                  meat from my food for about 2 years now, but I'm not
                  strong-willed enough yet to stop eating marine life.
                  (Technically this makes me not a vegetarian at all, but the
                  weird-sounding word "Pescetarian", but "vegetarian" is more
                  well known and more in alignment with my mental self-image
                  and future plans.) Now, if I started advocating for
                  vegetarianism very loudly and in every single chance and
                  place I find, not only will this make some people very
                  annoyed, but they will start asking : What sort of life do
                  you lead by following this principle you're very passionate
                  about ? If my life deviates from my principles (and it does),
                  I expect people will be even more annoyed, outraged even, and
                  become resistent to and critical of my advocacy. A similar
                  thing happens with nearly every major religion or
                  religion-like ideology, which vegetarianism and progressivism
                  indeed are.
       
                  tester756 wrote 4 days ago:
                  I think you're attacking weakest points of his comment, tbf.
       
                    goodpoint wrote 4 days ago:
                    So?
       
          dec0dedab0de wrote 4 days ago:
          It's hard not to feel like maybe Google has lost the ability to
          develop operating systems.
          
          Did they ever have that ability?  I know they did a bunch of work for
          Android/Chrome OS. But both of those are Linux, have they tried to
          develop an OS from scratch before fuschia?
       
            pjmlp wrote 4 days ago:
            Android and Chrome OS use the Linux kernel, that is all.
            
            Everything else, including driver subsystem (Android docs even
            calls classic Linux drivers legacy), doesn't have anything to do
            with GNU/Linux.
       
            native_samples wrote 4 days ago:
            Yes. Android is sufficiently different from a stock Linux distro
            that it absolutely counts as a unique operating system. ChromeOS is
            also unique in interesting ways, although less successful. It's
            certainly a production quality OS.
            
            Perhaps more importantly, both of those are complete and have real
            users who found value in them.
       
              kllrnohj wrote 4 days ago:
              > ChromeOS is also unique in interesting ways, although less
              successful.
              
              Chrome OS absolutely dominates the education market. So less
              successful than Android, sure (but so is literally every other OS
              at this point), but still very successful.
       
                pjmlp wrote 3 days ago:
                That is an US phenomenon though.
                
                It can be hardly seen in European countries, and I bet other
                continents are hardly different.
       
                  kllrnohj wrote 3 days ago:
                  That's just not true. It might not be seen in your particular
                  country, but it's definitely not US centric. Canada, Sweden,
                  and New Zealand are also countries where Chromebooks are
                  sweeping education [1] And the reasons why are pretty
                  straightforward. Kids can't really mess them up, they are
                  highly sharable (eg laptop carts), they are cheap
                  (generally), and they have centralized management for schools
                  that's otherwise typically limited to enterprise markets.
                  
   URI            [1]: https://www.neowin.net/news/chromebooks-are-seeing-h...
       
                    pjmlp wrote 3 days ago:
                    In countries where parents pay for kids computers, and
                    worry about what everyone else is using, they don't get any
                    uptakes.
                    
                    Before COVID, most schools were still about pen and paper
                    in most European countries, computers are used at home.
       
                      kllrnohj wrote 3 days ago:
                      That's yet again not true. Parents are often paying for
                      the Chromebooks used in some of these markets (eg, US &
                      Canada at least). That the school requires a certain OS
                      doesn't change who pays for it, just like parents are
                      still buying TI graphing calculators.
                      
                      > Before COVID, most schools were still about pen and
                      paper in most European countries,
                      
                      Gonna need a citation on that one. It'd be quite
                      surprising for European schools to be so far behind
                      
                      And from what I can find, they weren't. Eg way back in
                      2006 [1] "Scandinavian nations like Norway, Denmark, and
                      Sweden are able to provide computing equipment to almost
                      every single student and teacher within their borders"
                      
   URI                [1]: https://www.theverge.com/2013/4/19/4242022/europ...
       
