[HN Gopher] Comparing Fuchsia components and Linux containers [v...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Comparing Fuchsia components and Linux containers [video]
        
       Author : bestorworse
       Score  : 48 points
       Date   : 2025-03-03 21:06 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (fosdem.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (fosdem.org)
        
       | thornjm wrote:
       | Would appreciate anyone summarising the key differences here as I
       | can't watch the video at the moment.
        
         | warkdarrior wrote:
         | From the slide deck, it seems that Fuchsia components have the
         | following characteristics, which make them different from Linux
         | containers:
         | 
         | * Capability-centric design
         | 
         | * Single machine scope
         | 
         | * Tree of sandboxes
         | 
         | * Weaker inter-sandbox fault tolerance
         | 
         | * Standardized IPC system
         | 
         | * Model powers low-level OS features
         | 
         | * More detailed inputs/outputs from sandbox
         | 
         | * Configuration and building in separate files
         | 
         | * Sandboxes can encapsulate other sandboxes
        
           | jackpeterfletch wrote:
           | Is it similar to NixOS? Recent convert, would be interested
           | to read a comparison to fuchsia from someone in the know of
           | both.
           | 
           | If it's anywhere close Google might be sat on a huge
           | opportunity to tread the same ground while solving the
           | ergonomic issues that NixOS has. (I've never been more happy
           | with a distro, but I'll admit it took me months to crack)
        
         | __MatrixMan__ wrote:
         | It seems like Fuchsia components have less that they can assume
         | about their environment and require the caller to be more
         | explicit about what the component can do ("capabilities"). So
         | for instance a docker container might just decide--without the
         | user's say-so--that it wants to write a debug log file to
         | /foo/bar/baz and then it would be up to the user to go find
         | that file if they care. By contrast a Fuchsia component would
         | not by default have the capability to write anywhere, so the
         | user would have to pass in a handle that says "write your logs
         | to _this_ place " if they wanted logs to exist at all.
         | 
         | Linux folk are familiar with working with file descriptors--one
         | just writes to stdout and leaves it to the caller to decide
         | where that actually goes--so that was the example used but it
         | seems like this sort of thing is done with other resources too.
         | 
         | It looks like a design that limits the ways programs can be
         | surprising because they're not capable of doing anything that
         | they weren't explicitly asked to do. Like, (I'm extrapolating
         | here) they couldn't phone home all sneaky like because the only
         | way for them to be able to do that is for the caller to hand
         | them a phone.
         | 
         | It's got strong "dependency injection" vibes. I like it.
        
       | sigmonsays wrote:
       | What are the target use cases?
       | 
       | like mobile, servers, desktops, tablets?
        
         | bestorworse wrote:
         | It's technically a general-purpose OS. They had a workstation
         | build target sometime ago which was used for the desktop use-
         | case. They've shipped only for an IoT device so far (Google
         | Nest Hub).
         | 
         | Main goal would be to replace the core of AOSP considering the
         | main work that's being done, but it seems like Google isn't
         | convinced it's there yet.
        
           | dekhn wrote:
           | Hasn't this project been running for (checks notes) almost
           | ten years now? Isn't that enough runway to determine that
           | it's never going to replace AOSP at this rate?
        
       | bobajeff wrote:
       | I'm surprised this is still being worked on I was under the
       | impression that Google abandoned this.
       | 
       | Also, I would be interested to see a comparison to the wasm
       | component model as it also seems to want to do the same things
       | docker containers do.
        
         | mdhb wrote:
         | I think the lack of public information about their future plans
         | for the project combined with the "killed by Google" meme got
         | smashed together here and that is actually a really common
         | perception but also one that is completely made up out of thin
         | air.
         | 
         | It has been under heavy heavy development for many years now.
         | 
         | The fact that they are now starting to talk about it publicly
         | now is probably a sign that they are looking to move beyond
         | just IoT in the future.
         | 
         | For example, I know it's coming to Android (not necessarily as
         | a replacement but as a VM) and I know there is some plans
         | around consolidating ChromeOS and Android as well. I expect
         | that is also going to be another place we might see it before
         | too long.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-03 23:00 UTC)