Huawei claims HarmonyOS NEXT kernel is more efficient than Linux(notebookcheck.net)
notebookcheck.net
Huawei claims HarmonyOS NEXT kernel is more efficient than Linux
https://www.notebookcheck.net/Huawei-claims-HarmonyOS-NEXT-kernel-is-3x-more-efficient-than-Linux.795125.0.html
89 comments
Huawei is suspected of being a secret arm of the Chinese intelligence agencies. Of course they want the world to replace the Linux kernel with theirs.
Everybody who has a kernel would probably like to replace the linux kernel with theirs.
If you are from the USA, it's probably safer for you to be spied on by the Chinese government rather then the U.S. government... unless you plan to ever visit China.
96% of servers run on the Linux kernel - your banks, your military, your tech companies. With leaked secrets comes power. I'd rather it not siphon to the CCP. Not a fan of them. I know it's trendy to criticize America, and some of it's valid, but I'd prefer it over the CCP.
Is google not a secret arm of american intelligence agencies? They own half of the world's phones
No... lol.
The amount of people who believe this garbage is amazing. Huawei has literal PRC members on its board and the PRC funded it with billions of dollars. Do I have to remind you that Chinese state-sponsored hackers broke into Cisco and other western firms and intellectual property stolen from those companies ended up in Huawei products?
Do you have anything similar to show how the US government personally helped Google?
The amount of people who believe this garbage is amazing. Huawei has literal PRC members on its board and the PRC funded it with billions of dollars. Do I have to remind you that Chinese state-sponsored hackers broke into Cisco and other western firms and intellectual property stolen from those companies ended up in Huawei products?
Do you have anything similar to show how the US government personally helped Google?
While PRC steals IP from Cisco, generous NSA "gifts" Cisco with its own IP.
Given the transitive property, does that mean the NSA “gifts” IP to the PRC?
Edit: clearly it is wrong, terribly wrong, for Federal dollars to be used as such a gift to the PRC.
Edit: clearly it is wrong, terribly wrong, for Federal dollars to be used as such a gift to the PRC.
Source for this? Or you just pulled it from a Substack newsletter with 5 followers? What exactly does "gifting Cisco with its own IP" means? And please be generous with your conspiracy theory links.
NSA has developed a crap-ton of stuff they just pass on to opensource... Like SELinux which is in quite a few major distros these days.
Even US Naval Research labs developed the infamous TOR concept and toolkits. Yes, thats right... all the folks scouring the deep/dark web are literally using tools developed by the US government, lol.
Here's a ton more opensource stuff developed or contributed to by the NSA: https://code.nsa.gov/
Even US Naval Research labs developed the infamous TOR concept and toolkits. Yes, thats right... all the folks scouring the deep/dark web are literally using tools developed by the US government, lol.
Here's a ton more opensource stuff developed or contributed to by the NSA: https://code.nsa.gov/
No doubt what you say about the PRC is true. That said, I'd be damned surprised if Huawei's claims about HarmonyOS aren't true.
Likely claims about performance are exaggerated but with the hindsight of Linux and Android and then starting afresh even moderate performers ought to be able to do better.
Of course, I wouldn't trust HarmonyOS farther than I could throw it but that's nothing to do with performance.
Likely claims about performance are exaggerated but with the hindsight of Linux and Android and then starting afresh even moderate performers ought to be able to do better.
Of course, I wouldn't trust HarmonyOS farther than I could throw it but that's nothing to do with performance.
Whoa I didn't know this. Is there a documentary on this?
Literally one google search away: https://www.wired.com/story/us-hits-huawei-new-charges-trade...
> Do you have anything similar to show how the US government personally helped Google?
Ah you want to know about THE CONSPIRACY. O well, since you've asked.
The story is this!
Apparently the US gov has some 50000+ different entities, county's, schools etc each with many little jars of earmarked monies for little this and that's, few hundred million here, a billion or 2 there, they are quite a lot of jars, A LOT, but the money isn't just sitting there collecting dust. Much of the money has been invested. Government in that way is not just in bed with big business. They are 2 heads on the same body. The USA in that way is more communist than the ccp and cccp combined.
I'm not sure how true the story is, I haven't the time to read all the documents. It does make for a quality campfire story.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191001201707/https://cafr1.com...
Ah you want to know about THE CONSPIRACY. O well, since you've asked.
The story is this!
Apparently the US gov has some 50000+ different entities, county's, schools etc each with many little jars of earmarked monies for little this and that's, few hundred million here, a billion or 2 there, they are quite a lot of jars, A LOT, but the money isn't just sitting there collecting dust. Much of the money has been invested. Government in that way is not just in bed with big business. They are 2 heads on the same body. The USA in that way is more communist than the ccp and cccp combined.
