Slashdot Mirror
Linux Appliances
Has anyone else noticed the proliferation of little Linux appliances? The latest couple that have been submitted are the PIA (which runs on a Celeron and looks to be available for $300). The other is from Indrema which is still vapor, but with things like a wireless keyboard and an SVHS port, it looks like a cool game box. Rumored release for it is November with a sub $500 price tag. These guys are getting close to what the NetWinders wanted to be a year ago ... What else does the Linux appliance future hold?
And BSD is divided into a kernel (made of descrete components), and a user land made of descrete components like the C library, various shells, command line utilities, etc., which can be easily replaced with other things.
Try again. Neither Linux nor BSD has an advantage in this area.
Well, yes FreeBSD at least provides a strong incentave to use what is provided, namely making it dirt simple to use that stuff. It doesn't make it any harder to use non-ports stuff then any other Unixlike OS. You can even use the FreeBSD package manager (which allows dependnecy tracking, and easy uninstall) with non-ports software. Of corse if you did, it would be a tiny step to make it "ports software" (namely a few text files).
But I have installed a lot of non-ports stuff on my FreeBSD box (mostly snapshots of newer-the-ports stuff). I don't see how it diffres from installing a "too-new-to-be-RPMed" package in Red Hat.
I would say no advantage between Linux or BSD in this area.
Yes, unless you master the mystical "rm" command, you will still have the tarballs after you "make clean" (rm /usr/ports/distfiles/* works pretty good). I do wonder why there isn't a cron job to clean old files out of /usr/ports/distfiles, but this is definitly someting almost anyone ought to be able to do on their own if they wish.
I think the general thery under BSD would be to compile a kernel, libc, and the other tools you need, put them in in a binary distrubution (see the "mfsroot" tools). Even without the package manager, if it is offensave or useless to you.
For examples look at PicoBSD, the 1.44MB distribution, or maybe at the BSD in Juniper's M-series $100k+ routers, or at the BSD in Ascend's GRF routers. Or IBM's ePIPE, or Whissle's InterJet. Or, hell, the X-Terminals I built in 1992.
Again, Linux and BSD are pretty much the same in this regard.
I don't see any reason why BSD is less "open source". It is "less GPL", and arguments can be made about whether that is good or bad. But it fits ESR's Open source Definition. I've had patches accepted by various BSD groups. I've had them rejected as well, and a better fix was taken in their place. I havn't made any Linux patches, but I hope (and expect!) the result would be the same, my well-written patches would be accepted, and my flimsy half-baked hacks would be rejected, and maybe done better by someone else.
As for the forking, I remain unconvinced that Red Hat, SUSE, Debian, Slackware, Corel, Mandrake, Trustix, Storm and Yellow Dog are really signifigantly more similar then FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD. Yes, all the linuxes are a kernel that Linux blessed, plus (sometimes) patches, and diffrent config options. But the userlands are all diffrent. Just like the BSD userlands. And as far as portability goes that is about as bad. Which is to say, a slightly-more-then-minor problem for source shipped programs, but not a major huge super big showstopper problem (in either BSD or Linux!)
Even if convinced, I'm not sure it would be a wholey good thing. If userland devirsity is a good thing, why is not a little kernel diversity? I really enjoy having multi-CPU support in FreeBSD. On the other hand, when I want a really secure system, I appreciate Theo's stance that the multi-CPU stuff hasn't been around long enough to be sure there are no security-related race conditions in it.
Here we have the first non-tie. BSD is better if you are intrested in deversity at all levels. Linux is better if you want basically the same kernel everwhere, but don't care about the userland being quite so similar.
Well, Linux does have Linus to keep everyone roughly on track. And that is a major big deal. BSD has nobody with the same leadership skills, who has stepped into the same sort of role.
On the other hand I wouldn't exactly say BSD has been left in the dust so far, and Linux has been around, what, nearly 10 years now?
Linux has gotten some really cool stuff recently (XFS, Riserfs being the most intresting), but BSD hasn't exactly been sitting still (look at the FFS soft update code, and the work-in-progress version of FFS that can do NetApp style snapshots, and live-filesystem-fscks). Linux seems to have gotten quite a leg up in fine-grained SMP, but with the recent Walnet Creak/FreeBSD/BSDI annoncment, I expect BSD can "catch up". After all Paul Borman allready did fine grain locking in Cray's TCP/IP stack, how hard could doing it twice be? :-)
My summary for this one would be "answer unclear, try agian next year". But I accept diffrent peple could judge this diffrently.
Why? It conforms to slashdot's bias. And was well written. I just happen to think it was also wrong. Now as to what happes to my karma...
