Slashdot Mirror


Living in a Linux Embedded World

krow writes: "Embedded.com is running an article where the author is making some assumptions of Linux's use in the embedded markets based on the opinion of one consultant and the fact that Lineo had to lay off some people this year. It's still interesting reading though for some insight into a different world for Linux and there is a nice reference in the comments to the interview of Victor Yodaiken of RTLinux fame by by Kevin Fu on the ACM site."

146 comments

  1. fp? by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    no mr bond i expect you to FIRST POST

    --
    -
  2. GPL - Fair License or Intellectual Theft? by egg+troll · · Score: -1

    Hello,

    Consulting for several large companies, I'd always done my work on Windows. Recently however, a top online investment firm asked us to do some work using Linux. The concept of having access to source code was very appealing to us, as we'd be able to modify the kernel to meet our exacting standards which we're unable to do with Microsoft's products.

    Although we met several technical challenges along the way (specifically, Linux's lack of Token Ring support and the fact that we were unable to defrag its ext2 file system), all in all the process went smoothly. Everyone was very pleased with Linux, and we were considering using it for a great deal of future internal projects.

    So you can imagine our suprise when we were informed by a lawyer that we would be required to publish our source code for others to use. It was brought to our attention that Linux is copyrighted under something called the GPL, or the Gnu Protective License. Part of this license states that any changes to the kernel are to be made freely available. Unfortunately for us, this meant that the great deal of time and money we spent "touching up" Linux to work for this investment firm would now be available at no cost to our competitors.

    Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. This was simply unacceptable.

    Although we had planned for no one outside of this company to ever use, let alone see the source code, we were now put in a difficult position. We could either give away our hard work, or come up with another solution. Although it was tought to do, there really was no option: We had to rewrite the code, from scratch, for Windows 2000.

    I think the biggest thing keeping Linux from being truly competitive with Microsoft is this GPL. Its draconian requirements virtually guarentee that no business will ever be able to use it. After my experience with Linux, I won't be recommending it to any of my associates. I may reconsider if Linux switches its license to something a little more fair, such as Microsoft's "Shared Source". Until then its attempts to socialize the software market will insure it remains only a bit player.

    Thank you for your time.

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
    1. Re:GPL - Fair License or Intellectual Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand your points,
      but at the same time I think you didn't realize one thing: if Linux weren't GPL, you would never been able to use it the way you did(including changes in the source code). Sure, competing businesses of yours would also be able to use YOUR changes, the same way YOUR business used the changes and contributions of thousands of other programmers. So I think it is a fair deal! The way you did it now, you wrote a PROPRIETARY system for your customer, effectively locking him IN into a contract with YOUR company. The GPL would have prevented that, giving YOUR customer the choice to contract someone else anytime, without having to buy a whole new bunch of software. So maybe this turned out to be better for YOUR company(software producer) but certainly it is a disadvantage for YOUR customer, probably he just didn't realize it. The time will come, when more and more customer will demand open source solutions because of the reasons I just explained.
      And if you think it out, even if a competitor could read all your code, you still would always have an edge, besides being able to read HIS changes to the code also, so I think there is space for a fair competition, where the CUSTOMER will win.
      Many problems arising today in the computing world is because of that kind of proprietary standards, that software companies love, but are a tragedy for the customers...
      Btw, it is WRONG, that code compiled with GPL compilers like gcc have to be put under GPL.

    2. Re:GPL - Fair License or Intellectual Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL! Have you never heard of the BSD license???

      www.freebsd.org, www.netbsd.org, www.openbsd.org.

      Those are the most commonly used OS's for embeded systems, and tons of them we don't even know it. That's the beauty of BSD over GPL.

      Next time, do the research... You should have just used BSD.

    3. Re:GPL - Fair License or Intellectual Theft? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beautiful. Nice one, egg troll.

  3. Yes. by Guns+n'+Roses+Troll · · Score: -1

    Yes, this is the elitest.

  4. Tivo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Linux is making slow progress into an area already claimed by DIY'ers and WindRiver. The massive market acceptance of devices like Tivo is a real feather in Embedded Linux's hat.

    The fact that other companies are failing is simply a factor of business, not anything necessarily having to do with the viability of Linux as an embedded platform.

    1. Re:Tivo by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      I agree that Tivo, and for that matter Axis's stuff make for pretty compelling stuff, but there are caveats that are verry hard to ignore as well.

      Take for instance Axis's camera servers. Ok, we have what looks like a pretty compelling argument here gor the power of Linux (or actually ucLinux, but the 100lx processors do the real thing), what with straming video and all, but when you actually look at it, you see it's not just linux at work there. The processor is a joy to behold and that does help, and most of the video grunt work is done from an offboard mjpeg processor chip.

      Linux works beautifully on this platform, because it was designed for it, and maximo kudos for the Axis lads for a real nice distro.

      None the less, linux has some big problems with latencies. It's not tooo bad, on the etrax dev mailing list the other day, there was some talk of latencies, and *from memory* I think the 1ms figure was bandied about as achievable.

      But for a lot of stuff, it's just too much at once with linux. There really is nothing like ripping out the old forth compiler chain and having exact hard realtime control over latencies and the like

      It all depends on the app. I would not trust a cardiac pacemaker to linux, but I wouldn't want to make a mp3 player on VX-Works. It really depends on the app, and that all boils down to timing.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    2. Re:Tivo by lupetto · · Score: -1, Troll

      We are living in an embedded world, and I am an embedded girl.

  5. first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    who da mayonaisse?

  6. Not First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    This is not the first post so you may ignore it.

  7. This is news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    but AOL-Time Warner having a new Chief Executive isn't? See the NYT article here. I'm hardly pro AOL-Time Warner but it is a huge company with control of Netscape, CNN, and many other things, and I think it is newsworthy.

    1. Re:This is news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "but AOL-Time Warner having a new Chief Executive isn't?"

      Correct. This is Slashdot, tech news for nerds. If you want to be alerted every time a CEO shuffles around, read the Times.

  8. It's Victor Yodaiken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kevin Fu wrote the article. Victor Yodaiken is behind RTLinux. Pretty simple.

    1. Re:It's Victor Yodaiken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yoda. Yoda.

      Cort. Cort.

      w00t! w00t!

  9. 2nd NFP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    This isn't the first post either. Mad propz to all the dead homiez that never had 2nd Not First Posts.

  10. Kada by Apreche · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It's a pretty strange coincidence. Today I had to get information about a company for Professional Communications class. I went to the library, picked up an IT trade magazine, and went to the section about emerging companies in the new year. There is apparently a company called Kada Systems. That has created an extremely small JVM that can run very powerful applications on very small portable devices. Take that and your tiny linux kernel, and you're set.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Kada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! Too bad that Java sucks my left nut, and is in no way suited to deal with real time applications. 16 milliseconds to process a single RSA key? You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

    2. Re:Kada by MSBob · · Score: 2

      And therefore java can't be used in real time apps because...?

      --
      Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
    3. Re:Kada by JabberWokky · · Score: 3, Informative
      Hey! Too bad that Java sucks my left nut, and is in no way suited to deal with real time applications.

      I dunno about your left nut, or if there's a RT Java implementation, but you (and many people on Slashdot, I've noticed) have no idea what "Real Time Applications" are.

      16 milliseconds to process a single RSA key?

      As long as it does that utterly reliably, it could take 30 seconds to processes it - it doesn't matter. As long as the process can be reliably timed, and can be predicted to complete in a given timeframe, irregardless of any interruptions, task switching, etc. That's what real time means. Not "125 fps vs. 127 fps" or anything like that. A radar might have a refresh of 3 frames per second - but the system had better *damn* well be ready to process the input as it comes in.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    4. Re:Kada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, you're right, but so is he, though he has no idea why.

      Garbage collection and realtime don't mix especially well. There is active research in the area, but nothing near what you'd need to build a solid, non-academic implementation.

    5. Re:Kada by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      Ericssson's language, Erlang, mixes garbage collection and realtime systems without a problem.

      OK, admittedly a telephone exchange doesn't exactly have the same safety-critical problems as aircraft avionics or intensive care patient monitoring. Plus the Erlang GC system won't work for Java and remain real-time (it depends on each thread having a local heap so they can be GC'd separately). Still, it does show that the combination of real-time systems and garbage collection does work well, even outside academia.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    6. Re:Kada by jsse · · Score: 2

      Hey! Too bad that Java sucks my left nut, and is in no way suited to deal with real time applications. 16 milliseconds to process a single RSA key? You've gotta be fucking kidding me.

      Even it's slow it can still be used in RT system. I recommend you to pick a book on RT and actually spend some time to read it before opening your big mouth.

      Of course, I sure something sucking your left nut wouldn't be suited to run on any RT system. :)

  11. Of course not by bluGill · · Score: 5, Informative

    Most embedded componants that I know of use an in house OS. Where I work we bought vxWorks, but we are seriously considering replacing it with something cheaper. Not linux, something we write in house. It turns out that most real time systems cannot afford the overhead of a OS. Sure we need something to deal with hardware, and schedualing, and if you have networking it is nice to have sockets are similear. In the end though, a OS gets in the way more then helps.

    In our particular case we have a lot of code to jump out of interupt context and then back in every 15 seconds. That really hurts performance. (Yes, we often want to spend more then 15 seconds processing interupts, with out hardware it turns out to be a good idea, though I don't want to give away why) Of course the OS clocks get all screwed up when we do that.

    1. Re:Of course not by giggls · · Score: 1

      You wrote, that you need to spend 15 seconds in Interrupt service routines with linux concept of bottom halves (are the x86 only) this should not be a Problem.

    2. Re:Of course not by Mr.+Droopy+Drawers · · Score: 1

      Embedded systems REQUIRE that you minimize time in ISR's. You're asking for trouble if you don't

      BTW, we're using vxWorks & C++ on PPC. Very good platform for development. We're looking at RT/Linux but are reluctant to make the jump.

      A good threaded model should negate (abstract) the role of the RTOS.

      --

      To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.

    3. Re:Of course not by bluGill · · Score: 2

      Accually we do it differently. Because there is overhead in jumping to a ISR, once we get an interupt, we disable interupts, keep polling for more data until there is none for a while. Since we only deal with one data stream per processor, this isn't very hard to program, and allows us to get a lot of throuput.

      Remember, for our application it turns out to work good, in general you are right, the less time in an ISR the better.

    4. Re:Of course not by sadr · · Score: 2, Informative

      In my experience (over 10 years of developing Real Time code on medium to large projects), it's almost never a win to write a home-brew RTOS (or try to do without an RTOS completely).

      Except for very simple applications which can run as a single threaded application with interrupt handlers to perform processing, an RTOS is almost always essential. In fact, an RTOS with a correctly partitioned and architected application can be significantly more efficient than a single threaded application that has to periodically poll hardware or status variables. You don't want your protocol stack running in your interrupt handler, and polling to see if there's more data for the protocol stack is very inefficient compared to a context switch in an RTOS when data is actually available.

      VxWorks may be overkill or may not be customizable to do what you want, but there are lighter solutions such as Nucleus, eCos (which is open source), RTEMS (BSD license), etc. These solutions are available for relatively small amounts of money. And this cost is a real win compared to the cost to develop and debug thousands of lines of "homebrew OS". And there's much more to the price of building an RTOS than just the developer time. Slipping a product by 3 or 6 months can cause the project to fail completely.

