Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Feb 2017 07:54 UTC
Google

I decided to dig through open source to examine the state of Google's upcoming Andromeda OS. For anyone unfamiliar, Andromeda seems to be the replacement for both Android and Chrome OS (cue endless debates over the semantics of that, and what it all entails). Fuchsia is the actual name of the operating system, while Magenta is the name of the kernel, or more correctly, the microkernel. Many of the architectural design decisions appear to have unsurprisingly been focused on creating a highly scalable platform.

It goes without saying that Google isn't trying to hide Fuchsia. People have clearly discovered that Google is replacing Android's Linux kernel. Still, I thought it would be interesting for people to get a better sense of what the OS actually is. This article is only intended to be an overview of the basics, as far as I can comment reasonably competently. (I certainly never took an operating systems class!)

What excites me the most about Fuchsia and related projects are the people involved. The pedigree here is astonishing - there are quite a few former Be, Palm, and Apple engineers involved. The linked article contains a good higher-level overview, and I do truly believe it's one of the most exciting projects in the operating systems world right now.

What remains to be seen, however, is this: just how serious is this project? The breadth of the project and the people involved seem to suggest this is indeed something quite serious, and all signs point towards it being a future unification and replacement for both Chrome OS and Android, which is quite exciting indeed.

Thread beginning with comment 640970
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: No Linux
by fithisux on Wed 15th Feb 2017 20:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No Linux"
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

It is no fantasy. It is freedom unless you believe fascism can be excused for money.

Fantasy like this?

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: No Linux
by kurkosdr on Wed 15th Feb 2017 20:39 in reply to "RE[4]: No Linux"
kurkosdr Member since:
2011-04-11

It is no fantasy. It is freedom unless you believe fascism can be excused for money.

Fantasy like this?

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."

Godwin's law.

Also, tell me how receiving the source code of a piece of software is necessary to protect your freedom but receiving the source code of an FPGA implementation of the same functionality is not, my little freedom-fighter.

If you think receiving the source code of the FPGA implementation is necessary to protect your freedom too, explain why receiving the source code of the same functionality implemented on a chip isn't. Then do the same for same functionality implemented as wired-together NAND gates, then the same for functionality implemented using replays or even gears and electomechanical parts. When does access to the source code stop being a necessity to protect your freedom and how does it differ from the previous step? (when it comes to protecting your freedom) Explain.

Edited 2017-02-15 20:59 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: No Linux
by Brendan on Thu 16th Feb 2017 04:27 in reply to "RE[4]: No Linux"
Brendan Member since:
2005-11-16

Hi,

It is no fantasy. It is freedom unless you believe fascism can be excused for money.

Fantasy like this?

"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither."


Currently consumers are free to choose open source products (where nobody can be held accountable and any malicious attacker can easily obtain/modify the source to create a trojan) and are also free to choose proprietary products (where the manufacturer can be held accountable); and manufacturers are also free to provide open source and free to provide proprietary.

By insisting on open source you remove the ability to choose for both consumers and manufacturers; and destroy freedom.

- Brendan

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: No Linux
by oiaohm on Thu 16th Feb 2017 07:43 in reply to "RE[5]: No Linux"
oiaohm Member since:
2009-05-30

Brendan just because attacker does not have the source code does not mean they cannot embed a trojan.
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/resource_files/documentation/virus-wri...

Note the term "parasitic file viruses" So attackers can modify closed source binaries and add their own code with or without source. Malicious attackers have all kinds of toolkits to modify closed source programs.

Question is how do you audit against this form of modification.

Choosing open source products also does not mean no one is accountable in all cases. You pay for your libreoffice from like Collabora yes it open source office suite but since you paid them they are accountable for quality control of the binary they provide if something is wrong with it they are accountable.

Basically with Open Source if you pay no one for it you get equal quality insurance of nothing.

https://reproducible-builds.org/

Then we have items like Reproducible Builds that enable you to confirm exactly what source codes an application is based on. Include complier.

http://researchcenter.paloaltonetworks.com/2015/09/novel-malware-xc...

Remember the Xcodeghost malware where the developers IDE was infected.

This is the interesting point about Reproducible builds is in a case like Xcodeghost you have the build list and you can rebuild and find out if someone was infected without having to know what the infection was.

The word proprietary is a problem as there is such thing as proprietary open source. This is where you only release the source code to your paying customers. This is Collabora custom patched version of Libreoffice.

The term closed source or open source has meanings. Proprietary can be used with either.

With the list of parts a program is built from it can be next to impossible to audit if you have a security problem this was showing with the openssl Heartbleed Bug there are still people using closed source programs that are effected by the Heartbleed bug. Openssl license did not forbid it from being linked into a closed source program.

The reality here you chose a closed source program they don't tell you what parts they used to make it you could be running open source code with known exploits. So there is a very important reason why you need to look what is inside a program.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: No Linux
by Alfman on Thu 16th Feb 2017 13:16 in reply to "RE[5]: No Linux"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Brendan,

Currently consumers are free to choose open source products (where nobody can be held accountable and any malicious attacker can easily obtain/modify the source to create a trojan) and are also free to choose proprietary products (where the manufacturer can be held accountable); and manufacturers are also free to provide open source and free to provide proprietary.

By insisting on open source you remove the ability to choose for both consumers and manufacturers; and destroy freedom.


Freedom is, and has always been, relative. One person's freedom from oppression necessarily opposes another person's freedom to be oppressive. Some goes with corporations. A person's freedom to live without pollution opposes corporate freedom to pollute the environment. Employee freedoms to make their own healthcare decisions directly opposes employer freedoms to decide what providers and services are covered (extremely pertinent in the US right now).


This relativity is why both political parties claim to be the one for freedom at the same time, because in a legitimate sense they all want "freedom". It's just a matter of which freedoms are more important to them.

Personally, I will side with individual freedoms over corporate and government power almost every time. This puts me at odds with many republicans who want freedom from government power but often implicitly or explicitly want to strengthen corporate power. They'll say things like "government regulating us is wrong because it takes away our freedoms", which is absolutely true. And yet at the same time they overlook how corporations with unchecked power have taken away individual freedoms, which I value more than corporate freedoms.

That's why freedom is such a complicated issue.

Edited 2017-02-16 13:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2