Talk:Fuchsia (operating system)

Inconsistency regarding target platform?

To quote: Fuchsia is designed to run on a variety of devices, including mobile phones and personal computers. and in the info box it says Marketing target IoT. Now these aren't completely exclusive, but I think it should be cleared up, because that sounds like "everything", in which case it maybe should be labeled a general purpose operating system. Also does Google really market the OS (yet)?--Athaba (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Pink + Purple == Fuchsia

Fuchsia is described by Google as "Pink + Purple == Fuchsia (a new Operating System)."

• Incidentally Pink was to be a completely new object-oriented OS implemented in C++ on top of a new microkernel, running a new GUI that nevertheless looked and felt like the existing Mac. In addition to running programs written for Pink, the system was to be capable of running existing Mac OS programs.
• Purple 2 is Apple's codename for the 1st gen iPhone (iOS 1)

add to article ? --Ne0 (talk) 09:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain how these two things are related to the subject of the article, except "Pink + Purple == Fuchsia (a new Operating System)?" How can we verify that the "Pink" and the "Purple" in that description is referring that two things? Emphrase - 💬 | 📝 12:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

"According to public statements by Fuchsia team members, Purple refers to Project Purple, which was the original iPhone project. And Pink is a reference to Taligent, Apple's failed experiment to replace its classic Mac OS with a new operating system."-IEEE.org article --Ne0 (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

SVG Logo?

For nearly every logo exists in the Wikipedia an SVG file.
But the Fuchsia Logo is an 200x200 pixel png file.
Possible it was taken from the github page of Fuchsia
https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror/
https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/12826430?v=3&s=200
https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/12826430
But the image on github have a different color.
It seems, that the first version in large size was published at
https://twitter.com/chrismckillop/status/841910948063506432
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C68Rg2MW0AAYnm-.png
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C68Rg2MW0AAYnm-.png:large
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.122.137 (talk) 17:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC) There you can also see, that it was created with an vector graphic program.
So an SVG-file of it is still missing.
It is possible to create with this
http://image.online-convert.com/convert-to-svg
from the png file an svg file. But if you zoon in, you see edges.
So the svg file have to be really drawn, not automatical generated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.125.14 (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Google Fuchsia Wiki

Possible it could be linked to or could be taken some informations from the Google Fuchsia Wiki
https://fuchsia.miraheze.org/wiki/Main_Page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.125.229 (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference for Fuchsia being an RTOS

Fuchsia is stated in this list but I cannot find any proof/reference that it can be really considered as an RTOS (having a μ-Kernel does not necessarily include this assumption).

1. A one-liner saying that Fuchsia is (or is not) a real-time OS should be added into the article + a reference for that.
2. A reference should be added in any way (since it is categorised with this tag).

^^^^^---- Fuchsia appears here

Holzkohlengrill (talk) 20:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Will you add a signature here above, User:Holzkohlengrill? --johayek (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! But pls do not remove others' contributions on discussion pages!--johayek (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Fuchsia is not an RTOS. The "RTOS" in the sidebar next to kernel, and the RTOS category bar at the bottom, are incorrect and should be removed. You can talk to the Google employees developing it here if you have questions. Habanero-tan (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

GUI removal

Fuchsia's GUI was removed, so this should be mentioned. In the first paragraph, it is mentioned that Fuchsia had a GUI added "In May 2017, Fuchsia was updated with a user interface" and I feel it should be mentioned this is no longer the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.86.237 (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Do not jump into such conclusions! I doubt that "[armadillo] Armadillo fainted!" implies what you are trying to tell us. --johayek (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Should Fuschia be labeled as the successor to Android

There appears to be enough evidence to support this beyond speculation https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/07/03/googles_fuchsia_os_flutters_into_view/ - Splinemath (talk) 16:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Should article name really be "Google Fuchsia", instead of "Fuchsia (operating system)"?

Yes I know the policy saying that official names aren't necessarily the best. But in this case I think the official name, which seems to be simply "Fuchsia", is the best. Here's why.