      Even the ever-popular "write a homebrew abstraction layer" over a commercial RTOS is almost always a waste. It just introduces overhead, prevents the application from making full use of the underlying RTOS, and almost never makes porting to a new underlying RTOS much simpler.
      In the meantime, it really sounds like your application has some serious architectural issues. If you're spending 15 seconds in your ISR, none of your other tasks (or lower priority interrupts) get to run. That's hardly "real time".

      The more typical solution is to grab the data from the hardware and send it to a (high priority?) task to process. I find it very difficult to believe that running a single ISR for 15 seconds is optimum. On most systems I've worked on, that would trigger a hardware watchdog time-out.

      Basically, it doesn't sound like you've got an competant, experienced embedded developer working on your project. You might consider finding someone to provide consulting services, or hiring someone with more background in the area.

    5. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the linux kernel is not an OS. try again.

    6. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Building a new OS yourself is simply a waste of time. There are several interesting alternatives. eCos (http://sources.redhat.com/ecos/) from RedHat. No, it's not Linux. It originates from Cygnus Software.

    7. Re:Of course not by ripicheep · · Score: 1


      It turns out that most real time systems cannot afford the overhead of a OS. Sure we need something to deal with hardware, and schedualing, and if you have networking it is nice to have sockets are similear. In the end though, a OS gets in the way more then helps

      I've just started to poke my head into it, but eCos (an embedded linux based OS) is a nice place to start when designing your in house OS.

      From the linked page:

      eCos provides engineers with maximum control, flexibility and understanding over all aspects of their embedded solution. eCos is highly customizable and adaptable, and can be easily configured using the eCos graphical configuration tool to meet application-specific requirements

      It's used as the base for dadio OS (on my hipzip MP3 player) and it looks like a nice little package with lots of tools for developers.

      Proprietary does seem like the way to go, (After all, keeping things small is important, and it is likely that there will not be a general solution that meets your specific needs exactly) but it is also nice to work from a proven base OS instead of starting from scratch.

      --
      "A witty saying proves nothing." -Voltaire
    8. Re:Of course not by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      Do wxWorks interrupt handlers disable all interrupts? How odd. QNX interrupt handlers only disable the interrupt that was invoked (hardware permitting) precisely so that higher-priority interrupts can still be delivered.

      Of course, I don't know why you're not just using the interrupt handler to wake up a thread which does the real handling, like a lot of real-time systems encourage. Presumably you have a good reason which you could tell me but then you'd have to kill me.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    9. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent comment got five mod points, yours only one. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. (sarcasm alert!)

    10. Re:Of course not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also use vxWorks. And you know what?It is
      simply not stable enough for large applications.
      For a homebrewn system it will only make it worse as you will then also have to deal with
      bugs in the core of the system.

      It boils down to what KIND and SIZE of the embedded system you have. A very small system: Use your own kernel. Middle size: Use vxWorks or similar. But if you have large system with many services (ftp, telnet, http etc.) there is no way you can do it without memory protection to guard against program errors in none-essential subsystem.

      We are going to try out Linux soon, but we only
      find it realistic on the processors not running
      the hard real time subsystems. Most on the nodes
      interacting with the outside world via ethernet
      and direct display. On the nodes running the actual machine control which have hard real time
      demands we will probably still use vxWorks.
      And no: We can't use "our own" as we still need to speak IP, ftp and even nfs!

  12. Linux everywhere, but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Funny

    Is there like a big penguin god that gets more powerful each time a new copy of linux is running?

    1. Re:Linux everywhere, but why? by yo_chimpslice · · Score: 1

      yes, there is.

  13. Embedded Linux Company != Embedded Linux by GGardner · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I know of a bunch of products which use embedded Linux (and several which use *BSD). However, none of these are laying out big bucks to any embedded Linux company, like Lineo or Montavista. Right now, hackers (good sense) are choosing embedded Linux because they are familiar with it, they can fiddle with the kernel, etc. They just download a linux (usually PPC based) distribution, and go from there.

    The people who need the hand-holding which Lineo, etc. are trying to sell, those people are too conservative to choose Linux, they just go with the Microsoft of the embedded word, Wind River.

  14. Difficult by cp4 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In theory using Linux on an embedded system can yield many benefits, but not all are very realistic. Certain applications, such as an MP3 player and manager lend themselves much more easily to the strengths of Linux, but the needs of many embedded devices can be met with something much less complete than Linux and that is what we are seeing in the "real world".

    1. Re:Difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This is so true, and it's shocking how many people don't even think it through.

      Linux is based on Unix, which was origninally designed to be a multi-user Time Sharing System. Look at the early introductory papers about Linux by Thompson and that's what you will read.

      For most embedded devices there is no need for multiple users. There is no need for groups. A lot of this can be pared out of the special kernel you need, but if that is the case, why start out with something as complex to start with?

    2. Re:Difficult by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Linux is overkill for an MP3 player. Period,
      end of sentence. An MP3 decoding ASIC is cheaper
      than any proc that'll run Linux and TCP/IP
      stacks fit into the smallest places.

  15. Long Cycles by nate1138 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Part of the issue may be that embedded systems have pretty long development cycles, compared to typical software apps of similar size and complexity. If your PC application doesn't work, you simply issue a new revision with fixes. Embedded systems are much more difficult to upgrade. I'm not talking about PDA's here, I'm talking about your set top boxes, industrial systems, data collection, etc. These systems cannot be easily patched. As a result, embedded linux development efforts take much more time to certify than those using RTOS's that have been around for years. Also, it is true that linux doesn't have a native method for doing hard-real-time events, there are add-ons, and it isn't the fault of linux developers, such a thing simply isn't needed for desktop and server OS's, but for running an industrial robot, a 10ms delay can be disastrous.

    --
    Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    1. Re:Long Cycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      Absolutly wrong, with embedded linux you can use an NFS server to atually hold your application software, the software is updated with a copy/paste of a file, inside the running a system! You don't even have to reboot!

      Same for hardware drivers, if you code them as module you can cp/paste the module on the NFS, rmmod the module, insmod the updated one, again even without reboot. Now tell me a RTOS thats competing here in shortence of development cycles.

    2. Re:Long Cycles by nate1138 · · Score: 2

      Umm, well, first off, any decent RTOS has network capabilities, second off, it's not a matter of the connectivity being there in the OS, it's a matter of fact that most of these systems don't have the connectivity to other hardware. It's getting more prevalent every day, but the fact remains that there are much more stringent standards for embedded system reliability, and those standards require LOTS of testing, and that testing takes time. By conventional embedded OS standards, linux is the untrusted new contender. don't get me wrong, it's an awesome OS, and one that I use for my own hobby-embedded projects, as well as on my servers at work, and for my development needs, but it does have limitations, just like any other tool. As it's use gets more widespread, and more companies have put down the foundation of testing and retesting that has been done with other RTOS's and embedded OS's, it's adoption will speed up.

      --
      Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
    3. Re:Long Cycles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

      Since Linux is never really 'done' one could say that it has an infinitely long development cycle.

  16. "roll?" by perdida · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    What roll do you think Linux is really playing in embedded systems development today?

    It had a bad roll and had to draw up a new character.


  17. Why some developers are running from Linux by dfeldman · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I used to work closely with a development team that made the transition from a proprietary (and, may I add, unmaintainable and unreliable) embedded OS to Linux. Though some of the concerns in the article did come up, especially speed and size issues, those didn't hurt us much. After all, we could afford a better processor and more memory with the money we saved on royalties and maintenance expenses - these were substantial.

    Unfortunately, if the many features of Linux and the transition from assembler to C didn't hurt us, the licensing did. Things went very smoothly until we needed to make some big changes to the kernel to accomodate a newer version of our hardware. At that point, there was a schism in the group: some of the developers wanted to change the kernel and release the product without source (the "who would find out?" crowd) and the rest of us knew that Linux was not going to fit our needs anymore unless we wanted to give our work away to competitors.

    Well, the "who would find out?" crowd won the first round, and because of release deadlines we "slipped" the kernel changes into the next version of the product. And nobody knew. Except one of us told the legal department about what happened and they became very agitated.

    Now our software runs on embedded NetBSD. It wasn't quite as robust as embedded Linux but it works well and we really can't complain. Transitioning to a new OS took a lot of effort but it was a necessary evil. After all, we couldn't risk getting sued out of existence to save a little money.

    But the question I draw from this is: why not relax the GPL restrictions a bit for embedded applications? It seems like this area of the market will never be dominated by Linux until companies can stop fretting about licensing problems and start concentrating on coding instead.

    df

    1. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by Sir_Real · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why relax them? So you can steal someone elses hard work and good intentions and not give back to the community that gave it to you in the first place? Licensing problems aren't why you don't see embedded linux in the marketplace more. Greed is. You may say that, "that is what capitalism is all about," and to you I say, "that's not what Linux is about so stop trying to shoe horn it into a mold it doesn't fit in."

    2. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by mocm · · Score: 1
      But the question I draw from this is: why not relax the GPL restrictions a bit for embedded applications? It seems like this area of the market will never be dominated by Linux until companies can stop fretting about licensing problems and start concentrating on coding instead.

      Because this is what you have to pay for using GPL software. You get Linux for free, so if you have to change it to fit your product, you have to distribute the changes, now you are even with the developers. I don't understand people who want to take something for nothing and use it for their own commercial advantage, they really don't appreciate the work that went into Linux. If you don't like the license then don't use it. I think even considering to use it without distributing the changes is sleazy.
      --
      ***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
    3. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by nathanh · · Score: 4, Insightful
      But the question I draw from this is: why not relax the GPL restrictions a bit for embedded applications? It seems like this area of the market will never be dominated by Linux until companies can stop fretting about licensing problems and start concentrating on coding instead.

      Because if your company is the sort that takes the hard work of others, uses it for free, makes a profit they would otherwise not have, and does not contribute back the changes made, then your company is NOT the sort of company that the Linux developers want to be using Linux.

      Linux does not exist to make your company richer. Linux does not exist to give your company a head start on other companies. Linux exists to help make free software pervasive and available for everyone. Your company is counter productive to the goals of Linux.

      "If the price of your friendship is the loss of my freedom, then I don't want your friendship."

    4. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh please tell us what your product is....SO I CAN AVOID IT LIKE THE plague.

      Like I've said many times. BSD is a license to steal and Mr. Dfeldman has just proved it.

    5. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by anshil · · Score: 1

      Honestly do you really think anybody is hot for your changes in the linux kernel? Your competition? Really not.

      I'm now working privatly quite some time on some free software apps. My experience on how many people are really interested in the code were depressing.

      Put your modification on a ftp server, or ask them in the user manual to request it per email. After all your competition first has to buy a product from you, than has to tell you that it did so, and than request the source changes, and than has to find them usefull at all.

      Okay if two competiting companies run linux on the same processor type I can imagine that you want to give away your changes at the last moment as possible. But as long they run a different os or a different cpu only, they will find your patch worth nothing. Giving it to puplic will not hit your competiting advantage.

      Getting it in the torvalds kernel is a task itself, and you must be really after it if you want to see a patch in there. If you're just selling a device and a patch with it, there is in reality no way it will find it's way in linus' kernel

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    6. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      It was your legal department that dropped the ball.

      first, your changes, what your company wrote, like the modules for the linux kernel you needed were not required to be released, TVIO did this and they released everything BUT what they did. Now of you guys just changed a driver a bit and were worried that your competition would instantly take your idea and make billions is plain stupid. your competitors are not greedily watching you for a slip to run with, they are quite busy themselves. if you made a drastic and innovative change to the kernel then cool, dont release your innovative code, why? because you DONT HAVE TO unless your innovation was not really an innovation but a change to someone else's GPL'd code. otherwise release the minor changes and be a good open source citizen.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can steal someone elses hard work and good intentions and not give back to the community that gave it to you in the first place?