I'm not sure how true the story is, I haven't the time to read all the documents. It does make for a quality campfire story.
https://web.archive.org/web/20191001201707/https://cafr1.com...
> Do I have to remind you that Chinese state-sponsored hackers broke into Cisco
Do i have to remind you that Cisco had remote accessible backdors, maybe planted by the US government ? /s
Why use double standards ? (Of course, as long as you don't have anything to hide, it is no problem)
Do i have to remind you that Cisco had remote accessible backdors, maybe planted by the US government ? /s
Why use double standards ? (Of course, as long as you don't have anything to hide, it is no problem)
Google phones all run on top of Linux kernel. Google doesn't make a kernel.
Well, technically they make Fuchsia, but that kernel only ever shipped on a sum total of 3 smart display devices.
Well, technically they make Fuchsia, but that kernel only ever shipped on a sum total of 3 smart display devices.
For all practical purposes, it's Android and the use of Android/google services that relevant in this context and not Linux.
a) Google owns about 5% of US phones and 0.5% globally.
b) Android is an open operating system which you would need to modify in order to implement undetectable data collection strategies. No evidence to date that the US agencies have modified the OS.
b) Android is an open operating system which you would need to modify in order to implement undetectable data collection strategies. No evidence to date that the US agencies have modified the OS.
c) It doesn't matter whether it runs unmodified AOSP if supply chain attacks are a thing at both a hardware and firmware level.
https://www.hackster.io/news/researchers-spot-silicon-level-...
People like to worry about big organizations, govs and corporations, but these threats are implemented by single human beings and can be exploited by single human beings who know of them.
https://www.hackster.io/news/researchers-spot-silicon-level-...
People like to worry about big organizations, govs and corporations, but these threats are implemented by single human beings and can be exploited by single human beings who know of them.
Google pretty much exploded 8n size around 2003 which, as luck would have it, coincided with a major US led invasion of oil rich country and major US companies being asked to spy on everyone.
There’s just a lot more connection between Chinese business and government, saying they’re “suspected” of this is a bit odd.
Funny how communism implies collective ownership of the means of production.
For anyone who is interested in the technical details, there is extensive developer documentation covering version 3 in English here:
https://www.harmonyos.com/en/
If you browse that you can see that the project has already moved quite a bit away from its Android Open Source roots.
The next version appears to be based on a new micro-kernel similarly to Google Fuchsia, ditch what remains of Android, support phone, tablet and desktop devices. And there is a rumour of a new programming language too.
https://www.harmonyos.com/en/
If you browse that you can see that the project has already moved quite a bit away from its Android Open Source roots.
The next version appears to be based on a new micro-kernel similarly to Google Fuchsia, ditch what remains of Android, support phone, tablet and desktop devices. And there is a rumour of a new programming language too.
Links to their Common Criteria EAL6+ certification for their microkernel:
https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/files/epfiles/nscib-cc-...
https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/files/epfiles/huawei_h_...
https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/files/epfiles/nscib-cc-...
https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/files/epfiles/huawei_h_...
That's still described as a kernel for the TEE (like OPTEE is), it doesn't look like a replacement for Linux, which runs in the REE.
It's just another modified Linux, like what they did to Android. Mobile phones in China will soon be forced to install this system. All your daily activities will be reported to the Big Brother. And it's not a joke.
Huawei phones, right? Not all phones?
It sounds a lot like Europe nowadays.
What are you talking about? No country in the EU forces you to do this. Can you take your political comments out of a tech forum please.
That's like comparing apples with cowbells. It's one thing to mandate a spyware component on all the phones in your country and it's another thing to conduct surveillance using court orders against criminal suspects.
Regarding their mobile OS, Huawei has previously made claims[0] several years ago that it would be "60% faster" than Android and that "one line of Harmony OS code can do 100 lines of Android code". Does anyone know if these claims ever panned out? That would inform how seriously I take any newer claims they make about performance.
[0]https://cellularnews.com/mobile-operating-systems/harmony-os...
[0]https://cellularnews.com/mobile-operating-systems/harmony-os...
I have to assume any time someone says a line of X can do 100 lines Y, there is a lot of abstraction they aren’t accounting for.
It is probably true, at least in one case:
if (current_data.scan(current_interests.sync())) { report_to_mothership(current_data); }
Memory efficient, it says. So I guess they got rid of 1/3 of the fields from task_struct? Amazing.
I wouldn’t blow it off that quickly. It probably took a bit of homework to think through what they could get rid of and what they couldn’t.