                        ksec wrote 2 days ago:
                        >It'd be quite surprising for European schools to be so
                        far behind
                        
                        Using Pen and Paper isn't so far behind, it is the
                        wisdom to avoid hype.
       
                          walterbell wrote 1 day ago:
                          Paper is the Root of Trust for Silicon.
       
        ncmncm wrote 4 days ago:
        Wow, it is surprising how awful every last bit of Zircon code
        reproduced here is. I have to guess the rest is about as bad.
        
        This dreck would never pass code review at my shop.
       
          goodpoint wrote 4 days ago:
          HN downvotes things based on the mood expressed rather than the
          technical content.
          
          It's becoming a kindergarten, really.
       
            shkkmo wrote 4 days ago:
            I didn't see any actual technical content in that comment. I don't
            see any repliers commenting on tone but I do see a comment or
            remarking that they disagree with the technical assertion and
            asking for actual technical content to back it up.
            
            So I think your assumptions about the reasons for the down votes
            are inaccurate.
       
            SOLAR_FIELDS wrote 4 days ago:
            I didn’t downvote but I think it’s more because grandparent
            reads like a shallow offhand dismissal. Perhaps if GP provided
            examples of bad code and better ways to express them it would be a
            more productive comment.
       
          Jyaif wrote 4 days ago:
          I skimmed through the article and nothing stood out. Can you give an
          example of a piece of code you didn't like?
       
            ncmncm wrote 4 days ago:
            Every last bit of Zircon code he reproduced in the article was a
            woolly mess that the code's author (not the article's) should be
            ashamed of. That the author found it easy to code an exploit for a
            system he knew so little about shows that the code is not just
            woolly, but actually bad.
       
          ncmncm wrote 4 days ago:
          Downvote all you like, it is bad code all the same.
       
            PaulDavisThe1st wrote 4 days ago:
            If you said why, you'd be less likely to get downvoted. Hand-waving
            assertions of "that dreck" are not well judged.
       
              Teckla wrote 4 days ago:
              Speaking just for myself, after perusing Fuchsia source, the code
              seems eye-wateringly "clever," pretty much everywhere.
              
              I'm doubtful many people would be able to read it or contribute
              to it very effectively.
       
              ncmncm wrote 4 days ago:
              Anybody who can look at the reproduced code and not recoil in
              disgust will be unlikely to understand a detailed criticism. Just
              read it!
       
                skavi wrote 4 days ago:
                I'd encourage you to have a go at explaining nonetheless. I'm
                sure there are at least a few critiques you have which many
                here would miss, even if they are competent. There's always
                value in code review, no?
       
        maverick74 wrote 4 days ago:
        Would be nice to see something like this on seL4 (in some OS like
        Sculpt, for example)
       
          qayxc wrote 4 days ago:
          That would be too hard, it's a kernel that's actually developed with
          security in mind and is subject to active research (e.g. by DARPA).
       
            kramerger wrote 4 days ago:
            If you try using sel4 in a project, you soon realise it is
            extremely limited and not at all useful for general purpose
            computers
       
              exikyut wrote 4 days ago:
              Hmm. By not providing a POSIX lemonade stand, would-be users are
              required to basically figure everything out for themselves; I
              wonder what the net impact of that is.
              
              On the one hand POSIX et al is effectively impossible to deploy
              in a secure way, so there is a reasonable argument for going back
              to the drawing board; but on the other hand there isn't really a
              well-defined go-to alternative How To Computer model that is
              friendly to provable security, so everyone has gets to reinvent
              that wheel every time
              
              Considering the contemporary status quo in terms of
              independently-implemented OS projects and platforms (eg, my
              ever-so-slightly-wobbly VxWorks-based TP-LINK consumer ADSL
              modem), I do wonder how good seL4 implementations end up working
              out in practice - the kernel might be rock solid, but what about
              all the bits on top of it, some of which presumably communicate
              with the outside world, consume various protocols, need to
              control the hardware in various ways (which includes relying upon
              reading the hardware state/status), etc?
       
