Fuchsia's not a real thing and it's never going to be. You don't have to worry about it, it's just a make-work project for some people at google to feel cool.
Also, just as Chrome gave them a seat at the table of web standardisation, and a chance to try new ideas that didn't have to go through Mozilla's approval process, having a kernel of their own allows them to influence the OS design space in ways that are more aligned to their business goals, and without needing Linus's approval.
I think that someone at google built fuschia for the sake of building it. Their core business is still search, that's all Android is. If they launch their own fuschia based handset, people are unlikely to switch, OEMs are unlikely to switch. It's just a failed concept.
Last I checked (years ago), the userspace was implemented partially with musl, which reads
> 'musl, pronounced like the word "mussel", is an MIT-licensed implementation of the standard C library targetting the Linux syscall API,
Now, they're announcing running Linux programs on Fuchsia. Sure seems to me they're implementing a Unix-like system, even if their kernel was written from scratch.
The BSD world doesn't consider the userspace very separate from the kernel space, it's all part of a single system.
I would argue it's very much 'based on Unix' as soon as they start adding POSIX APIs. They're adding POSIX APIs because they work.
>Fuchsia does not require that programs use libc's ABI. Programs are free to use their own libc, or to do without.
As has been said in other comments, it's not much different from Wine or Linux emulation in FreeBSD.
But I’m afraid you have to someday accept that some of Big Tech is ‘using’ Linux as a stop gap to either create their own proprietary subsystems around it or a completely new OS compatible with Android for which they pretend ‘they care’ about Linux.
They only care if it’s only for their interests as we can evidently see for Fuchsia Android support and WSL2 GPU hardware acceleration support.
As far as Big Tech, EEE is a legitimate concern.
As far as Google, they've demonstrated countless times they're not to be trusted. If someone does business with them, they are being foolish. Fortunately, outside of search and chrome, they're not very competent, so they're not much of a threat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin...
As to your ad hominem in the end there, perhaps you should learn to engage with a level of respect presented to you by your peers, as it is that kind of discourse does little but put on display how your harsh words are little more than a projection. A better type of conservation is expected here.
Also Linux has millions of lines of legacy that people are having to maintain and work around This claim lacks concrete evidence. The number of lines of code that are here for legacy reasons is unknown but 1 million since like an exageration. More importantly, most of legacy code is confined (does not affect non legacy code). Of course linux because of backwards compatibility has many suboptimalities and developer productivity could be higher without it, but this argument isn't enough to outweight the order of magnitude difference in human resources (and expertise (hardware makers))
with all the knowledge learned All? I think most of the fuschia devs had no significant role in the Linux kernel codebase, it's not like they had hired Greg kroah-hartman. But essentially, fuschia has not access to useful knowledge that is only encoded as comments in the Linux kernel. And the knowledge about past mistakes is lost unless you spend years reading the linux mailing lists and commit history.
Hence the economics point still stand, of course a world without my ad hominem would be better, but such an hypothetical world is precluded for as long as a community like HN is unable to see such striking NIH issues.
As for the point about Fuchsia not having knowledge because they didn’t personally build Linux, that isn’t my point. What I’m saying is that they can look at what Linux (and other OS’s) have done and skip over lots of pathways that have been proven over the last three decades to be dead ends or inefficient, while mimicking those systems and conventions that are proven to work. I’m sorry but you seem to be going out of your way to ignore the fact that Fuchsia is, whether or not you want it to be or think it should or will be.