Of course, depending on how far-reaching the changes are, it might be a PITA to maintain a separate fork of the kernel.
Of course, depending on how far-reaching the changes are, it might be a PITA to maintain a separate fork of the kernel.
Can't imagine anyone relying on Chinese technology at this day and age. Most of the stuff is copycat of western tech.
Can we stop with this lazy and racist trope already?
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/patents-b...
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/patents-b...
It's not racist to be wary of relying on Chinese technology.
The country is a pretty vicious dictatorship without any of the norms e.g. independent judiciary, free media etc we would want. Which combined with the fact that the government routinely injects itself into how private businesses run means you can't depend on any consistent set of rules.
The country is a pretty vicious dictatorship without any of the norms e.g. independent judiciary, free media etc we would want. Which combined with the fact that the government routinely injects itself into how private businesses run means you can't depend on any consistent set of rules.
"The Costs of Unlawful US Detentions and Interrogations Post-9/11"
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/09/legacy-dark-side
"Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition"
https://www.justiceinitiative.org/publications/globalizing-t...
https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/01/09/legacy-dark-side
"Globalizing Torture: CIA Secret Detention and Extraordinary Rendition"
https://www.justiceinitiative.org/publications/globalizing-t...
“But what about this entirely unrelated thing”?
Also, why do so many trolls assume that anyone who criticise a second or third world country is automatically American?
I will say this as a non-American: the US are great for a lot of things and terrible for a lot of others. They have a lot to answer for, and what you mention is barely scratching the surface, as for any country with a bit of history. I still don’t want China to have any control over what happens here and I am still never buying anything from Huawei. Same for Russia, for that matter.
Also, why do so many trolls assume that anyone who criticise a second or third world country is automatically American?
I will say this as a non-American: the US are great for a lot of things and terrible for a lot of others. They have a lot to answer for, and what you mention is barely scratching the surface, as for any country with a bit of history. I still don’t want China to have any control over what happens here and I am still never buying anything from Huawei. Same for Russia, for that matter.
You buy plenty from both even if you don’t realize it.
The food you ate today has a high likelihood of being fertilized with Russian inputs.
The hardware you typed your comment up on was probably made in China.
The food you ate today has a high likelihood of being fertilized with Russian inputs.
The hardware you typed your comment up on was probably made in China.
> You buy plenty from both even if you don’t realize it.
You misread. I am not buying from Huawei (and a couple of others, not all Chinese, and not all for the same reasons).
> The food you ate today has a high likelihood of being fertilized with Russian inputs.
Importing raw material is strikingly unlike importing cutting edge telecommunication devices. Thanks for making that point, I thought it was obvious.
> The hardware you typed your comment up on was probably made in China.
Indeed it is. You are very smart.
You misread. I am not buying from Huawei (and a couple of others, not all Chinese, and not all for the same reasons).
> The food you ate today has a high likelihood of being fertilized with Russian inputs.
Importing raw material is strikingly unlike importing cutting edge telecommunication devices. Thanks for making that point, I thought it was obvious.
> The hardware you typed your comment up on was probably made in China.
Indeed it is. You are very smart.
[deleted]
And China detains and tortures people as well.
Not sure what that has to do with technology.
Not sure what that has to do with technology.
[deleted]
I think the link to patents implies a response to the copycat part. Though, while they certainly do more than just copy, it does seem to be more prevalent there despite the absolute number of patents issued.
Perhaps, but very few people are wary of Chinese technology, they just virtue signal for particular examples like Huawei.
I was specifically replying the the "copycat" comment, not the "reliance' one.
Since these patents are granted by the Chinese government, they can generate an arbitrary number of them to seem like they are innovating.
A better metric would be how many other countries and non-Chinese companies are finding those patents useful and relying on them. In that metric, you will likely find them much further from the number 1 position.
A better metric would be how many other countries and non-Chinese companies are finding those patents useful and relying on them. In that metric, you will likely find them much further from the number 1 position.
Please explain in what way it is racist to say that China is known for copying western technology. You may not agree with the statement but that does not make it racist, just untrue in your opinion.
The mere fact that something does not fit your desired narrative does not imply it is racist or some other form of -ist. It just makes it not fit your desired narrative. Were I Chinese I'd think '白左' on reading your post.
The mere fact that something does not fit your desired narrative does not imply it is racist or some other form of -ist. It just makes it not fit your desired narrative. Were I Chinese I'd think '白左' on reading your post.
Believe it or not, but the Chinese government could grant a patent that had technology stolen / copied from other countries. Also, Chinese isn't a race so it isn't racist. It is anti-China / nationalist at worst.
