In software development, and especially Google’s development cycles, there’s usually a point where the developers “eat their own dogfood” or use their own work, before letting normal users try it. It seems that Google’s long-in-development Fuchsia OS may finally be reaching this “dogfood” stage.
And yet, we’re still no closer to what, exactly, Fuchsia is going to be for.
“we’re still no closer to what, exactly, Fuchsia is going to be for.”
One could’ve said the same for Unix, Linux, and MS-DOS at their geneses. Their futures were wide open, solutions in search of problems. Later incarnations found ways to blend their functionality, so that Windows and *nix can talk a somewhat similar language, via CIFS and Wine, Samba and Unix Services for Windows.
Then again, look at the ultimate purpose-built, consumer-oriented operating system: MacOS. Granted, it’s fully documented, the OS API is pretty transparent, and all that. But how many apps are written first for MacOS or an iThing, then ported to Windows or *nix? The ecosystem is heavily curated, to steer the devs away from anything without an Apple logo on it.
I won’t claim to know the future, so maybe Fuchsia will take off (like Linux), or find its niche (Haiku OS), or eventually sputter and stall (Multics). In any case, my hat is off to those Fuchsia devs, and other users, who take the plunge and start using it for regular production work.
(Yes, I’ve stated some opinions as facts, and my biases are familiar in this forum. But my real purpose for this comment is to stir the pot of discussion. Flames will be accepted and honored.)
I really liked this part: “Their futures were wide open, solutions in search of problems”. Of course that was at a time when hardly anyone used a computer for work, let alone for personal use. We were just transitioning from the “one mainframe for many users” to “a somewhat personal computer, shared by only a few users”. Then came the time we really got the personal computer and now we have several personal computers that sync some data and services through the cloud, yet we are still using the same operating systems and don’t really care about these operating systems anymore as long as they can run the actual programs that we care about. A big part of my work is now about choosing the best solution given a certain problem. A new system like Fuchsia sparks some excitement and hopefully it will provide a set of really modern solutions that makes live easier for work and private.
But you asked for flames, so here we go with a list of great (/s) software that was developed for MacOS and then ported to Windows : iTunes and Safari
Safari I’ll grant you. But iTunes was just a way to admit access to foreign Windows users, into Apple’s streaming media service.
(For further irony, take a look at the Apple/Apple Music, Beatles debacle.)
Thanks for the thoughtful response.
“One could’ve said the same for Unix, Linux, and MS-DOS at their geneses.”
No, one could not have said the same. They had clear uses in mind at the moment of creation.
Unix: general purpose operating system the anti multics. It was ultimately a super stealth project by some guys without a budget, that ultimately got a budget because of the ancillary text formatting utils they wrote: the ceo thought it was a good word processor.
Linux: Free Unix on x86, duh. Better than dos, or minux, free of ATT license nonsense.
MsDos: Umh An operating system for the IBM PC, obviously. Thats basically CP/M, but not owned by them.
You’re wrong.
UNIX was originally designed as an IDE (essentially) for writing applications. All its text editing tools were written to assist in writing code. The fact it evolved into a successful end-user OS was nothing more than a happy coincidence. At it’s outset, UNIX was designed as nothing more than a programming environment.
Linux was a hobby project by Linus Torvalds, as he didn’t like the licensing terms of MINIX, which was written by his mentor and professor, Andrew S. Tanenbaum. Originally a kernel written for 80386 machines, it eventually evolved and grew into the Linux we know today. Linus didn’t intend for it to become the leading UNIX-like system, it was just a happy coincidence.
MSDOS was originally called QDOS (Quick and Dirty OS), which was a CP/M “clone” for the 8086 processor. It was originally created by Seattle Computer Products. When SCP started marketing it, they called it 86-DOS, and soon Microsoft bought up 86-DOS and rebranded it MS-DOS and PC-DOS. This was to compete with CP/M for the IBM PC contract as the default OS.
I wouldn’t say any of these had a “clear” use case before they were shipped, with some changing their use cases during and after their creation. Linux and UNIX were never intended to be nearly as successful as they became, with both essentially being hobby projects at their genesis
That is still a solution in search of problems. When I got my first PC (286, DOS 4 or maybe 5) there really wasn’t a reason for me to have it other than “computers are cool, let’s see what I can do with them”. Literally the most reasonable thing I did with it was use WordPerfect to write a monthly piece for the sportsclubpaper and that was years after the first PC with DOS came on the market. Nowadays people want to use email/whatsapp so they get a smartphone, back then we got a computer and tried to find something cool with it to do
I thought Fuchsia is going to be the replacement for the open source components that Google cannot claim copyright for, while possibly providing fresh ideas for the GUI side too.
Eventually it will be used to attack Windows on the desktop, but Google is approaching this battle by building up from smaller to larger devices.
Google products fall into three categories, Fuchsia will be in one of these.
The categories are:
a) products that enhance Google’s sole revenue earning business which is advertising. This usually consists of products designed to shift people to a way of using their devices and ways of working that means Google can collect data on user activity.
b) Interesting, innovative, and often daring new products that are completely non-viable as a business and often only have a relatively short life span, but which make Google seem a cool and interesting place to work for the type of technically proficient workers who will make it’s advertising product work better.
c) products that attempt to add entirely non-advertising related, profitable and significant new products to Google’s business. All such products sooner or later (usually sooner) fail.
It’s gonna replace/substitute Android and ChromeOS.
It will also be a great OS as an alternative to Windows/MacOS unlike Linux which has failed more or less completely in this regard.
I think they have 2 objectives:
1) Replace the Linux kernel.
2) Get rid of Android runtime and sdk in the long run. At first it’ll be compatible but there’ll another preferred sdk. In the medium term it’ll an optional install and in the long term it won’t be officially supported.
jgfenix,
I expect another objective is to steer the technology away from java and oracle’s lawsuits. Android became a liability once US courts deemed APIs to be copyrightable, that changes everything. Incidentally the supreme court will see their case very soon, march 24th.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/2/13/21136492/oracle-google-supreme-court-copyright-java-response-trial
Fuchsia could be the only path forward for google should they loose to oracle at the supreme court.
I agree. That's the reason I said they want to get rid of the Android runtime and sdk.
We have literally no way of knowing anything about this. We don’t even know if there will be a “Fuchsia for the Desktop” so let’s wait a while with proclaiming the “Year of Fuchsia on the Desktop” or calling it a great desktop OS okay?
They say what it will probably be for right in the article: the Google Nest Hub or its successor.