              sydthrowaway wrote 4 days ago:
              In what way?
       
              maverick74 wrote 4 days ago:
              And yet it works on Genode/Sculpt! :)
              
              (yes... it's also a very limited OS... maybe someday it gets a
              decent GUI and starts to get more attention)
       
        binkHN wrote 4 days ago:
        Very nice right up on how unfinished and insecure Fuchsia is as a
        result of it being so unfinished.
       
          kernal wrote 4 days ago:
          >Very nice right up on how unfinished and insecure Fuchsia is as a
          result of it being so unfinished.
          
          Did you even read the write up? The only bug found was the ability to
          read the kernel log. Everything else was manufactured.
       
            binkHN wrote 4 days ago:
            You’re kidding right? Did you miss the parts about KASLR being
            broken and syscalls with TODOs for missing validations?  And the
            CVEs created in relation to these?
       
              kernal wrote 4 days ago:
              I saw one CVE (CVE-2022-0882) for the innocuous kernel log bug.
              How many CVE's did you see? As for the KASLR, this was a known
              issue to the Fuchsia devs.
              
              >This is a known-issue. KASLR support on the zircon kernel is
              just there so that it doesn't bit-rot. We are always picking up a
              static address instead of a dynamic one.
              
              >Once physboot rollout is complete, that should make it easier to
              support kaslr.
       
              staticassertion wrote 4 days ago:
              KASLR is a pretty meh mitigation. But yeah, "todo" around
              capability checking probably should have been a higher priority
              fix.
       
          goodpoint wrote 4 days ago:
          Unfinished does not justify unsecure!
          
          You start with something secure and rudimentary and add features over
          time.
          
          You don't start with something unsecure and then add security to it.
       
          mda wrote 4 days ago:
          "How insecure" a surprising conclusion based on a single exploit.
       
            29athrowaway wrote 4 days ago:
            If you read the article it mentions that ASLR doesn't work, and
            it's treated as a "known bug".
       
              mda wrote 4 days ago:
              Do you assume I didn't read the article? Calling it insecure
              based on this is absurd.
       
                rvz wrote 4 days ago:
                Exactly I also find it slightly silly to immediately declare
                this 'insecure' in this case here.
                
                If it was directly end-to-end on say a Nest Hub running a
                release version of Fuchsia then that would be a more convincing
                here, as that would confirm that it can be deployed and the bug
                can be exploited in the wild and in production and not on a
                newly built developer version running in an emulator.
                
                The writeup of finding and exploiting this bug is impressive,
                but whether if you can use that exploit to directly attack a
                production version of Fuchsia on a device like the Nest Hub is
                another thing, which is the same way security researchers do to
                break live versions of other OSes like macOS, Windows, Android
                and Linux.
       
              kerneis wrote 4 days ago:
              Kernel ASLR. User-space has ASLR enabled and working, in addition
              to shadow stacks and a number of other hardening techniques.
       
                binkHN wrote 4 days ago:
                The article also references syscalls that are marked with TODOs
                for validation of those calls.
       
          yellow_lead wrote 4 days ago:
          Unfinished might be a good excuse if it weren't running on Nest
          devices.
       
            tadfisher wrote 4 days ago:
            Nest devices don't run untrusted code. If you get code running on a
            Nest display, please let me know how, because I'd love to hack
            around on mine.
       
              a1369209993 wrote 3 days ago:
              > Nest devices don't run untrusted code.
              
              Yes they do; they run code written by Google. The only thing
              worse would be Facebook; the literal NSA are more trustworthy.
       