P.S. you did forget to mention uLinux, the Linux that can run on non-MMU devices. I can see that being a big advantage in the embeded market. It's not something I would enjoy using, but still, it's a big deal if you can leave out a MMU and save $3 on a box that has a $50 price tag...
P.P.S. you'll note I didn't show anywhere I thought BSD was clearly better then Linux. That's because I'm not really sure there are any. There might be. There might not be. Or more to the point, each have their strengths, and weeknesses, and depending on what you need, one or the other might be better. You need to look close to decide, there is no easy answer (other then "not NT"...there, can I keep my karma? I bashed Microsoft)
Of course, WinCE (or whatever it's called now) has even fewer redeeming features. But for use as an appliance, I think the PalmOS has much more going for it than the combination of Linux+X+Gnu+KDE/GNOME (which would be the minimum of what you would need).
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
There is no trap so deadly as the trap you set for yourself
-Raymond Chandler, The Long Goodbye
Or merely cheap? If the latter, why not use Free/Net/OpenBSD?
It's all about infrastructure. Given that there are millions more Linux users than any of the others (or at least the last I knew; if someone else has figures it would be nice), it makes sense to use Linux. There are thousands of developers who are already familiar with writing code in and for Linux. Granted, you might not be able to port your favorite apps to an MP3 player, but more is definately better in this case.
Any Linux-based system gets free advertising in web sites frequented by people who would likely buy them (this article is proof of that).
It's kind of hard to argue against that
And companies know that having a Linux product, no matter how proprietary the hardware, API, etc might be, means a chance at a huge IPO.
Well, the fact that they use Linux means that it will be 'open', even if only in a small way. And that might very well be considered a benefit (to users and programmers) over BSD (which would not guarantee open source).
Maybe if the Yoppy has a successful launch things will change. I know it would change my impressions.
It certainly looks cool, but the there are enough palmtops out there already. It's hard to judge how well it will do with people who don't already use Linux.
~~~~~~~~~
auntfloyd
Imagine the interface:
#cut
#head
#hash
#kill
#man
#split
You can't handle the truth.
These devices need to be completely plug and play. Especially entertainment type devices. These need to be plugged in and turned on to work. Without that kind of ease of use, you can forget mainstream market. Make it as easy to setup as a receiver and you'll win customers.
Or merely cheap? If the latter, why not use Free/Net/OpenBSD?
My guess is the Linux == Big Bucks approach. Any Linux-based system gets free advertising in web sites frequented by people who would likely buy them (this article is proof of that). And companies know that having a Linux product, no matter how proprietary the hardware, API, etc might be, means a chance at a huge IPO.
Sorry guys. I'm not buying it. Have there been any consumer device running Linux that have sold well to non-Linux users? Both the TiVo and i-Opener seem to appeal to the slashdot crowd, which in the latter case, seems to be a bad sign for retailers. I just don't think that Slashdot readers can make up enough of a market to justify all this hype. Maybe if the Yoppy has a successful launch things will change. I know it would change my impressions.
Well let's just say I'd rather have my toilet kernel panic than have my car get a general protection fault.
I purchased a PIA a while back when they were still $350. It pretty much had exactly what I wanted for a living-room machine. It was bare bones, cheap, and had linux installed. Plus, the pic looked cool.
I'm currently happy with it - but wasn't when I opened the box...
The box is cube shaped - something not quite expected from the pics. This isn't a bad thing in my situation, because it sits in my living room, and most people think it is a subwoofer. So, that's a plus.
I pulled it out of the box and plugged it in. It uses Debian - Potato that they've modified a bit. The install instructions tell you how to plug everything in and log in - using username tux and a password which I don't remember. (Instructions are gone) Nowhere can the root password be found. For a newbie, this probably isn't a problem, but I personally didn't like the idea that 1) the company I purchased this machine from knew the only user name and password, and 2) I didn't have root to amend this situation.
But the box brought up a nice KDE desktop and it looked like anyone with a bit of computer experience (setting up dial-up networking under windows) could get on line relatively easily. I ordered mine with the ethernet card, and there were no instructions on how to hook the machine up to a local ethernet - so this option probably isn't for newbies.
What to do? Well, I put in a floppy and CD-ROM drive (both unneeded extras that aren't in the default shipping setup, and both of which I have extras laying around) and installed RH 6.1. This went fairly uneventful. The machine ran fine, but the 32mbs were just too little for me, so I put 64mb in there, and it's a nice living room desktop. Nothing fancy - just functional. MP3s, Internet, email.
For $300, it's not a bad setup - if you can put a little work behind it.
Linux - Because Mommy taught me to Share.