      This is where I would normally insert a comment about Napster and Freenet and all the piracy, but it would be a waste of time. You'll never get it.

    8. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to defend the previous guy's rant, but there are some of us who would be happy to pay the artists for their contributions, if only it were the artists we were paying. Instead we're paying corporations which dominate the music world, yet contribute very little that is positive to it.

    9. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by DCheesi · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the problem is. If you're making your money selling custom hardware, then the driver code shouldn't matter that much (since it can't be used without the HW anyway). The only time a problem would arise is if you somehow put the entire (reverse-engineerable) footprint & logic within the kernel portion itself, which is simply poor design practice. You should be able to write a relatively generic kernel section to support specific chips, and/or a generic interface that's tapped into by your non-kernel based application code. Then you release the kernel changes, knowing that they're useless to your competitors without your custom app. code.

    10. Re:Why some developers are running from Linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: Linux does not exist to make your company richer. Linux does not exist to give your company a head start on other companies.

      ummm, you might wanna think about that again.

      *cough* RedHat, SuSe, etc.. and Especially Caldera (they wanna follow M$ more than RH is, by licensing their Linux distro) and even worse. Turbo Linux! They try to release the least source code possible? Didn't they already violate the GPL once or twice, or is that still in place?

      Linux, No thanks!

      BSD, yes please.. and a side order of fries too.

  18. that's all good.. by dda · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Everybody is always focussing on the fight between Windows and Linux regarding the desktop environments.
    I personnaly think that the strenght of Linux is especially when you put it in an embedded environment.
    I still hope we'll have a good surprise with the PS2 port of Linux, which should be a good exemple.

    1. Re:that's all good.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus christ. The Playstation 2 port of Linux does not use RTLinux. Furthermore, the way that it exists shows that it's not an embedded example. Just because it Plays Good on the PS2 doesn't mean it's a fucking embedded device, you tithead.

    2. Re:that's all good.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It wasn't mentionned anything about any real-time device here. And the PS2 could be easily compared to an embedded system, as the Linux kernel has to be ported on this system as it would have to be on a smaller system.

  19. He's Right by DrStrange · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sorry to anyone who believes Linux is THE choice for everything, its not. As a real time embedded developer who has done some work on Linux device drivers I have yet to suggest Linux as an option when the OS choice has come up. I agree with the author when he cringes at some of the commentary in the Linux source code, I'm supposed to stake my name and my company's name on an OS with comments like: "/* This is a hack..." in the kernel? And say we do go with Linux and a problem with the OS comes up what should we do? Post to the linux-kernel mailing list and hope it gets fixed? Assign one of our developers to fix it? We don't hire OS programmers for the very reason that we buy our OS, we're DSP engineers. Most companies won't go with Linux because of the fact if something breaks they can't submit a bug report and withhold payment until it gets fixed.

    I'm an avid Linux user at home but for fault-intolerant real time systems, I would feel a bit uneasy recommending Linux for an embedded system just yet. Once I go 6 months without a story on /. where a major fault has been introduced or missed in the Linux kernel I may rethink my opinion but until then I'll be suggesting that we buy our RTOS.

    1. Re:He's Right by anshil · · Score: 1

      The idea on FreeSoftware here is that you've the complete sourcecode, so if there is a bug, find it yourself, may sound hard but thats the way it is. See it from the otherside as company your not dependent (and your deadlines) on an another company and hope it fixes the bug (against ignoring your requests/problems, what happened to me in the past when we used a closed source OS as basis. They gave up the product line, fired their complete develoment team, and your product line suddendly has to die with it, and thus so also my department I worked at that times died as a long termed net result.)

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    2. Re:He's Right by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I'm supposed to stake my name and my company's name on an OS with comments like: "/* This is a hack..." in the kernel?

      Just because you've never seen the [insert proprietary OS here] source code doesn't mean that it is any better than Linux's. The fact that you can see the hacks is actually a *benefit* of Linux.

      --
      main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
    3. Re:He's Right by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I'm supposed to stake my name and my company's name on an OS with comments like: "/* This is a hack..." in the kernel?

      As opposed to a kernel that still has those issues, but you don't see them because you don't have the source code? All code has its less than pristine spots. At least with Linux, those places are documented and more likely to be changed by the large cadre of people working on the code. Your "sense of well-being via obliviousness" stance might be personally satisfying, but it does not, in and of itself, guarantee a better system.

      If you want to bash Linux as an RTOS, there are a lot of other more appropriate technical factors to bash it with. Your aforementioned statement is not one of them.

      --
      That is all.
    4. Re:He's Right by gmhowell · · Score: 2

      Two questions:

      First, have you seen 'hacks' in other source code? If so, were they labeled as such? If not... Well damn. That's impressive.

      Second, how responsive are other OS developers for making changes in their source?

      (Not trying to flame. I realize it can be taken that way. I really want to know if things are THAT different.)

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    5. Re:He's Right by shepd · · Score: 1

      So, does your binary-only OS come with comments embedded in the executables?

      If not, how can you possibly know that there's not lines like:

      /* I hope they never really want to try this */

      In the source?

      >Most companies won't go with Linux because of the fact if something breaks they can't submit a bug report and withhold payment until it gets fixed.

      Yeah, I'd like to see a company withhold payment from a software company till a bug is fixed.

      I'd still not have paid for Windows 95 yet if this were possible.

      >We don't hire OS programmers for the very reason that we buy our OS, we're DSP engineers.

      Here's a quick question:

      How much do you spend to "rent" your OS? Is it less than getting a programmer part-time to fixup the Linux kernel to your specs?

      Just wondering.

      >Once I go 6 months without a story on /. where a major fault has been introduced or missed in the Linux kernel I may rethink my opinion but until then I'll be suggesting that we buy our RTOS.

      When I go 6 months without a vendor lieing to me that their software is A-OK I'll start purchasing more closed-source software.

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    6. Re:He's Right by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Ever look at the source code for windows CE?

      #include
      /* This is a hack */
      main ()
      {

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:He's Right by ethereal · · Score: 1
      Once I go 6 months without a story on /. where a major fault has been introduced or missed in the Linux kernel I may rethink my opinion but until then I'll be suggesting that we buy our RTOS.

      When I go 6 months without a vendor lieing to me that their software is A-OK I'll start purchasing more closed-source software.

      I think you've hit the nail on the head there - that quote is definitely sigworthy.

      Of course, you could have the worst of both worlds - use a popular embedded Linux vendor's product, but when you want the source they give you the runaround and a month later I still haven't gotten it. I'd name names, but since I work for another arm of the same far-flung conglomerate that they do, I'm afraid that I can't.

      My advice on embedded linux: use it if it meets your technical requirements, but get the source up front when you get the binaries, and verify that the source really does produce the binaries. Don't wait 'til crunch time to find out that getting the source isn't as easy as you would have thought.

      --

      Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and

    8. Re:He's Right by zero1101 · · Score: 1

      I'm supposed to stake my name and my company's name on an OS with comments like: "/* This is a hack..." in the kernel?

      I'd worry more about comments like these...

      /* printf("Welcome to Windows 3.1\n"); */
      /* printf("Welcome to Windows 95\n"); */
      /* printf("Welcome to Windows 98\n"); */
      printf("Welcome to Windows 2000\n");

    9. Re:He's Right by sadr · · Score: 1

      Or you could buy one of the commercial RTOS's that provide source, such as ThreadX or Nucleus.

      Those are small and very clean, in my experience.

    10. Re:He's Right by DrStrange · · Score: 1

      Ummm, just about every commercial RTOS I've worked with gives you the source code, kinda important to doing embedded development to have that.

    11. Re:He's Right by DrStrange · · Score: 1

      I was not trying to as you say "bash Linux as an RTOS", just explaning my reasoning why I don't recommend it in any products I work on. As for not having the source code, every commercial RTOS I have worked with gives us the source code. Embedded systems rely on the stability of their OS far more than other commercial software, if the system I currently work on fails my customer has to put someone in a truck and drive somewhere and that ticks them off something fierce. So I need a good feeling about the OS I choose from the get-go. As for things getting fixed because there's a large cadre of people working on it, there is no guarantee that it will get fixed. When meeting deadlines with large sums of hard money on the line, I need to be able to call someone and say "fix this or you don't get paid". Again I'm not trying to flame on Linux, just trying to advance my opinion on a very Linux biased website.

  20. It all depends by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im building a linux distro for and embedded device

    the developpers need X and a JVM

    that all fits on a 128M Compact flash why wouldnt we use linux??

  21. Converse question by BillyGoatThree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've looking for a new job. My current job is Linux-related and I'd like something similar. So I search for "Linux".

    Let me tell you, about 80% of the Linux jobs out there are asking for embedded experience as well. If Linux is hot anywhere, it's in the embedded market.

    Now, it may just be that embedded is hot and, because I'm not searching for it, I never see the non-Linux ads. That doesn't change the fact that nearly the only Linux ads I see are for embedded stuff.

    --
    324006
  22. Linux's Slow Approach by Catiline · · Score: 3, Informative

    But to conclude or suggest that the product is inferior for starters because is not sending the commercial competitors to the pawn shop...thats bunch of malarkey.

    I'm a platform agnostic. Sure, I'll ask people "why are you running Windows?", but I don't then immediatly plug Linux as the grand solution.

    New users -and casual users- need Windows (or a Mac) so they don't have to worry about the details of configuring the system. Learning exactly how PnP works isn't something they are interested in. As long as the only thing they use the computer for is simple tasks -write letters or surf the net- Linux isn't for them.

    And on the embedded scale, much the same applies. I use a Handspring Visor; all because I want a OS on my handheld that <i>gets out of my way</i>. The OS needs to pull up whatever app I need- be it the calendar or notepad or whatever- and then dissapear- because the more memory / processor / battery power needed, the more it costs, and the less I want it.

    No system can be applied everywhere in the computing world and be the best solution everywhere. Linux has its' issues dealing with new users and embedded systems; this is not a flaw. Where Microsoft has failed is trying to write a system that can be used everywhere. It won't work; IMHO it <i>can't</i> work. Let's not drive Linux down that same road.

    1. Re:Linux's Slow Approach by anshil · · Score: 1

      New users -and casual users- need Windows (or a Mac) so they don't have to worry about the details of configuring the system. Learning exactly how PnP works isn't something they are interested in. As long as the only thing they use the computer for is simple tasks -write letters or surf the net- Linux isn't for them.

      As long as they have to maintain it themselfs. But beeing an expert you're normally usually target for maintaing your friends computer. Recently a relative, who was totally unaware of computers asked me to indroduce him to it. And against all window users advice, I installed linux for him (with KDE), yes I installed everything for him as he is a complete new comer. (would be the same with windows). I showed him how to start the machine, how to shutdown, how to write emails, how to use konquerer to surf, how to use sysgard to kill hanged ups, etc. etc. Sure he hasn't seen a bash, and I didn't show it to him, but actually he does not need it. Do you think the KDE desktop is any harder to use as a windows desktop? Really not even a bit harder anywhere? And in contrast to windows if he calls me having a problem, I just have to tell him to go online, and can ssh into his machine looking what's going on.

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
  23. Why the big fuss by gmhowell · · Score: 2

    First, I'm not an embedded systems programmer.

    But why the big fuss over Linux? As the article (or maybe a comment afterwards) mentioned, to get one of the RTOS distros/modifications costs money. So the licensing is a wash.

    Except for some specific platforms, it's hardly optimized. So there is a great deal of vendor specific work to be done. So, marginal time savings, if any.