          Someone wrote 4 days ago:
          FTA: But to simplify my first security experiment with Fuchsia, I
          decided to disable SMAP and SMEP in the script starting QEMU and
          create the fake vtable in my exploit in the userspace
          
          I don’t see them re-enabling it later, so yes, they found security
          problems, but they didn’t show a complete attack, either.
       
            kerneis wrote 4 days ago:
            Also from the start they introduce a bug in the kernel (in the
            TimerDispatcher implementation), and this is the very bug they
            focus on and eventually write an exploit for.
            
            They explain why they do so, and the article is extremely valuable
            as a first step and tutorial to get started in Zircon kernel
            hacking. They also find some actual issues, including one CVE. But
            I disagree the article shows how "unsecure Fuchsia is as a result
            of being unfinished".
       
          ThePowerOfFuet wrote 4 days ago:
          The word you were looking for is _writeup_.
       
            ge96 wrote 4 days ago:
            It's weird in my later 20s I started doing this, writing
            homophones. I at least get my then/their/effect right still.
       
              5e92cb50239222b wrote 4 days ago:
              I think this mostly happens to native English speakers for some
              unimaginable reason. I don't remember ever making this mistake
              (but do remember plenty others to make up for it), and can't
              imagine myself doing it. Yet it happens to native speakers all
              the time.
       
                exikyut wrote 4 days ago:
                I was most disconcerted to find myself doing the same thing of
                late. It is very curious; like my brain internally just
                couldn't be bothered anymore to expend the energy to delineate
                their and there until I'm in the process of actually typing.
                But that means the signalling fires a tad late, so I'm going
                back and fixing stuff.
       
                MauranKilom wrote 4 days ago:
                > I don't remember ever making this mistake (but do remember
                plenty others to make up for it), and can't imagine myself
                doing it. Yet it happens to native speakers all the time.
                
                I used to think that, too. But now my fingers just type the
                words as I hear them spoken in my mind, and that seems to
                occasionally produce homophones.
                
                Kinda fascinating what this says about our language processing,
                to be honest!
       
                arc-in-space wrote 4 days ago:
                I'm not native and I absolutely do this. 500 grams of flower...
       
                  exikyut wrote 4 days ago:
                  Imagining that looks very nice, TIL prettiness can be
                  quantified/measured by weight :D
       
                  jsjohnst wrote 4 days ago:
                  Funny, that fragment actually works as written in some
                  contexts. :)
       
                layer8 wrote 4 days ago:
                As a nonnative English speaker (actually mostly
                reader/writer/listener), I started doing that at some point
                (many years after English proficiency), to my own dismay.
       
                rosetremiere wrote 4 days ago:
                I would guess that the difference native/foreign is simply due
                to the way language is learned: for native speakers, it's first
                and mostly orally.
                This doesn't explain a later appearance of mistakes though…
       
                  michaelmarkell wrote 4 days ago:
                  I right a lot less now then I did as a kid, so maybe it’s
                  about just staying sharp
       
                    lelandfe wrote 4 days ago:
                    You rays a good point!
       
                      layer8 wrote 4 days ago:
                      I believe “raze” would be the correct pronunciation.
                      ;)
       
                        Taywee wrote 4 days ago:
                        Both are pronounced identically in American English at
                        least.
       
                          layer8 wrote 4 days ago:
                          Huh, the IPA indeed seems to be the same, but I would
                          argue that the “z” in “raze” is distinctly
                          more voiced than the “s” in “rays”.
       
                      akavel wrote 4 days ago:
                      Ah, this remains me of a classique in this field:
                      
   URI                [1]: https://youtu.be/OonDPGwAyfQ
       
          SpectralTheory wrote 4 days ago:
          Better than being insecure by design, I would think.
       
            ncmncm wrote 4 days ago:
            Insecure is insecure. Or did you mean unfixably insecure?
       
              coldtea wrote 4 days ago:
              Parent means infixably and/or intentionally insecure.
       
          raggi wrote 4 days ago:
          Was that your takeaway from reading it, or something else?
       
            binkHN wrote 4 days ago:
            My take away, but the author goes into a bit of detail on this.
       
       
   DIR <- back to front page