1. "Fuchsia (operating system)" would be consistent with, for example, Fedora (operating system), Haiku (operating system), Integrity (operating system), and Zephyr (operating system). They're not called "Red Hat Fedora", "Haiku Haiku" (yes there is a non-profit called Haiku, Inc. behind Haiku OS), "Green Hills Software Integrity", and "Linux Foundation Zephyr", are they?
2. "Fuchsia (operating system)" would also be consistent with MacBook Pro. It's not "Apple MacBook Pro", is it? Sure, you could say "we don't need to disambiguate there, because there's no alternative article called 'MacBook Pro' about something entirely different, unlike 'Fuchsia', where there are articles about the flower and the colour, so we need to disambiguate this Fuchsia article, so let's call it 'Google Fuchsia'". But I still think "Fuchsia (operating system)" would be better, for the same reason I think "Fedora (operating system)" is better than "Red Hat Fedora".
3. I bet people will say "but media outlets say 'Google Fuchsia'". To that I say: a couple do. But on the flip side, many refer to it as "Google's Fuchsia" instead. Which is different.
4. Look at the other criteria. Recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness. I would argue "Fuchsia (operating system)" is more recognisable (because it's the official name), more natural (because it's the official name), more precise (because it's the official name), and certainly "Fuchsia" is more concise than "Google Fuchsia" (yes the suffix "(operating system)" adds letters, but those letters are just a technicality, a disambiguation). At the very least, I don't believe "Google Fuchsia" holds a win in any of these categories over "Fuchsia (operating system)". And "Fuchsia (operating system) surely has a definite win in consistency (like Fedora (operating system), Haiku (operating system), and also like MacBook Pro instead of "Apple MacBook Pro").
5. The same discussion has happened on the talk page of Google Stadia. I still believe that article should be renamed "Stadia (service)", which is consistent with Steam (service) (not "Valve Steam"), Uplay (not "Ubisoft Uplay"), Xbox (console) (not "Microsoft Xbox"), Gamecube (not "Nintendo Gamecube"), PlayStation (not "Sony PlayStation"), etc.
6. I have noticed before someone use the counterexample of Microsoft Windows. But Microsoft have deliberately marketed Windows as "Microsoft Windows" over the years (the logo, even up to Windows XP, said "Microsoft Windows", and even today on the current Windows homepage on Microsoft's site it says "Follow Microsoft Windows" at the bottom), which makes it a more recognisable, natural, and precise name for that page. Whereas Fuchsia, as far as I can see, is not being marketed as "Google Fuchsia".
7. I think being the official name does count for something. Perhaps I just disagree with the policy – remember, ignore all rules. I still think Bill Clinton shouldn't necessarily be called "William Jefferson Clinton", but then he is referred to as "Bill Clinton" in the opening of the lede on the page about him, on the White House website. So he has been officially referred to as "Bill Clinton". Fuchsia hasn't been officially referred to as "Google Fuchsia". Also, would you really want to change the name of the article for Integrity (operating system) to "Green Hills Software Integrity"? No, that would sound ridiculous. Which is why Integrity (operating system) is better, and is why I think "Fuchsia (operating system)" is better than "Google Fuchsia" for the name of this article.

Okay sorry for the long rant. "Google Fuchsia" just seems wrong because a) it's not the official name, b) many sources don't use it (they say "Google's Fuchsia", or just "Fuchsia"), c) it's not consistent with Fedora (operating system) (not "Red Hat Fedora"), or even Steam (service) (not "Valve Steam"), or Xbox (console) (not "Microsoft Xbox"), or MacBook Pro (not "Apple MacBook Pro"). – CyclingFan1234 (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

agreed, there needs to be standardization here. Nobody5050 (talk) 04:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Support as per CyclingFan1234. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because Wikipedians tend to do a lot of really lame branding of articles for no reason. Even if an RS did use the phrase "Google Fuchsia", that's just their crude adjective-ized version of disambiguation of a common English word, and we have ours. And they actually mean "Google's Fuchsia". It's not a name. — Smuckola(talk) 22:50, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Fuchsia is no longer a Github Project

The statement 'The GitHub project suggests Fuchsia can run ...' might be misleading since the GitHub mirror of the project was recently removed. Earlier: https://web.archive.org/web/20190108025553/https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror Now: https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav256 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Could always change to suggest"ed" instead, right? Dasein (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Microkernel

Fuchsia is by definition a microkernel, not a hybrid kernel.

Why was that change made and accepted? 2601:405:4901:770:3DA6:AC36:FE20:5C0 (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Order of programming languages

This article should use the same convention as Linux, which is that programming languages are listed in rough order of importance. I don't particularly care whether C++ or Rust is listed first. rblv (talk) 11:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)