    You aren't going to run Samba/Apache/LICQ on an embedded device, so the software availability doesn't really matter.

    Now, the comment from the guy from Intel seemed to make sense: in certain areas on certain hardware, Linux is a good thing. Unfortunately, this article is largely a waste, as it ignores the breadth of embedded systems, and attempts to paint the entire Embedded Linux effort with one stroke. Were the author to say that one processor with one OS were the end-all/be-all of embedded systems, he'd get laughed out of a job (one would hope).

    Saying that one OS has no/little place in embedded is merely the other side of this ludicrous coin. (BTW, again, I know next to nothing about embedded systems. If I can pick up on these glaring flaws, why should anyone give this article the time of day?)

    --
    Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    1. Re:Why the big fuss by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      Actually dude, you probably can. I managed with some serious strain to get Samba sorta-running on the Etrax100lx. Not stable enough to deploy, but for an afternoon curiosity hack I was pleasantly surprised, and I'm sure it's nothing that can't be fixed.

      The thing with embeded linux is there are low overhead versions of many of the nice bits in linux. Boa for web serving does much , including php! , that Apache does, busybox provides a near complete unix toolkit, samba does infact work with soem massaging.

      None the less I agree that the article was a little narrow. Linux is clearly inappropriate for some ultra precise RT work, but it's a winner for a lot of consumer stuff like hand helds and the like.

      VX-works is really a winner for .. say .. routers and the like, but linux does rock for that geeky mp3 playing dishwasher you always wanted.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  24. Why embed, when theres GOATSEX LINUX! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    NEW From trolls and cowards inc, Goatsex linux! This is a shrine to the popular goatse.cx website as linked to often in /..org!



    This is a small and stable linux, with version 2.4.11 kernel, and about 1000 other .rpms thrown in. The difference, there are over 1000 refrences to the famous goatse.cx image, including tux doing you know what, the wall paper and even the kernel panic!



    Don't delay order today, goto goatse.cx now!

  25. If you want NetBSD, use it in good health by Christopher+B.+Brown · · Score: 4, Insightful
    It sounds as thought licensing constraints legitimately mandated that you guys move to NetBSD.

    I don't see a big problem with that, nay, I'd think it a good thing for there to be some diversity of licenses, OSes, and approaches.

    Supposing there turned out to be some horrible situation where NetBSD turned out to have killer bugs for particular purposes, it's a good thing to have some alternatives. Or vice-versa, and the potential causes can remain "n'importe quoi."

    I don't see any reason why it is forcibly necessary for Linux to be "dominating" the area, either. I would think dominance would lead to all sorts of Bad Results as it denied the availability of choice.

    And as for licensing, if you're going to use Linux, that certainly has some implications on being mandated to release source code. If you reject that mandate (and there's some "ethic" behind it; the authors are unlikely to let go of this), then Linux obviously isn't going to be the right choice. Which makes it fortunate that the market wasn't dominated by Linux, as if it were, you wouldn't have had other choices like NetBSD.

    --
    If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
  26. maybe RTEMS by e4liberty · · Score: 3, Informative

    My embedded projects usually don't need virtual memory or processes, just memory protection and threads. So Linux is overkill as well as being too slow.

    On the other hand, the driver sources, the libm and libc, have all been useful starting points for either roll your own, or extending another RTOS.

    If this sounds appealing, and you need an RTOS, look at RTEMS an open source RTOS with many ports.

  27. It's a matter of education by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Like so many things in the computer world, there is a need for education in the Real-Time embedded arena. When I was at the Embedded Systems Conference - Boston 2001, Red Hat's CTO gave a presentation on Embedded Linux, and touted RTLinux as the up and coming 'official' Real Time approach. In a later discussion with him, we agreed what everyone seems be missing here ...

    Most embedded systems are *NOT* hard real time systems. For those that are, there it the RTLinux wrapper that runs Linux as one of it's (lower priority) processes. Yet the people writing for sites like this have no clue and spread FUD, which the unfortunate reader often mistakes as factual.

    Will Embedded Linux ever be popular? It all depends on if the Embedded Systems Engineers ever get properly educated as to what it can do, and how. The only real drawback is footprint size. If you need your embedded application to be small and run on 8-bit Microcontrollers, then Embedded Linux clearly isn't for you. However, for the vast majority of serious applications, Moore's law continues to make Embedded Linux a more and more viable solution if the Engineers start addressing the learning curve. Of course, first, they have to know that such an effort is worthwhile. With FUD like this article spreads, it will unfortunately be longer until people get it. No big surprise here. Almost everyhting worth while gets early adopters, goes on hiatus, and then comes back as the new latest and greatest thing that everyone always new was going to fly. You gotta love the cycles of life!

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    1. Re:It's a matter of education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The product line I am involved with ( instrumentation) is normaly associated with Hard Real-Time. Last year the Firmware group ( wich includes many long time Linux programers, some who are very active in the community) investigated several OSs to replace what we are using right now. I can not name the current OS because it would definitly define the company and the products I am involved with. Most EEs would recognize the name of my employer. The OSs that were looked at included QNX, several RT linux kernals, the windriver product (?), and a modified stock Linux kernal. It turns out that the stock PPC Linux kernal does everything we need. We really do not need Hard Real-Time. As a programmer specielizing in instrument control for 15 years, I was massivly suprised. The bottom line is that all our platforms will be using the PPC running a stock Linux kernal by this time next year. Other divisions might then follow suit. BTW this is NOT a simple product line. The firmware is an example of the most intense type of programing done today.

  28. Take a different perspective! by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Embedded BSD is not as stable as Linux?

    Perhaps it's because all the companies that made extensions to BSD did not make their changes public?

    It's this issue, the very issue you raise, that makes Linux the long-term sensible choice. You benefit from the work of other companies, and they benefit from your efforts as well.

    Notice that your changes to the BSD kernel are not available to other indivuals and companies. Thus, your efforts do not contribute to the stability of BSD for embedded applications.

    The "Share and share alike" philosophy of Linux is the heart of the Linux movement, and your suggestion to "ease up" would represent the very death knell of its forward momentum.

    It's really a question of "Pick your poison". Which flavor do you prefer? You can either A) leverage the efforts of others and let them leverage off of yours, or B) Go your own route.

    Either route has its advantages and disadvantages - but don't complain when you can't have it both ways!

    -Ben

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Take a different perspective! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'One Big Union of Workers' yadda yadda yadda.

  29. I love you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    perdida, you're the cutest troll girl I've ever met. Will you marry me?

  30. Oi. by AbbaZabba · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Real Time. Stick it inya!

    --
    Aye aye aye aye, I am the Frito bandito.
  31. Bet you MONEY that there's comments like that... by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...in the commercial OS as well- you just don't get to see those. And the who'll fix it argument, well, I've seen both sides- the closed source route DOES NOT insure things will get fixed.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  32. Rewriting from Scratch... by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many designs and implementations did you go through before settling on the current one?

    VY: The current version is the result of three total re-writes and there is a new version in the works. The number of minor revisions is much larger than three.


    Heh... In a sense, this is a nice retort to the interview with the former Microsoft PH manager, whose interview was recently published on Slashdot. Sure, rewriting from scratch is a mistake. Whatever.

  33. Real-time systems by epepke · · Score: 1

    There is a problem with running any variant of UN*X with a real-time system: the fact that it is possible for any process to be interrupted for an arbitrary and unpredictable amount of time. You can play games by using nice with negative values to reduce the probability of this happening, but you can't be 100% sure.

    Of course, "real-time" is poorly defined, and "embedded" is even worse. Nevertheless, in practice, these fuzzy blobs seem to go together. Embedded systems tend to need to be real-time, either because they are in an application that absolutely demands it (engine computer, perhaps) or the hardware on which they are running is so wimpy that time irregularities people wouldn't notice on much faster systems would be a big problem.

    Probably, big chunks of Linux, suitably hacked, would form a good basis for a variety of embedded devices. The kernel is already small, and it would be smaller. However, just taking the kernel per se and building an embedded application on top of it is a bit like the tail wagging the dog.

    1. Re:Real-time systems by Cato+the+Elder · · Score: 3, Insightful
      There is a problem with running any variant of UN*X with a real-time system

      Actually, I believe Solaris has kernel extensions which can be used to garuntee a process a minimum amount of runtime. But I could be wrong.

      I agree with most of your comment, though. Although "real-time" has a very good definition (A real-time problem is any problem in which the time taken to arrive at the answer is part of its correctness) people abuse the definition horribly. Embedded has no agreed on meaning.

      This reminds me a bit of the previous slashdot article on "XP-embedded". That's the product I think Linux has a chance to beat. High reliability, fat budget systems--embedded but not really real time.

      Oh--and I am an embedded developer. I love Linux. But 60us interrupt latency on a 800 MHz CPU* just ins't acceptable for a hard real-time system. If it means a compression artifact in my Tivo, no problem. If it means 60 kb of data loss from my Gigabit ethernet card, that's not cool. If it means none of my avionics systems respond for that long, it's out of here!

      *The guy says "Pentium" which is probably incorrect--I don't think they ever clocked those old chips that high. Not a very good author.

    2. Re:Real-time systems by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      It's nice to read a good definition of real-time on Slashdot.

      Here's my old-fashioned list of the characteristics of an embedded system:

      System has a dedicated function (not general purpose)
      Real-time
      Code executes only out of ROM
      Scarse resources
      Code rarely updated
      Can be implemented in non-assembly langauge only if you're lucky
      Can use an OS only if you're very lucky

      The use of desktop operating systems like Linux or Windows wouldn't be appropriate for embedded systems given this list. Of course, the list is too restrictive for today.

      I think the new definition of embedded SW is really "any software not running on an established hardware platform". This robs from the term "embedded" any unique characteristic, so I think there isn't much value left in the word.

    3. Re:Real-time systems by Cato+the+Elder · · Score: 1

      Good list. Here's how I would modify it for todays world:

      System has a dedicated function (not general purpose)
      Real-time capabilities for some systems
      Scarse resources (relative to general purpose systems)
      Code rarely updated
      Code stored on ROM, Flash, etc., not disk based.

      The parts about assembly language and operating systems I think are now obsolete. Resources are still scare, but there are plenty to write in C and have a small operating system to do scheduling and memory management.

  34. the "Linux is doohttp://slashdot.org/med" mantra by sterno · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is anybody else here getting a little tired of the very stale "Linux is doomed" mantra? Linux gets tried out in a new environment, and surprise, it isn't immediately successful. So then a bunch of writers publish articles about Linux being doomed in whatever arena it was tried in.

    Linux is doomed in the enterprise...
    Linux is doomed on the desktop...
    Linux is doomed in the embedded device market...

    How long have all of these other RTOS's been in use and development? How long has Linux been an option it this field? A company that is making good money developing under an RTOS they've been using for years and know every quirk of isn't going to switch to Linux overnight just because it's cool. In the long run Linux may provide some advantages that will give it a better market share, but to suggest it is doomed because it hasn't been an overnight success is ludicrous.

    The funny thing is that Linux can't ever be doomed because it will never go away. If Microsoft is blown up tomorrow by a government backed anti-trust commando squad, Windows will cease to be. But Linux, being GPL'd will continue to go merrily along no matter how many people conduct bad business ventures around it. I'll believe embedded Linux and enterprise Linux and desktop Linux are doomed when Linux goes out of business. Oh wait, it can't :)

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
  35. /* This is a Hack */ in non-open code by GGardner · · Score: 4, Funny
    What do you think that commercial code doesn't have comments like this? Or, worse yet, that commercial code doesn't have comments like this because it doesn't need them?