The anti-Chinese (and anti-Russian, for that matter) are Euro-centric and rooted in thousands of years of “drone hordes from the East” mentality.
Do you think 85 years ago when the British and French were anti-German that they were being racist? Or perhaps they just didn't like people from a certain nation?
russia is actively murdering it's neighbors. There is no need trying to paint this as something deeper.
Eh, that user is just blindly aligned with the notion that any criticism of a particular nation(s) or policy is rooted in racism.
They're very much not interested in addressing the issue of how Russia in particular enjoys fighting wars and thus a reflection of their culture and beliefs towards fellow human beings.
They're very much not interested in addressing the issue of how Russia in particular enjoys fighting wars and thus a reflection of their culture and beliefs towards fellow human beings.
And which nation are you lucky enough to be from that doesn’t have a history of waging unjust wars?
[deleted]
> Can't imagine anyone relying on Chinese technology at this day and age. Most of the stuff is copycat of western tech.
That arrogant attitude does no one any good. All it will to is cause the Chinese to be underestimated and allow them to take others by surprise.
That arrogant attitude does no one any good. All it will to is cause the Chinese to be underestimated and allow them to take others by surprise.
Let's face it, most of the West already relies heavily on Chinese technology—mobile phones, electronic tech and much other stuff.
If that's a worry now then why didn't we think of it 40+ years ago when we started trading with China?
Even back then it was obvious to Blind Freddy that we'd be in the current situation sooner or later.
If that's a worry now then why didn't we think of it 40+ years ago when we started trading with China?
Even back then it was obvious to Blind Freddy that we'd be in the current situation sooner or later.
> If that's a worry now then why didn't we think of it 40+ years ago when we started trading with China?
> Even back then it was obvious to Blind Freddy that we'd be in the current situation sooner or later.
Easy: ideological delusions. I don't think the US really started trading heavily with China until the 90s, but definitely by that point it was suffering from a post-Cold-War high and the consensus was that capitalism is a Trojan horse for democracy, so economic liberalization was confidently predicted to bring political liberalization.
Few, if anyone, expected the CCP to be able to tame the internet and the forces pushing for political liberalization, especially so fully and completely.
I'm guessing if you said it was "obvious ... we'd be in the current situation sooner or later," you be viewed as a crank or at least be excluded from the groups actually making decisions.
> Even back then it was obvious to Blind Freddy that we'd be in the current situation sooner or later.
Easy: ideological delusions. I don't think the US really started trading heavily with China until the 90s, but definitely by that point it was suffering from a post-Cold-War high and the consensus was that capitalism is a Trojan horse for democracy, so economic liberalization was confidently predicted to bring political liberalization.
Few, if anyone, expected the CCP to be able to tame the internet and the forces pushing for political liberalization, especially so fully and completely.
I'm guessing if you said it was "obvious ... we'd be in the current situation sooner or later," you be viewed as a crank or at least be excluded from the groups actually making decisions.
"Easy: ideological delusions."
First, I'm in Australia which is nearly in China's backyard so here perceptions about China (and similarly with Japan before WWII) were quite different to that of US citizens. People here have always been acutely aware that the country with the world's largest population was just north of them. It has always tempered our thinking.
When I was a teenager in the 1960s China's population was approximately 64 times that of Australia, that ratio has now shortened somewhat to 53 times. With such an enormous population disparity Australians have always been aware that they couldn't avoid dealing with China even though they would have preferred the old order and kept on trading with the UK, US and to a lesser extent Europe.
In the 1960s essentially the only things Australia imported from China were fireworks and a few supplies for Chinese restaurants, now China is our biggest trading partner and our economy would be completely ruined if China exercised its muscles and stopped trading with us. Recently, we saw the potential for damage to our economy when after a diplomatic spat China put tariffs on just some of our exports, it caused considerable economic hardship here. Right, that was just tariffs! If China ever imposed a total trade ban then it would bring this country to its knees. Strategically, this is a very unsatisfactory situation to be in especially given the current tensions. In effect, our trading situation with China is now the antithesis of what it was in the 1960s.
"I'm guessing if you said it was "obvious ... we'd be in the current situation sooner or later," you be viewed as a crank or at least be excluded from the groups actually making decisions."
Well, crank or not the fact is that back in the 1960s it was very obvious to many here that China would be a world power by about 2000 and that its newly-found economic position would change the world. This was viewed as a potentially serious problem we'd have to adjust to given that the Chinese Government was communist and that it ran a command economy. Remember, this was at the height of the Cold War of which China was very much part.
