Slashdot Mirror
Enlist, Boot Up, Change Fewer Batteries
BigBragger writes: "Upside has an article declaring that ViA will begin using the Crusoe chip in the wearable computers it currently designs for the US Army. Crusoe will debut in the next version. There's hope for a Transmeta PC yet, but will I have to enlist to get one?"
WillSeattle points to C|Net's story on the same thing and adds harshly:
"Soldier, when was the last time you compiled this kernel! You are a disgrace to the uniform! Give me 10,000 lines of code, pronto!"
Oh, there was a "toilet seat" bru-ha-ha a few years back. Which ignored that it was "toilet seat" for a combat aircraft; a Home Depot toilet seat wouldn't have fit. And it was a prototype; when production was set up, each was of course much cheaper than the the first hand-tooled one.
Similarly, there was a "hammer" controversey. To be used on reactive metals. Using an ordinary steel hammer from a Home Depot would have been a very good way of causing thousands of dollars of damage to high-performance aircraft and risking serious injury to the person using the hammer.
So, ignorant deficit-reduction organizations horrified by the Reagan defense buildup did an outside examination of a military procurement bugdet and found those items, and then sent press releases about these "$$$$ for hammers and toilet seats" to ignorant reporters who contacted ignorant PR people in the DoD PR offices who couldn't explain things. So the reporters ran their stories without having talked to anyone who knew what they were talking about, and Americans were told that the military pays hundreds of dollars for toilet seats.
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
I can see it now, distro wars between the services.
Navy: Windows. Yeah, unfair, but it's huge, it's a battleship, it's slow as hell.
Army: Embedded Linux. Clean, mean, and green, stripped down and ready to fight.
Marines: Embedded BSD. Secure but limber. Fewer apps.
Air Force: Windows 2000. They crash and burn.
Green Berets: Since they're fazed out, Windows 98. Buggy as hell, but it usually works when it's not drunk.
Will in Seattle
Sargent: This is the chip for me and you.
Troops: This is the chip for me and you.
Sargent: And its software is GNU.
Troops: And its software is GNU.
Sargent: And if the OS code should crash.
Troops: And if the OS code should crash.
Sargent: Recompile and kick some ass.
Troops: Recompile and kick some ass.
Sargent: We all code for Uncle Sam.
Troops: We all code for Uncle Sam.
Sargent: And our army runs a WAN.
Troops: And our army runs a WAN.
Sargent: Sound off.
Troops: Zero, One.
Sargent: Sound off.
Troops: Two, Three.
--GrouchoMarx
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
They have already beaten the VLIW problem.
:)
That the transmeta chip has some vliwish elements in it is merely an implementation detail. 95% of software will use the code morphing layer, and not know what chip is underneath.
This is 1) good 2) important.
When you compile natively to a VLIW, you completely lose all binary compatability. If a pipeline length changes, if the number of EU's change, if _anything_ about the implementation of the processor changes - your binaries break. All of them.
Once intel moves to a VLIW architecture, evolutionary changes from 486->pentium, pentium->ppro are no longer possible. Each of these represented new EUs being added or pipeline changes.
The transmeta approach is different. Instead of breaking all the software for a new transmeta chip, you just change hte code morphing layer for the underlying physical processor. THe user-level (and emulated OS level) stuff never really knows the difference - it just runs (presumably) faster.
Of course, stuff running natively against transmeta chips will break, but it is expected this will be a small amount of software. If its just the linux kernel, it wont even matter - people tend to build kernels alot more often than transmeta releases chips
It will be a shame if transmeta doesn't make it in the market. They've got a lot more big names and big brains than linus, and for reasons i mentioned above, they do actually have a solid advantage over intel's strategy going forward.
Time will tell.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
I'd much rather get ahold of a wearable. Does anyone know of any such plans? I've seen the PC104 based wearble that Charmed Technolgies makes but it's still a bit clunky. Maybe someday I can get a Microoptical display and set of datagloves, attached to a Transmeta wearable. Check out weracam for some really cool uses of wearables. Steve Mann has a system that let's you take notes on people and if the mounted camera recognizes them it automatically pops up the notes in overlay. He also has a high speed camera that lets him read the writing off the sides of tires on moving cars.
Palm: Low cost, low power, low heat, passable speed, huge user and programmer base.
I wonder what would happen if Transmeta and Palm ever hooked up? Could Transmeta's code-morphing answer the question that Palm users have been asking for months about Palm's eventual move to StrongARM chips? (Specifically: How to do it without locking out the millions of existing users and 100,000 existing developers.)
--GrouchoMarx
My other account is CmdrTaco
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
No, there are real uses for information technology of this type. I read about an airborne drop where soldiers transmitted their locations (computed throught GPS) to their platoon leader after they hit ground. (encrypted, of course.) The PL then looked at his map, picked a rally point, and transmitted the RP to all his troops... (encrypted again, of course).
One of the big problems with modern armies is that we don't make big formations anymore - people move in wedges and columns with 10-20 meters between each soldier. Multipy that by 200, and an infantry company will take up a square km of terrain. It's very easy to get lost/separated, wearable computers might solve this.