    There was a famous comment in the SunOS proc.h header file that said something like /* Please forgive me for this hack */ And I've seen plenty of commercial code that should have had comments like that, but didn't, which is a whole other kettle of fish.

  36. Try this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Try this

  37. Completely Offtopic, but anyways... by scott1853 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I just noticed that www.cicuitcity.com (CircuitCity misspelled) goes to Best Buy's website. That's gotta be a new low for an already crapping retail chain.

  38. A better question by AstroJetson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why didn't your company want to release the kernel mods back to the community? It's not like they were gonna make any money off them - they get paid for the embedded app, not the OS it runs on. I could understand if you were giving away something proprietary, but it doesn't seem to me that releasing those changes would have hurt your company one little bit. In fact, if you had released them, someone else might have come along and improved on your improvements.

    --
    Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
    1. Re:A better question by zak · · Score: 1

      A good example would be modifications to the protocol stack, for implementing a proprietary protocol or algorithm. This makes the kernel modifications part of the application.
      Remember that this is an _embedded_ system, which is usually _not_ the same as taking a desktop OS and slapping some user-space application on it.
      Frankly, as an embedded developer, I do not see the great value of using Linux over *BSD in embedded space (unless you use some hardware that no BSD supports); the license alone is an enormous turn-off for any company that needs to modify the kernel (see above) and does not want its competitors to get a glimpse into its code. And in any case, if you need true real-time, you'd be MUCH better off with LynxOS or somesuch rather than some half-baked Linux-RTOS microkernel solution; you'd be getting better POSIX compliance, and TRUE REAL TIME, from an experienced company.
      And as far as real-time is concerned, Solaris and IRIX have had true realtime capabilities (for userspace processes too) for years. Linux is still a toy OS compared to commercial offerings in embedded (and, dare I say it, server) space.

  39. Eh yah what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    Timothy is an idiot! K-Maps kick my ass, they're so useful. Up with Karnaugh Maps, down with Timothy and his buttplay.

  40. Re:the "Linux is doohttp://slashdot.org/med" mantr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet you suck cock real good. Grab on tight to my knob and suck away. I'll get Linus in here to bang you in the ass with his 4 centimetre cock.

  41. It's Overkill by jsfetzik · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For the majority of embedded applications Linux is more then is needed. Sure something like Tivo profits from a 'full blown' OS, but most embedded situations don't need this. For most all that is really need is a fast task switcher and a couple of communication stacks.

  42. Layoff-based reasoning. by Syberghost · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, didn't Dell lay some people off? Gee, Windows must be dying.

    Didn't @Home go bankrupt? The Internet must be dying.

    FedEx has a hiring freeze; oh, no, people must be using the Post Office more!

    1. Re:Layoff-based reasoning. by jsse · · Score: 2

      FedEx has a hiring freeze; oh, no, people must be using the Post Office more!

      Really? they've a hiring freeze? I just saw the ads saying that FedEx will look for competent people everywhere in the world and hire them. Damn, I was beginning to believe them....

  43. Linux Users: Read This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    It has come to my attention that the entire Linux community is a hotbed of so called 'alternative sexuality', which includes anything from hedonistic orgies to homosexuality to pedophilia.

    What better way of demonstrating this than by looking at the hidden messages contained within the names of some of Linux's most outspoken advocates:

    Linus Torvalds is an anagram of SLIT ANUS OR VD 'L' , clearly referring to himself by the first initial.

    Richard M Stallman, spokespervert for the Gaysex's Not Unusual 'movement' is an anagram of MANS CRAM THRILL AD.

    Alan Cox is BARELY an anagram of ANAL COX which is just so filthy and unchristian it unnerves me.

    I'm sure that Eric S. Raymond, composer of the satanic homosexual propaganda diatribe "The Cathedral and the Bizarre", [Buy At Amazon] is probably an anagram of something queer, but we don't need to look that far as we know he's always shoving a gun up some poor little boy's rectum. Update: Eric S. Raymond is actually an anagram for SECONDARY RIM and CORD IN MY ARSE. It just goes to show you that he is indeed queer.

    Update the Second: It is also documented that Evil Sicko Gaymond is responsible for a nauseating piece of code called "Fetchmail", which is obviously sinister sodomite slang for "Felch Male" - a disgusting practise. For those not in the know, 'Felching' is the act performed by two perverts wherein one sucks their own post-coital ejaculate out of the other's rectum. In fact, it appears that the dirty Linux faggots set out to undermine the good Republican institution of e-mail, turning it into 'e-male'.

    As far as Richard 'Master' Stallman goes, that filthy fudge-packer was ACTUALLY QUOTED on leftist commie propaganda site Salon.com as saying the following:

    RMS: "I've been resistant to the pressure to conform in any circumstance," he says. "It's about being able to question conventional wisdom," he asserts. "I believe in love, but not monogamy," he says plainly.

    And this isn't a made up troll bullshit either! He actually stated this tripe, which makes it obvious that he is trying to politely say that he's a flaming homo slut!

    Speaking about 'flaming', who better to point out as a filthy chutney ferret than Slashdot's very own self-confessed pederast Jon Katz. Although an obvious deviant anagram cannot be found from his name, he has already confessed, nay boasted of the homosexual perversion of Corrupting the Innocence of young children. To quote from the article linked:

    "I've got a rare kidney disease," I told her. "I have to go to the bathroom a lot. You can come with me if you want, but it takes a while. Is that okay with you? Do you want a note from my doctor?"

    IS THIS WHY YOU WERE TOUCHING YOUR PENIS IN THE CINEMA, JON??????? AND LETTING THE OTHER BOYS TOUCH IT TOO?

    We should also point out that Jon Katz refers to himself as 'Slashdot's resident Gasbag'. IS THERE ANY MORE DOUBT? For those fortunate few who aren't aware of the list of homosexual terminology found inside the Linux "Sauce Code", a "Gasbag" is a pervert who gains sexual gratification from having a thin straw inserted into his urethra (or to use the common parlance, 'piss-pipe'), then his homosexual lover blows firmly down the straw to inflate his scrotum. This is, of course, when he's not busy violating the dignity and copyright of posters to Slashdot by gathering together their postings and publishing them en masse to further his twisted and manipulative journalistic agenda.

    Sick, disgusting antichristian perverts, the lot of them.

    In addition, many of the Linux distributions (a distribution is the most common way to spread the faggots' wares) are run by faggot groups. The Slackware distro is named after the 'Slack-wear' fags wear to allow easy access to the anus for sexual purposes. Furthermore, Slackware is a close anagram of CLAW ARSE, a reference to the homosexual practise of anal fisting. The Mandrake product is run by a group of French faggot satanists, and is named after the faggot nickname for the vibrator. It was also chosen because it is an anagram for DARK AMEN and RAM NAKED, which is what they do.

    Another 'distro', (abbrieviated as such because it sounds a bit like 'Disco', which is where homosexuals preyed on young boys in the 1970's), is Debian, an anagram of IN A BED, which could be considered innocent enough (after all, a bed is both where we sleep and pray), until we realise what other names Debian uses to describe their foul wares. "Woody" is obvious enough, being a term for the erect male penis, glistening with precum. But far sicker is the phrase "Frozen Potato" that they use. This filthy term, again found in the secret homosexual "Sauce Code", refers to the solo homosexual practice of defecating into a clear polythene bag, shaping the turd into a crude approximation of the male phallus, then leaving it in the freezer overnight until it becomes solid. The practitioner then proceeds to push the frozen 'potato' up his own rectum, squeezing it in and out until his tight young balls erupt in a screaming orgasm.

    And Red Hat is secret homo slang for the tip of a penis that is soaked in blood from a freshly violated underage ringpiece.

    The fags have even invented special tools to aid their faggotry! For example, the 'supermount' tool was devised to allow deeper penetration, which is good for fags because it gives more pressure on the prostate gland. 'Automount' is used, on the other hand, because Linux users are all fat and gay, and need to mount each other automatically.

    The depths of their depravity can be seen in their use of 'mount points'. These are, plainly speaking, the different points of penetration. The main one is obviously /anus, but there are others. Militant fags even say 'there is no /opt mount point' because for these dirty perverts faggotry is not optional but a way of life.

    More evidence is in the fact that Linux users say how much they love `man`, even going so far as to say that all new Linux users (who are in fact just innocent heterosexuals indoctrinated by the gay propaganda) should try out `man`. In no other system do users boast of their frequent recourse to a man.

    Other areas of the system also show Linux's inherit GAYNESS. For example, people are often told of the FAQ, but how many innocent heterosexual Windows users know what this actually means. The answer is shocking:

    Faggot Anal Quest - the voyage of discovery for newly converted fags

    Even the title 'Slashdot' originally referred to a homosexual practice. Slashdot of course refers to the popular gay practice of blood letting. The Slashbots, of course are those super-zealous homosexuals who take this perversion to its extreme by ripping open their anuses, as seen on the site most popular with Slashdot users, the depraved work of Satan, http://goatse.cx.

    The editors of Slashdot also have homosexual names: "Hemos" is obvious in itself, being one vowel away from "Homos". But even more sickening is "Commander Taco" which sounds a bit like "Commode in Taco", filthy gay slang for a pair of spreadeagled buttocks that are caked with excrement. (The best form of lubrication, they insist.) Sometimes, these "Taco Commodes" have special "Salsa Sauce" (blood from a ruptured rectum) and "Cheese" (rancid flakes of penis discharge) toppings. AND to make it even worse, Slashdot runs on Apache!

    The Apache server, whose use among fags is as prevalent as AIDS, is named after homosexual activity - as everyone knows, popular faggot band, the Village People featured an Apache Indian, and it is for him that this gay program is named.

    And that's not forgetting the use of patches in the Linux fag world - patches are used to make the anus accessible for repeated anal sex even after its rupture by a session of fisting.

    To summarise: Linux is gay. "Slash - Dot" is the graphical description of the space between a young boy's scrotum and anus. And BeOS is for hermaphrodites and disabled 'stumpers'.

    Feedback:

    What worries me is how much you know about what gay people do. I'm scared I actually read this whole thing. I think this post is a good example of the negative effects of Internet usage on people. This person obviously has no social life anymore and had to result to writing something as stupid as this. And actually take the time to do it too. Although... I think it was satire.. blah.. it's early. - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Well, the only reason I know all about this is because I had the misfortune to read the Linux 'Sauce code' once. Although publicised as the computer code needed to get Linux up and running on a computer (and haven't you always been worried about the phrase 'Monolithic Kernel'?), this foul document is actually a detailed and graphic description of every conceivable degrading perversion known to the human race, as well as a few of the major animal species. It has shocked and disturbed me, to the point of needing to shock and disturb the common man to WARN them of the impending homo-calypse which threatens to engulf our planet.

    You must work for the government. Trying to post the most obscene stuff in hopes that slashdot won't be able to continue or something, due to legal woes. If i ever see your ugly face, i'm going to stick my fireplace poker up your ass, after it's nice and hot, to weld shut that nasty gaping hole of yours. - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Doesn't it give you a hard on to imagine your thick strong poker ramming it's way up my most sacred of sphincters? You're beyond help, my friend, as the only thing you can imagine is the foul penetrative violation of another man. Are you sure you're not Eric Raymond? The government, being populated by limp-wristed liberals, could never stem the sickening tide of homosexual child molesting Linux advocacy. Hell, they've given NAMBLA free reign for years!

    you really should post this logged in. i wish i could remember jebus's password, cuz i'd give it to you. - mighty jebus, Slashdot

    Thank you for your kind words of support. However, this document shall only ever be posted anonymously. This is because the 'Open Source' movement is a sham, proposing homoerotic cults of hero worshipping in the name of freedom. I speak for the common man. For any man who prefers the warm, enveloping velvet folds of a woman's vagina to the tight puckered ringpiece of a child. These men, being common, decent folk, don't have a say in the political hypocrisy that is Slashdot culture. I am the unknown liberator.