I remember my father lecturing me on multiple occasions about this country's inevitable involvement with China whilst I was still at high school and he was far from being alone. In fact, I took more than a casual interest in the subject and took geography honors at school, my specially was geography of Shanghai and the effect of the Yangtze River Delta on its population. Later, I studied political philosophy at uni which gave me further insights.
Incidentally, my geography teacher had been working in Shanghai before the War and had become a prisoner of the Japanese after its invasion of China so I couldn't have had a better teacher. He was one of the best teachers I've ever had.
I would add that my father's comments about China weren't negative as he was pro China and closely followed its industrialization. As with many of us here, he believed it was inevitable that we would be closely linked to China and what really mattered was how we went about it. This was an important consideration in the 1960s and early '70s during the Cold War as political tensions ran high before Kissinger's '71 visit to China followed shortly thereafter by Nixon.
What wasn't anticipated in the 1960s was Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms and the Chinese Communist Party approval thereof in 1978. Unfortunately Australia did not handle its engagement and economic relationship with China well after it opened up. There were many reasons for this including opportunistic investment/engagement in China without due consideration of Australia's strategic interests. We closed down huge swathes of our industries and either bought product from China or had goods made there. This was further complicated by the free trade movements during the Reagan Thatcher era (here, I've only just touched the surface).
In hindsight it's also now clear that the US could have handled its engagement with China much better than it did.
That said, I'd reiterate that by the mid 1960s there was no doubt that we had anticipated many of the problems and issues that we were likely to encounter engaging with China, many of which have actually come to pass. What wasn't clear was the minutiae, nor did we expect China's rapid move to a socialist style market economy.
First, I'm in Australia which is nearly in China's backyard so here perceptions about China (and similarly with Japan before WWII) were quite different to that of US citizens. People here have always been acutely aware that the country with the world's largest population was just north of them. It has always tempered our thinking.
When I was a teenager in the 1960s China's population was approximately 64 times that of Australia, that ratio has now shortened somewhat to 53 times. With such an enormous population disparity Australians have always been aware that they couldn't avoid dealing with China even though they would have preferred the old order and kept on trading with the UK, US and to a lesser extent Europe.
In the 1960s essentially the only things Australia imported from China were fireworks and a few supplies for Chinese restaurants, now China is our biggest trading partner and our economy would be completely ruined if China exercised its muscles and stopped trading with us. Recently, we saw the potential for damage to our economy when after a diplomatic spat China put tariffs on just some of our exports, it caused considerable economic hardship here. Right, that was just tariffs! If China ever imposed a total trade ban then it would bring this country to its knees. Strategically, this is a very unsatisfactory situation to be in especially given the current tensions. In effect, our trading situation with China is now the antithesis of what it was in the 1960s.
"I'm guessing if you said it was "obvious ... we'd be in the current situation sooner or later," you be viewed as a crank or at least be excluded from the groups actually making decisions."
Well, crank or not the fact is that back in the 1960s it was very obvious to many here that China would be a world power by about 2000 and that its newly-found economic position would change the world. This was viewed as a potentially serious problem we'd have to adjust to given that the Chinese Government was communist and that it ran a command economy. Remember, this was at the height of the Cold War of which China was very much part.
I remember my father lecturing me on multiple occasions about this country's inevitable involvement with China whilst I was still at high school and he was far from being alone. In fact, I took more than a casual interest in the subject and took geography honors at school, my specially was geography of Shanghai and the effect of the Yangtze River Delta on its population. Later, I studied political philosophy at uni which gave me further insights.
Incidentally, my geography teacher had been working in Shanghai before the War and had become a prisoner of the Japanese after its invasion of China so I couldn't have had a better teacher. He was one of the best teachers I've ever had.
I would add that my father's comments about China weren't negative as he was pro China and closely followed its industrialization. As with many of us here, he believed it was inevitable that we would be closely linked to China and what really mattered was how we went about it. This was an important consideration in the 1960s and early '70s during the Cold War as political tensions ran high before Kissinger's '71 visit to China followed shortly thereafter by Nixon.
What wasn't anticipated in the 1960s was Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms and the Chinese Communist Party approval thereof in 1978. Unfortunately Australia did not handle its engagement and economic relationship with China well after it opened up. There were many reasons for this including opportunistic investment/engagement in China without due consideration of Australia's strategic interests. We closed down huge swathes of our industries and either bought product from China or had goods made there. This was further complicated by the free trade movements during the Reagan Thatcher era (here, I've only just touched the surface).
In hindsight it's also now clear that the US could have handled its engagement with China much better than it did.
