> Fuchsia is not itself a consumer product, it's an open source project meant to be used to build a product. There is no application runtime for app developers to care about or UI for an end user to see. It would be strange to talk about things like mesa or the Linux kernel the way you are talking about fuchsia.
The difference is that those aren't entirely funded and developed by a single a for-profit entity that presumably expects some sort of net positive results from the effort spent on them in the future. To be clear, I don't consider anything I said in my previous comment to be a reflection of whether Fuschia is useful or whether it has any technical merits; my commentary is intended to be entirely scoped to Google's _intent_ for Fuchsia, which is what I read the part of the top-level comment that the parent comment I responded to directly to be discussing.
It's certainly possible that you're correct that Google has had plans for Fuschia this whole time and didn't discuss them because they didn't think it was relevant, but I guess I just don't find that convincing enough to change my mind about what I perceive to be going on.
> It shouldn't really matter where and how it gets used to the end consumer, only that when it is used there are tangible benefits (more stable, less security problems, etc). I don't really understand why folks are so keen to understand what internal plans for using it may or may not be.
This is probably just a matter of differing personalities. I don't think I have any explanation for why I'm curious about the topic, but I just am. I think you could make any number of similar statements about not understanding why people find certain things interesting (sports, video games, celebrity gossip, etc.), and you wouldn't be wrong or right; in my experience, it's not a personal choice to decide to find something interesting or not.
It just feels really cynical to make everything about motivations and incentives. There are plenty of great projects that Google has produced that provide great external value without an interesting internal plan beyond using it to make products better. Golang, flutter, bazel, Gerrit, etc. I understand there are also examples where it uses it with some other intentions, such as the case of tensorflow or kubernetes, but I'm not really sure why one would think fuchsia is closer to those than it is to the former set.
It's certainly a bit cynical to view for-profit companies as being solely profit motivated, but I don't think it's _that_ cynical. To me, it almost seems a bit naive to assume that a company like Google would be doing something for purely altruistic motives in the absence of any evidence one way or another. I'm not a subscriber to Friedman's view that corporations are _required_ to maximize profits for their shareholders, but I do think that they all inevitably end up there in the absence of mitigating factors.
Google's goal is to make good products. That will enable making money. A positive externality of trying to create a good product is creating technologies such as fuchsia. I don't think there is more to it beyond that. If it's more complicated than that, that would probably be news to most people working on Fuchsia.
The difference is that those aren't entirely funded and developed by a single a for-profit entity that presumably expects some sort of net positive results from the effort spent on them in the future. To be clear, I don't consider anything I said in my previous comment to be a reflection of whether Fuschia is useful or whether it has any technical merits; my commentary is intended to be entirely scoped to Google's _intent_ for Fuchsia, which is what I read the part of the top-level comment that the parent comment I responded to directly to be discussing.
It's certainly possible that you're correct that Google has had plans for Fuschia this whole time and didn't discuss them because they didn't think it was relevant, but I guess I just don't find that convincing enough to change my mind about what I perceive to be going on.
> It shouldn't really matter where and how it gets used to the end consumer, only that when it is used there are tangible benefits (more stable, less security problems, etc). I don't really understand why folks are so keen to understand what internal plans for using it may or may not be.
This is probably just a matter of differing personalities. I don't think I have any explanation for why I'm curious about the topic, but I just am. I think you could make any number of similar statements about not understanding why people find certain things interesting (sports, video games, celebrity gossip, etc.), and you wouldn't be wrong or right; in my experience, it's not a personal choice to decide to find something interesting or not.