    ROLF LAMO i hate linux FAGGOTS - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    We shouldn't hate them, we should pity them for the misguided fools they are... Fanatical Linux zeal-outs need to be herded into camps for re-education and subsequent rehabilitation into normal heterosexual society. This re-education shall be achieved by forcing them to watch repeats of 'Baywatch' until the very mention of Pamela Anderson causes them to fill their pants with healthy heterosexual jism.

    Actually, that's not at all how scrotal inflation works. I understand it involves injecting sterile saline solution into the scrotum. I've never tried this, but you can read how to do it safely in case you're interested.

    (Before you moderate this down, ask yourself honestly -- who are the real crazies -- people who do scrotal inflation, or people who pay $1000+ for a game console?)

    - double_h, Slashdot

    Well, it just goes to show that even the holy Linux 'sauce code' is riddled with bugs that need fixing. (The irony of Jon Katz not even being able to inflate his scrotum correctly has not been lost on me.) The Linux pervert elite already acknowledge this, with their queer slogan: "Given enough arms, all rectums are shallow.". And anyway, the PS2 sucks major cock and isn't worth the money. Intellivision forever!

    dude did u used to post on msnbc's nt bulletin board
    now that u are doing anti-gay posts u also need to start in with anti-black stuff too
    c u in church - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    For one thing, whilst Linux is a cavalcade of queer propaganda masquerading as the future of computing, NT is used by people who think nothing better of encasing their genitals in quick setting plaster then going to see a really dirty porno film, enjoying the restriction enforced onto them. Remember, a wasted arousal is a SIN in the eyes of the Catholic church. Clearly, the only god fearing Christian operating system in existence is CP/M - The Christian Program Monitor. All computer users should immediately ask their local pastor to install this fine OS onto their systems. It is the only route to salvation.

    Secondly, this message is for EVERY man. Computers know no colour. Not only that, but one of the finest websites in the world is maintained by A Black Man. Now fuck off you racist donkey felcher.

    And don't forget that slashdot was written in Perl, which is just too close to "Pearl Necklace" for comfort.... oh wait; that's something all you heterosexuals do.... I can't help but wonder how much faster the trolls could do First-Posts on this site if it were redone in PHP... I could hand-type dynamic HTML pages faster than Perl can do them. - phee, Slashdot

    Although there is nothing unholy about the fine heterosexual act of ejaculating between a woman's breasts, squirting one's load up towards her neck and chin area, it should be noted that PERL (standing for Pansies Entering Rectums Locally) is also close to "Pearl Monocle", "Pearl Nosering", and the ubiquitous "Pearl Enema".

    One scary thing about Perl is that it contains hidden homosexual messages. Take the following code: LWP::Simple - It looks innocuous enough, doesn't it? But look at the line closely. There are TWO COLONS NEXT TO EACH OTHER! As Larry "Balls to the" Wall would openly admit in the Perl Documentation, Perl was designed from the ground up to indoctrinate it's programmers into performing unnatural sexual acts - having two colons so closely together is clearly a reference to the perverse sickening act of 'colon kissing', whereby two homosexual queers spread their buttocks wide, pressing their filthy torn sphincters together. They then share small round objects like marbles or golfballs by passing them from one rectum to another using muscle contraction alone. This is also referred to in programming 'circles' as "Parameter Passing".

    And PHP stands for Perverted Homosexual Penetration. Didn't you know?

    Thank you for your valuable input on this. I am sure you will be never forgotten. BTW: Did I mention that this could be useful in terraforming Mars? Mars rulaa. - Eimernase, Slashdot

    Well, I don't know about terraforming Mars, but I DO know that homosexual Linux Advocates have been probing Uranus for years.

    That's inspiring. Keep up the good work, AC. May God in his wisdom grant you the strength to bring the plain honest truth to this community, and make it pure again.Yours, Cerberus. - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    *sniff* That brings a tear to my eye. Thank you once more for your kind support. I have taken faith in the knowledge that I am doing the Good Lord's work, but it is encouraging to know that I am helping out the common man here.

    However, I should be cautious about revealing your name 'Cerberus' on such a filthy den of depravity as Slashdot. It is a well known fact that the 'Kerberos' documentation from Microsoft is a detailed manual describing, in intimate, exacting detail, how to sexually penetrate a variety of unwilling canine animals; be they domesticated, wild, or mythical. Slashdot posters have taken great pleasure in illegally spreading this documentation far and wide, treating it as an 'extension' to the Linux 'Sauce Code', for the sake of 'interoperability'. (The slang term they use for unconsensual intercourse - their favourite kind.)

    In fact, sick twisted Linux deviants are known to have LAN parties, (Love of Anal Naughtiness, needless to say.), wherein they entice a stray dog, known as the 'Samba Mount', into their homes. Up to four of these filth-sodden blasphemers against nature take turns to plunge their erect, throbbing, uncircumcised members, conkers-deep, into the rectum, mouth, and other fleshy orifices of the poor animal. Eventually, the 'Samba Mount' collapses due to 'overload', and needs to be 'rebooted'. (i.e. Kicked out into the street, and left to fend for itself.) Many Linux users boast about their 'uptime' in such situations.

    Inspiring stuff! If only all trolls were this quality! - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    If only indeed. You can help our brave cause by voting this message up as often as possible. I recommend '+1 Underrated', as that will protect your precious Karma in Metamoderation. Only then can we break through the glass ceiling of Homosexual Slashdot Culture. Is it any wonder that the new version of Slashcode has been christened "Bender"???

    If we can get just one of these postings up to at least '+1', then it will be archived FOREVER! Others will learn of our struggle, and join with us in our battle for freedom!

    It's pathetic you've spent so much time writing this. - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    I am compelled to document the foulness and carnal depravity that is Linux, in order that we may prepare ourselves for the great holy war that is to follow. It is my solemn duty to peel back the foreskin of ignorance and apply the wire brush of enlightenment.

    As with any great open-source project, you need someone asking this question, so I'll do it. When the hell is version 2.0 going to be ready?!?! - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    I could make an arrogant, childish comment along the lines of "Every time someone asks for 2.0, I won't release it for another 24 hours", but the truth of the matter is that I'm quite nervous of releasing a 'number two', as I can guarantee some filthy shit-slurping Linux pervert would want to suck it straight out of my anus before I've even had chance to wipe.

    I desperately want to suck your monolithic kernel, you sexy hunk, you. - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    I sincerely hope you're Natalie Portman.

    Dude, nothing on slashdot larger than 3 paragraphs is worth reading. Try to distill the message, whatever it was, and maybe I'll read it. As it is, I have to much open source software to write to waste even 10 seconds of precious time. 10 seconds is all its gonna take M$ to whoop Linux's ass. Vigilence is the price of Free (as in libre - from the fine, frou frou French language) Software. Hack on fellow geeks, and remember: Friday is Bouillabaisse day except for heathens who do not believe that Jesus died for their sins. Those godless, oil drench, bearded sexist clowns can pull grits from their pantaloons (another fine, fine French word) and eat that. Anyway, try to keep your message focused and concise. For concision is the soul of derision. Way. - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    What the FUCK?

    I've read your gay conspiracy post version 1.3.0 and I must say I'm impressed. In particular, I appreciate how you have managed to squeeze in a healthy dose of the latent homosexuality you gay-bashing homos tend to be full of. Thank you again. - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Well bugger me!

    ooooh honey. how insecure are you!!! wann a little massage from deare bruci. love you - Anonymous Coward, Slashdot

    Fuck RIGHT off!

    IMPORTANT: This message needs to be heard (Not HURD, which is an acronym for 'Huge Unclean Rectal Dilator') across the whole community, so it has been released into the Public Domain. You know, that licence that we all had before those homoerotic crypto-fascists came out with the GPL (Gay Penetration License, according to geekacronyms.org) that is no more than an excuse to see who's got the biggest faece-encrusted cock. I would have put this up on Freshmeat, but that name is KNOWN to be a euphemism for the tight rump of a young boy.

    Come to think of it, the whole concept of 'Source Control' unnerves me, because it sounds a bit like 'Sauce Control', which is a description of the homosexual practice of holding the base of the cock shaft tightly upon the point of ejaculation, thus causing a build up of semenal fluid that is only released upon entry into an incision made into the base of the receiver's scrotum. And 'Open Sauce' is the act of ejaculating into another mans face or perhaps a biscuit to be shared later. Obviously, 'Closed Sauce' is the only Christian thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that it is what Cathedrals are all about.

    1. Re:Linux Users: Read This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where foes Marcello Tossitoff, the new stable 2.4 maintainer fit into this?

  44. we should have a solution by linuxlover · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is exactly the issue I am considering aswell.

    Lets say our company invents a device and plans to sell the device with Linux loaded terminal with Linux device driver. The hardware+software is our IP and we can't give it away. please don't lecture me of how everything should be free...etc. I know that, and I also like a roof above my head. Letting people download my driver for free from a FTP server doesn't quite pay my bills.

    So the solution:
    we need to have something like FSF or Linux Fund. If I want to keep my driver closed source say for 1 year then I pay a license fee for them (it can be a one time thing or royality based). The 'foundation' distributes the money as it see fit, funding developers, funding new projects..etc. After a year, I have 2 options
    - release the source to kernel main tree and make it open. Now it doesn't matter as competitors can't abuse my work to overtake me.
    - continue with closed source for another year and keep paying (may be revised) licese fee / royality.

    This has best of both worlds
    - I get to use a stable well maintained software (in this case Kernel). so I don't have to re-invent the wheel inhouse everytime.
    - I keep my IP intact for a short period and at the same tiem paying for other developers efforts.

    any one know any similar licences like this?

    LinuxLover

    1. Re:we should have a solution by elandal · · Score: 1

      That's not a good solution. Linus chose GPL, so GPL it is.

      There are a couple of choices:

      1) Write Your driver as a module. Then You can release binary only.

      2) Release the driver code. You're selling a box with software preloaded, not software. If competitors can whip up the same piece of hardware cheaper than You, then You have a problem, but that's not a problem with the software licensing.

      I don't really believe that an embedded linux solution would really depend on the development of kernel code - or at least not the kernel code that can't be written as a module.

      Now, I assure You that I do respect IP. I'm working on embedded solutions, too, and the customers have their rights regarding the IP. However, if they choose Linux and want to modify the kernel, they can either write a module or release the code. And they know it. They also know that they depend actually on selling the boxes and not the software - the software enables the box to function. The kernel mods are released - as are new kernel APIs and so on. Then, using those APIs proprietary software can be written.

    2. Re:we should have a solution by nathanh · · Score: 2
      Lets say our company invents a device and plans to sell the device with Linux loaded terminal with Linux device driver. The hardware+software is our IP...

      No! Linux is NOT your companies IP. Combining Linux with hardware doesn't make Linux your IP either. Linux is owned by the developers that wrote it. They're giving you an unlimited royalty free license to use it but you have to agree to their terms, and one of those terms is that you share with others just as they shared with you.

      please don't lecture me of how everything should be free...etc. I know that, and I also like a roof above my head.