That said, I'd reiterate that by the mid 1960s there was no doubt that we had anticipated many of the problems and issues that we were likely to encounter engaging with China, many of which have actually come to pass. What wasn't clear was the minutiae, nor did we expect China's rapid move to a socialist style market economy.
"Most of the stuff is copycat of western tech."
Once that was the situation, and no doubt it's still so for a few things but it won't be for much longer.
I'd put hard money on that.
Once that was the situation, and no doubt it's still so for a few things but it won't be for much longer.
I'd put hard money on that.
[deleted]
Kind of a nonsense headline.
The claim is that it is 3x more efficient with memory than Linux. What it actually means is that it has a kernel that is a fraction of the size of the Linux kernel. At the core of HarmonyOS is LiteOS, which has a tiny real-time kernel that is, indeed, much smaller than the Linux kernel. This is hardly the first time we've seen a design with a real-time kernel that hosts a Linux runtime on top. RTLinux/Wind River Linux have the same design.
The claim is that it is 3x more efficient with memory than Linux. What it actually means is that it has a kernel that is a fraction of the size of the Linux kernel. At the core of HarmonyOS is LiteOS, which has a tiny real-time kernel that is, indeed, much smaller than the Linux kernel. This is hardly the first time we've seen a design with a real-time kernel that hosts a Linux runtime on top. RTLinux/Wind River Linux have the same design.
I thought HarmonyOS used the Linux kernel for larger devices, and LiteOS was more for smaller IoT, wearables, etc?
They call it "multikernel", but it's really more the standard "microkernel hosting kernels" model. On small devices, they don't include the Linux support, but it supports a Linux Kernel Abstraction Layer that in turn hosts a modified ASOP. You can find similar examples of this all across the real-time OS space. Other examples include QNX and the NT Kernel, which traditionally hosted the Windows "personality".
HarmonyOS (pre NEXT) has some really interesting ideas in it, where the software architecture is backed by a distributed bus DSoftBus. So apps and appliances kind of semi-seamlessly mesh across systems in interesting ways.
I'd love to see & learn more & get real hands-on experience with HarmonyOS.
Alas the story was already flakey. You can sign up for a free Huawei developer account, by sending them your passport and bank account information... Which seems like a tall ask to me for a company anywhere on this planet, & this is low on the list of companies I feel I can trust.
They released a ton of open source code as OpenHarmony in September 2020, and that's been iterating along. China literally made its first open source software foundation to support the effort & carry it forward: OpenAtom, with all the big names lined up to support it. There's computers, medical, vehicle, and energy applications of the tech, mostly under development or starting to be released. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAtom_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenHarmony
Hypothetically we can go download the oodles of source ourselves & play with OpenHarmony. But I haven't found any guides or documentation to show how it's done. Progress seems steady on; 4.1 is due soon. https://gitee.com/openharmony
HarmonyOS NEXT sounds like it is an interesting real series of next steps towards their homegrown imagined world. But it also is very unclear to me what the future relation is between Huawei's HarmonOS NEXT and OpenHarmony is going to look like. So far it seems like OpenHarmony is kind of being left behind, and that Huawei is building more or less a better newer commercial OS that scales up and down in size, that maybe is somewhat intercompatible with existing OpenHarmony, but which is not generally available like OpenHarmony was. I could be totally wrong, maybe the open source will continue, but I've seen this NEXT news more with alarm & concern than hope.
I do wish the west was paying a little more attention, and assessing Harmony on Harmony's ground, versus endlessly bickering about Linux and Android.
Ark UI is a vaguely interesting extension to typescript for making UIs; I see a QT :: C++ vibe happening again. DSoftBus is conceptually super interesting as a ubiquitous & pervasive computing platform that's light-years past Matter's first filing steps; rather than carefully cobbled together Matter devices from a huge SDK and elaborate schemas & protocols, there's a connected object bus that promises to kind of just work & integrate elegantly with everyday development of everything you do.
There's interesting stuff here, and frankly OSes are in a long boring doldrums of not doing much. It's a pity that just getting started is so unclear, so hard. And it'll be interesting to see how OlenAtom/OpenHarmony gets treated going forwards, whether the fellowship is broken or whether these companies can help each other succeed together.
I'd love to see & learn more & get real hands-on experience with HarmonyOS.
Alas the story was already flakey. You can sign up for a free Huawei developer account, by sending them your passport and bank account information... Which seems like a tall ask to me for a company anywhere on this planet, & this is low on the list of companies I feel I can trust.