      Then perhaps you can go earn a living to pay for that roof over your head? What you're proposing is to take the hard work of others and reap the rewards. The GPL was designed exactly to stop this sort of parasitic behaviour. Linux was licensed under the GPL because the authors have at least some empathy with the ideals expressed by the GPL. If you don't like those ideals then DON'T BASE YOUR PRODUCT ON LINUX.

      After a year, I have 2 options (1) release the source to kernel main tree and make it open. Now it doesn't matter as competitors can't abuse my work to overtake me. (2) continue with closed source for another year and keep paying (may be revised) licese fee / royality.

      This is similar to the Alladin License. But although this license might suit you better, it isn't what the Linux developers wanted. The Linux developers wrote Linux to further their own goals, not yours.

      If you don't like the rules then don't play the game. Complaining that you can't get your free lunch and sell it too won't garner you any sympathy.

    3. Re:we should have a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > 2) Release the driver code. You're selling a
      > box with software preloaded, not software. If
      > competitors can whip up the same piece of
      > hardware cheaper than You, then You have a
      > problem, but that's not a problem with the
      > software licensing.

      Actually, I think most companies don't want anybody else to see their source code so that nobody else will know how awful it is.
      They don't want their customers wondering how 60000 lines of spaghetti code ever works...

    4. Re:we should have a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errmm.... I believe the poster was referring to "software" as being the application code - maybe perhaps some mods made to Linux - but that could be released as a module perhaps.

    5. Re:we should have a solution by elandal · · Score: 1

      I understand that. My code isn't all too good, either, but it works (after debuging). And in the end, passes all the tests. That's what matters. Passing the tests. And adhering to the design specs. Even if I know that the spec I wrote has flaws in that it forces some parts of the implementation to be less than optimal, once the spec is approved, the implementation must follow it. When there are minor deviations from the spec, the spec must be updated, but major deviations shouldn't be allowed except in spec phase of iterations. If You know that a change in spec is needed, note it, but follow the spec. When next spec phase comes, take the notes and change the spec.

      However, there are always some design and coding guidelines that should help make the code readable. Sometimes the guidelines don't fit the situation, in which case exceptions should be documented.
      The problem with releasing code is that without the spec, the code may well look like sphagetti. With the spec, it makes a lot more sense. Still, the code should have enough comments that it can be read and understood even without the spec, although then the big picture and many of the reasons for why the code looks like it does are lost. And, releasing the spec tells more about the company and it's software development than the code itself, so even if the code is released, the spec might not be released.

      I'm not sure though what would the IP protection be should the spec be released.. Remember that the spec itself is protected by copyright, and as the spec describes the software, software written from the spec can be considered an implementation of the spec, and thus a work derived from the spec. If the spec is copyrighted and restrictively licensed (or not licensed for commercial implementation at all outside the owning company), could it be that by releasing the spec the company would gain better protection for the software, even in cases where the implementation is covered by an open license like the GPL? Could it mean that only the codebase released under GPL is open, and any implementation of the spec other than the GPL'd release is protected by the copyright?

      IANAL. But that would be an interesting question to present to one..

    6. Re:we should have a solution by linuxlover · · Score: 2

      I was expecting this sort of reply along the lines of 'LInux is GPL, I like it that way, so don't use it for your evil corporate profit...blah...blah'. Congratulations, you made the list.

      For the record,
      - I do earn my living (a comfortable one I might add) working for a small proprietary software company...so boo me! (so does Linus and countless other contributers)
      - I love & use free software. I have contributed back aswell

      I _DIDNOT_ criticize Linux for being GPL. I was looking for a system where
      - developers who contributed get something back (in code form or other)
      - if code contribution is not possible, then contributes get compensated in some way.
      I was looking for first hand experience of any license or any organization like the above existed.

      Right now I can use Linux as a development platform. But it is not suited as a 'delivery platform' b/c of GPL (assuming my project involves modifying kernel heavily).

      SOme one poited out about binary only modules. That may be a good compromise. But I thought under GPL
      "if your software (say the module) would not function without a GPL component (linux kernel) then the source code for the software should be distributed aswell"
      did I read that wrong?

      Again please don't flame me about GPL and 'free as in beer' concepts. I know them all, and I respect them. I am looking for suggestions, not whinings.

      thanks
      LinuxLover

    7. Re:we should have a solution by nathanh · · Score: 2
      I was looking for first hand experience of any license or any organization like the above existed.

      And I gave you one: the Aladdin License.

      I was expecting this sort of reply along the lines of 'LInux is GPL, I like it that way, so don't use it for your evil corporate profit...blah...blah'.

      If you expected this sort of reply then perhaps the problem is with what you wrote, rather than with the people who responded in the expected way.

    8. Re:we should have a solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      SOme one poited out about binary only modules. That may be a good compromise. But I thought under GPL "if your software (say the module) would not function without a GPL component (linux kernel) then the source code for the software should be distributed aswell" did I read that wrong?

      Yes and No. You got it right if the kernel was under the GPL which, despite what everybody on slashdot seems to think, it is not. The kernel has a Modified GPL license which specifically allows for Closed Source Binary modules. Check the license in the kernel tarball and see if you can use it

  45. can we say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that the author don't know "jack"?

  46. Use QNX for embedded work by Animats · · Score: 2
    QNX is much more appropriate for embedded work. It has protected-mode real-time tasks with latency guarantees. It has scheduling machinery for processes that need N milliseconds every M milliseconds, like multimedia handlers. And it has fast interprocess communication that's not a bolt-on to UNIX. And it's a real ROMable microkernel.

    I can't see running Linux on anything that doesn't have a hard drive.

    1. Re:Use QNX for embedded work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It all depends on what you're building. The projects I've been doing lately have something close to a real PC inside - because they actually need a big disk, a real TCP/IP stack with real network support, (QNX has issues with sockets, among other things) etc. So we run linux, and our clever method of dealing with hard-real-time is delegation. You need tight timing? Delegate that to a PIC or something. The PIC takes care of sync work and shares data with the PC-like system asynchronously over some flavor of serial bus (rs232, usb, ethernet, ...)

  47. Re:the "Linux is doohttp://slashdot.org/med" mantr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Linux can't go away.

    But there is a scenario that would change it drastically:

    Forking. With or without the GPL being declared invalid, it wouldn't be hard and it's surprising there haven't been more kernel forks.

    If the GPL is found invalid in court, for a variety of reasons, there could be 130 different version of Linux within a year, none of which are completely compatible. Unix 1980's all over again.

    That's pretty likely, as a matter of fact.

  48. Then you can't see much... by Svartalf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Linux will fit into spaces as small as a floppy and do very useful embedded tasks while being that trimmed down. You might also want to note that many embedded applications aren't needing rate monotonic scheduling, etc. like QNX offers (which is what you're referring to)- a substantial amount of embedded systems need a stable OS that provides some network and maybe some file support. QNX does this well, but at a rather large per-unit price for most embedded systems. Linux also does it well and offers NO costs other than providing source code for extentions to the kernel, etc.- and in many cases you don't need to alter the kernel or provide drivers as people have already done that for you.

    No, I'm not saying Linux is a panacea for embedded system designs, but QNX isn't the ultimate answer either. For things that QNX is a good candidate for, choose it, or the open sourced RTEMS (Which does a very good job of the realtime things). For everything else, why spend the cash on something that you'll never use even 10% of the functionality of?

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    1. Re:Then you can't see much... by imrdkl · · Score: 1
      Linux will fit into spaces as small as a floppy

      Yup, cool stuff.

    2. Re:Then you can't see much... by imrdkl · · Score: 1

      Er, I was trying to link floppyfw, which most probably know about, I suppose. Oh well. Moderators, you know what to do.

  49. My god you're a fucking dumb ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His name is egg TROLL for christs sake! he's a fuckin troll. And congratulation sir, You Have Been Trolled!

  50. So it's facing reality that's the problem. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2

    I guess it all makes sense to me now.

    The reason Linux (and other OSS software) has so much trouble being accepted is that it forces you to face reality.

    So comments like /* this is a hack */ scare you... Apparently not being able to see the source makes you feel better. "If I don't know about it, it doesn't exist." Of course when the code is right there, it's harder to pretend the code must be perfect.

    Or submitting a bug report and - snicker - witholding payment until it gets fixed. As if any proprietary vendor would ever let themselves get roped into a contract where customers could not pay if the software had bugs. That's pure fantasy on your part -- and yet I've heard the same argument repeated as to why they wouldn't choose Linux. But since Linux doesn't let you pretend that you can hold someone accountable it gets rejected.

    In a way, it's the same with the whole UI problem. People will tell me how easy to use Windows is, and I'll sit next to them and listen to them cursing as it does things they don't expect. But Windows keeps telling you it's easy to use, so they can pretend it really is. Linux doesn't try to trick you that way, so they can't let themselves be tricked.

    Okay, that was starting to get off topic, but it is related I think. Stop fooling yourself -- if something works for you, then fine, but don't prop up the system with self-delusion.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:So it's facing reality that's the problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently not being able to see the source makes you feel better. "If I don't know about it, it doesn't exist."

      It's called "ostrich behaviour." It's not a hack if you can't see it, and it's not held together by chicken wire and masking tape if it's got a nice shiny interface.

      I'm being forced to work on an application that is exactly like this right now. Every time I look at the code I'm forced to maintain, I feel like taking a shower. When I hear how much it's sold for, I feel like calling Trading Standards.

      The only things that make it bearable are the caustic comments from previous maintainers: "What a pile of shit. Who the fuck wrote this!"

  51. Success story by Snafoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm a junior engineer at a small company producing (a fairly killer, IMO) embedded-linux (ix86 atm, but that could change next release) device. Although the RT side of things is not my schtick -- I'm writing some custom web software and working on our in-house embedded-linux distro --- I *do* know that our RT guy is the biggest linux fanatic I know. He seems to have no problems using the RT stuff that's freely available for the linux kernel, and kernel-versus-license-wise, we're simply going to release the stuff we need to keep proprietary (FPGA drivers and firmware-adjustment/config stuff) as kernel module(s).

    In fact, RT guy *regularly* slams anything that doesn't have adequate RT support, so I am left to assume that he deems to have a set of RT capabilities which is more than adequate. :)

    We're a small company, and running (like everyone else) under some rather tight fiscal constraints.
    AFAIK, linux is what is currently saving our collective bacon -- if we're going to compete with the economies of scale of the big boys (not to mention their 'Deep Pocket Error Correction Algorithm') we can't afford to license some proprietary OS or development environment and pass that cost on to our customers. We have to be clever; therefore, we use Linux.

    (Aside: I wish I could provide more details, but really, I'm more of a CS geek. My ideal level of abstraction is somewhere just south of lisp and north of Java. Assembly makes me go *bew*bew*bew*bew* (imgine index finger oscillating in front of lip). )

    --
    - undoware.ca
    1. Re:Success story by cculianu · · Score: 1
      In fact, RT guy *regularly* slams anything that doesn't have adequate RT support, so I am left to assume that he deems to have a set of RT capabilities which is more than adequate. :)


      I recently attended a talk in which a NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology) guy spoke about his criteria for evaluating a realtime OS. He basically said that he's tested and evaluated every realtime OS under the sun and to him, RTAI (another realtime linux variant similar to the RT-Linux implementation Yodaiken worked on) is one of the best real-time OS's one can get on intel hardware. The worst-case numbers just about proved this to him. Really it was quite an interesting talk.. a lot of fancy statistical gymnastics goes into evaluating a realtime OS, and RTAI came out ahead.

  52. Realtime Linux implementations have all of these t by cculianu · · Score: 1

    It has protected-mode real-time tasks with latency guarantees.