They released a ton of open source code as OpenHarmony in September 2020, and that's been iterating along. China literally made its first open source software foundation to support the effort & carry it forward: OpenAtom, with all the big names lined up to support it. There's computers, medical, vehicle, and energy applications of the tech, mostly under development or starting to be released. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAtom_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenHarmony
Hypothetically we can go download the oodles of source ourselves & play with OpenHarmony. But I haven't found any guides or documentation to show how it's done. Progress seems steady on; 4.1 is due soon. https://gitee.com/openharmony
HarmonyOS NEXT sounds like it is an interesting real series of next steps towards their homegrown imagined world. But it also is very unclear to me what the future relation is between Huawei's HarmonOS NEXT and OpenHarmony is going to look like. So far it seems like OpenHarmony is kind of being left behind, and that Huawei is building more or less a better newer commercial OS that scales up and down in size, that maybe is somewhat intercompatible with existing OpenHarmony, but which is not generally available like OpenHarmony was. I could be totally wrong, maybe the open source will continue, but I've seen this NEXT news more with alarm & concern than hope.
I do wish the west was paying a little more attention, and assessing Harmony on Harmony's ground, versus endlessly bickering about Linux and Android.
Ark UI is a vaguely interesting extension to typescript for making UIs; I see a QT :: C++ vibe happening again. DSoftBus is conceptually super interesting as a ubiquitous & pervasive computing platform that's light-years past Matter's first filing steps; rather than carefully cobbled together Matter devices from a huge SDK and elaborate schemas & protocols, there's a connected object bus that promises to kind of just work & integrate elegantly with everyday development of everything you do.
There's interesting stuff here, and frankly OSes are in a long boring doldrums of not doing much. It's a pity that just getting started is so unclear, so hard. And it'll be interesting to see how OlenAtom/OpenHarmony gets treated going forwards, whether the fellowship is broken or whether these companies can help each other succeed together.
As 'independent' as the original HarmonyOS?
I mean that was claimed by Huawei to be a completely new OS and was exposed to be just an android skin and nothing more: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/harmonyos-hands-on-h...
I mean, perhaps this time it is true. But they don't have a great track record in this regard.
Also, how do they manage the app gap? Or is it still compatible with android and then, how do they manage this without a ton of translation layers?
I mean that was claimed by Huawei to be a completely new OS and was exposed to be just an android skin and nothing more: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/02/harmonyos-hands-on-h...
I mean, perhaps this time it is true. But they don't have a great track record in this regard.
Also, how do they manage the app gap? Or is it still compatible with android and then, how do they manage this without a ton of translation layers?
The new version will not be compatible with Android. Quote:
Currently, over 200 HarmonyOS native applications are in development, covering a wide range of commonly used apps. More than half of China’s Top-200 mobile apps have initiated the development of HarmonyOS native applications. The HarmonyOS developer community is growing rapidly, with over 10,000 new registrations daily.
https://sparrowsnews.com/2024/01/18/huawei-harmonyos-next-of...
Currently, over 200 HarmonyOS native applications are in development, covering a wide range of commonly used apps. More than half of China’s Top-200 mobile apps have initiated the development of HarmonyOS native applications. The HarmonyOS developer community is growing rapidly, with over 10,000 new registrations daily.
https://sparrowsnews.com/2024/01/18/huawei-harmonyos-next-of...
Ah but then how do they fix the app gap (as was my original question)
I mean 200 apps are not a lot. Microsoft had a lot more when they cancelled Windows phone.
This basically makes it a non starter outside of China.
Even there, more than half of the top-200? I doubt that will fly even there. Who wants to buy a phone that can do only half the stuff of everyone else's?
I mean 200 apps are not a lot. Microsoft had a lot more when they cancelled Windows phone.
This basically makes it a non starter outside of China.
Even there, more than half of the top-200? I doubt that will fly even there. Who wants to buy a phone that can do only half the stuff of everyone else's?
I think their goal is to slowly migrate their entire stack to something China has full control of, independent of outside influence. That's why it started as a smart underlying layer approach to run Android (something the above article seems to have completely misunderstood) and is now having the Android compatibility layer moved out in this upcoming release. Much easier than trying to replace the world in one shot. From that perspective, it doesn't much matter what a phone with software from the West can do - this is the only phone China has full self reliance and control on.
It was not a compatibility layer though. It was just Android, as Ars Technica showed. Maybe it became so in later versions but it started as just any other Android skin like "ColorOS" or "EMUI"
But yeah if it's only meant for their internal market it could work, as the CCP has the power to force everyone to make apps for it. They'll have to ban sales of foreign brands though.
But yeah if it's only meant for their internal market it could work, as the CCP has the power to force everyone to make apps for it. They'll have to ban sales of foreign brands though.
It was, Ars just missed where the compatibility layer was as you couldn't see it by booting a smartphone and seeing what it said the kernel was. Harmony splits things up into layers and one thing it provides at the base layer is a KAL to allow for multiple kernels for different devices. The point of allowing swapping the kernel layer for different device types to have different device compatibilities. In the case of phones it meant still being able to load Linux to run an AOSP base and in the case of smartwatches or IoT devices running the LiteOS kernel without AOSP on top. The Huawei specific SDKs target interfaces available in both environments so if you make an app in that ecosystem it'd work on all devices even though the smartphone versions were using Linux+AOSP (because it wasn't ready to replace the entire smartphone stack yet, just the simpler use cases). HarmonyOS NEXT is the version that replaces the whole shebang on all devices.
One could simply look at what you see poking around on a smartphone only and conclude that means they are finally doing something different but that explanation highlights the hole from the Ars article - it does nothing to explain other devices or the migration plan to HarmonyOS Next. At the same time it's probably fair to say Ars's other points in the article about Huawei's marketing being a little overdone, their documentation lacking, and the way you registered for it being crazy were still more than valid. They just missed the point of why HarmonyOS was being considered a separate OS due to the limited way they investigated it.
One could simply look at what you see poking around on a smartphone only and conclude that means they are finally doing something different but that explanation highlights the hole from the Ars article - it does nothing to explain other devices or the migration plan to HarmonyOS Next. At the same time it's probably fair to say Ars's other points in the article about Huawei's marketing being a little overdone, their documentation lacking, and the way you registered for it being crazy were still more than valid. They just missed the point of why HarmonyOS was being considered a separate OS due to the limited way they investigated it.
Aha, I didn't know this, I hadn't heard of this point until now. Thank you, I will look into it more.
I'm surprised Ars didn't follow up on this and amend the article. Normally they're pretty accurate.
I'm surprised Ars didn't follow up on this and amend the article. Normally they're pretty accurate.
Microsoft is probably not a good precedent. China an Huawei have far more money, power, and incentive to push a new phone OS than Microsoft ever had.
China is a big enough market that it's quite possible that internationalized versions of their indigenous apps could become popular in their own right, and start to make headway in foreign markets. Maybe not in Europe or the US, but perhaps Africa, Latin American, and Asia.
China is a big enough market that it's quite possible that internationalized versions of their indigenous apps could become popular in their own right, and start to make headway in foreign markets. Maybe not in Europe or the US, but perhaps Africa, Latin American, and Asia.
> Who wants to buy a phone that can do only half the stuff of everyone else's
At some point there won't be a choice.
The real issue will be whether apps like WeChat will be made available on iOS/Android or whether the CCP will force customers abroad to buy Chinese phones in order to use them. That would have major security implications.
At some point there won't be a choice.
The real issue will be whether apps like WeChat will be made available on iOS/Android or whether the CCP will force customers abroad to buy Chinese phones in order to use them. That would have major security implications.
"At some point there won't be a choice."
Well, that's the situation with Google isn't it? Every new iteration of Android is more proprietary than the previous one thus more difficult to tailor to one's needs.
Leaving aside all Google's spyware issues, since Android 10 just doing basic things on Android such as copying files to my SD card has become essentially impossible. Google's scoped storage is a disaster—designed in the name of security but in practice it's another step by Google to reign in control of the OS. At this rate, it won't be long before users have no control whatsoever over their phones.
Well, that's the situation with Google isn't it? Every new iteration of Android is more proprietary than the previous one thus more difficult to tailor to one's needs.
Leaving aside all Google's spyware issues, since Android 10 just doing basic things on Android such as copying files to my SD card has become essentially impossible. Google's scoped storage is a disaster—designed in the name of security but in practice it's another step by Google to reign in control of the OS. At this rate, it won't be long before users have no control whatsoever over their phones.
But WeChat is already available on iOS and Android. Or do you mean it would be removed?
I wonder if that really matters outside of China though. I don't think anyone outside of China would ever use those.
I wonder if that really matters outside of China though. I don't think anyone outside of China would ever use those.
Tons of people outside of China use WeChat, though they're typically expat Chinese people. Those are people the Chinese government is probably very interested in monitoring.
The naming itself is suspicious to me as well, "Harmony NEXT" kind of sounds like "this time for real"
AtlasBarfed(1)
Very light on the details. At least with TempleOS, Terry would walk through why he made certain design decisions. This “OS” seems like a marketing gimmick.
But TempleOS is hardly HarmonyOS or Android both in performance and on an economic scale. There is essentially no comparison.