    So does an implementation of realtime linux:

    http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/drops
    http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/fiasco
    http://os.inf.tu-dresden.de/LinuxOnL4

    It has scheduling machinery for processes that need N milliseconds every M milliseconds, like multimedia handlers.

    So does the DWCS scheduler for Linux Systems:

    http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~west/dwcs.html

    And it has fast interprocess communication that's not a bolt-on to UNIX.

    Huh?

    And it's a real ROMable microkernel.
    Huh? The Linux kernel is also ROMable. If you want a microkernel (something I think is a bit wasteful in something like an embedded system), go back up to that fiasco link I put up on top.
  53. Embedded Linux isn't doomed quite yet... by Hendersa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reading Mr. Ganssle's view in the article on utilizing Linux as an embedded OS has really suprised me. I'm afraid that I'll have to disagree with his opinion on the issue simply because I actually have hands-on experience utilizing Linux within the embedded space. I've found that the Linux OS is a natural match to embedded platforms because the kernel and POSIX APIs of the OS can be customized in an intelligent manner to meet the size and processing requirements of a number of projects.

    Most engineers that are shopping for an embedded OS want an "out of the box" solution for their embedded device. They want to simply be able to pay X number of dollars and get an OS so that they can quickly move on with their embedded software development. "Generic" embedded OSs, such as WinCE, are indeed a quick fix to that problem. Those same "generic" solutions also lock your project into continous OS licensing costs for the lifecycle of the project, a kernel that can't be touched for optimization (at least, not without paying a hefty fee to the OS manufacturer), and often require larger system resources to compensate for being generic.

    Linux offers a unique alternative to these three problems. By leveraging against the open source development of the Linux kernel and the GNU POSIX APIs and OS structure, licensing costs for the OS can be considerably less per device (if you pay any licensing costs at all), simply because the licensing isn't priced to recover the hundreds of thousands of man hours put into developing Linux and the GNU toolchain. This can potentially turn a software cost of tens of dollars per unit into a few dollars per unit. When dealing with high volumes of product, this savings can be quite considerable.

    The Linux kernel can most certainly be optimized. Whether your organization optimizes the kernel itself (and you will have the kernel source code, thanks to the GPL) or if you pay another organization to do it, you won't find yourself staring at a kernel that is a black box. And make no mistake... you will need to optimize the kernel in some manner for your embedded platform. Many companies choose to leverage their savings on OS licensing costs towards kernel customization costs (i.e. spend less money on the OS and spend more making it BETTER). Also, if you are using Linux as an OS, you aren't left "holding the bag" if your embedded OS manufacturer goes out of business. Switching OSs can be an extremely costly process because it precipitates a porting processes of the embedded software as well.

    A generic Linux kernel straight out of a RedHat distribution will, as Mr. Ganssle has stated, require too many resources of an embedded device. That is why customization work is needed. The core of the kernel (memory management, process management, etc.) needs to be customized, and other portions of the kernel can be removed entirely in order to perform the needed optimizations. You certainly wouldn't want to put Windows 2000 on a simple embedded device... the required hardware resources would most likely be inflated in order to support the OS. In the same way, you wouldn't use a generic Linux kernel.

    The Linux embedded space is poised to explode in the near future, and I'm glad to see it happening. The Linux kernel lends itself well to customization, and the GNU toolchain offers a low-to-no cost alternative to expensive development tools, such as Tornado (VxWorks) or Microsoft Visual Studio. All in all, it looks like a bright future for the penguin.

    1. Re:Embedded Linux isn't doomed quite yet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, that $9.95 media cost for eMbedded Visual Tools is such a hardship.

      Now if you want to rant about how much the CE
      Platform SDK goes for, well, you might have something there. Then again, it fills up two whole DVDs, so maybe you are getting something worthwhile after all.

  54. Free software on free hardware by freeio · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The assumption that all development is in the corporate realm is most evident in this sort of article. Companies come and companies go, but the development of free software and hardware on which it can run goes on with or without corporate backing.

    We have a project to develop free hardware designs to which free software is being ported, with no corporate backing. For an example of an embedded controller to which Linux is being ported, look here:

    http://freeio.org/library/toast.htm

    --
    Soli Deo Gloria
  55. Development kits for college students? by Doppler00 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Are there any companies that specifically design embedded Linux development kits for college courses? If any company is interested in becoming successful selling embedded products they should produce low cost versions of their products that can be used in electronic engineering courses. Documentation is also very important. Without good documentation it's difficult to convince people to learn how to use your product.

  56. BSD by egg+troll · · Score: -1

    Yes we looked into using BSD. Unfortunately we decided not to use an OS that basically stole its TCP/IP stack from Microsofts DOS. Our lawyers advised us that if the BSD team had lost a legal battle over this, it could adversely affect us. But thank you for the suggestion. I appreciate it.

    --

    C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
  57. Software availability DOES matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You aren't going to run Samba/Apache/LICQ on an embedded device, so the software availability doesn't really matter.


    Quite the opposite. Many embedded devices DO contain embedded HTTP servers. Some of them even run Samba. (I wrote the User Authentication code for one of the more popular firewalls, with used Samba to piggyback off of the NT user database.) The availability and ease of porting open implementations of protcols like OpenSLP and OpenLDAP is one of the main reasons I've been advocating switching from PSOS (which WindRiver bought out and is abandoning support for) to Embeded Linux here at my current job.


    Secondly, Real-time Linux costs money, but most embedded applications don't really need a real-time OS!!! The aforementioned firewall vendor didn't license any embedded Linux, they just used a stripped-down version of the standard Linux kernel. There are far too many embedded Linux vendors chasing too few customers; competent developers can do their own Linux port.


    And by the way, I _am_ an embedded systems engineer!

  58. Embedded does not always mean small! by Chirs · · Score: 2, Interesting


    What many people are overlooking is that embedded systems are not necessarily small...they're just embedded.

    The project I'm with at work is a phone switch. We've got dual boards, each with dual 100Mb ethernet, quad serial, fiberchannel, a 450MHz G3 cpu, and a gig of RAM. They run linux.

    We looked at QNX, but they would make the required changes to their memory mapping to support our app. We considered Montavista, but decided that we didn't need what they were offering. The kernel mods that have original ideas (intellectual property type stuff) are segregated into a loadable module so that it doesn't need to be GPL'd. All the other incidental stuff will of course be made available to our clients as required.

    The biggest advantage of using linux is the sheer user base. Except for the really far-out stuff, almost any normal issue has already been dealt with by someone and its just a matter of looking it up.

    While the companies that specialize in embedded linux may not be rolling in the dough, that doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of work being done. It may be that companies have simply decided that they can hire a programmer (or a team of them) for less than they could licence a product from another company.

  59. When linux is embedded in everything by Iron+Webmaster · · Score: 1
    we will know the secrets of everything.

    The car is just a variation on the DVD player which is just a variation on the space shuttle.

    Do you think power tools and space shuttles will find much in common to talk about?

  60. A success story by BigDaddy · · Score: 2, Informative

    The author seems intent of finding someone or some group that is successfully leveraging Linux in the embeded market. Why doesn't he check out LynuxWorks?
    You may remember these guys from LynxOS. This RTOS (in true defintion of the term -- not in the LinuxRT version) runs on countless embeded platforms. Ever setup a JetDirect card on an HP printer? That's LynxOS.
    Well, these guys are doing a lot with Linux now. I attended a talk about two years ago, right before their product BlueCat (strikingly similar to RedHat, eh?) came out. My information may be out of date, but some of the stuff the guys talked about was very cool. An embeded tool-chain. Boot loaders. And most interesting source (and later binary) compatability with LynxOS (by which I mean that LynxOS would run Linux source). To quote from the web page: BlueCat Linux applications can be migrated to the LynxOS platform with no loss of functionality and with minimal effort or delay. LynuxWorks development tools support both operating systems so there are no new tools to purchase and no new learning curves. This all means that customers can develop using BlueCat Linux and then quickly migrate and deploy applications to LynxOS when real-time needs emerge. Anyway, as I said, my info maybe out of date, but these guys shouldn't be overlooked. Oh, and for all who are wondering, I am in no way connected to this company.

    --
    You can't get a blue screen on a black and white monitor.
  61. Give us a good platform for it! by strredwolf · · Score: 2

    PalmOS is embedded, but not realtime. Most folks don't need it.

    Me, I'll take a cheap 386-class processor in a handheld, 32 megs ram, some flash, and I'll slap Linux on it. I'd love to compile gcc on battery power and have it not be on a laptop.

    --

    --
    # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
    $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
    1. Re:Give us a good platform for it! by strredwolf · · Score: 2

      not a knock against PalmOS, just RT OS's on consumer level devices. :)

      --

      --
      # Canmephians for a better Linux Kernel
      $Stalag99{"URL"}="http://stalag99.net";
  62. heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I now increase the number of comments posted to this story by 1!

  63. Too wide a scope to be taken seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The author of the article has failed to make a distinction between embedded systems and embedded real-time systems. By bunching the two together he's managed to play down the significance of Linux as an embedded device plaform; set-top boxes, PDAs, network devices, mp3 players (on steriods!), and so forth.

    Sure, an unmodified Linux kernel running natively (as compared to "on top of" a true RTOS) might not be able to provide a deterministic environment but that doesn't negate the fact that Linux is a stable and cost effective solution for embedded systems that don't require determinism.

    Linux is not an RTOS so the author should not really be examining its impact in the RT embedded market. Instead he should be concentrating on the embedded systems market that does not required response within specific time restraints. If he did that I think he'd find that the Linux kernel is a remarkable resource for embedded systems development.

  64. The PS2 Linux port by zak · · Score: 1

    is an example of nothing. It's just another Linux port. Good for enthusiasts (i'll be getting one if the PAL kit ever comes out), but not much more. I don't believe that many future PS2 games will be using Linux as their basis - there's a native RT OS for that, which is much more suitable.

  65. on a floppy ...Re:Then you can't see much... by leuk_he · · Score: 2

    On a floppy, that is not big by today's standards. But is way bigger than lots of things in embedded systems. Does you know a lot of embedded systems use Z80 like (in terms of processing capacity) processors? That is why linux is not used that much in embedded systems. It is quite big in relation to most embedded systems.

    by the way, if you metion floppy systems you should that a look at the QNX demo disk

    1. Re:on a floppy ...Re:Then you can't see much... by Svartalf · · Score: 2

      You won't be seeing QNX on Z80-like machines, it's intended for larger systems. In fact, you'll find very few OSes on that end of the spectrum with about half of them being DIY type affairs.

      It boils down to what you're calling embedded systems. And Linux IS used quite a bit up higher on the food chain. I know, I have been using it for years in the context of embedded systems.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    2. Re:on a floppy ...Re:Then you can't see much... by leuk_he · · Score: 1

      ou won't be seeing QNX on Z80-like machines

      I know, I know. They started on a 486,telling that it most of it fit in the 8kb cache.

  66. Solaris and definition by epepke · · Score: 1

    Actually, I believe Solaris has kernel extensions which can be used to garuntee a process a minimum amount of runtime. But I could be wrong.

    I don't know that I'm not wrong either, so I asked the local Solaris guru. He said that later versions of Solaris provide prioctl, which is somewhat better than nice, but that he hadn't heard of any kernel extensions that provided guarantees or any way to make such guarantees to the process. I looked at the description of prioctl in his book, and while it contains some hand-waving about "real-time" processes, it falls short of making any guarantees.

    Although "real-time" has a very good definition (A real-time problem is any problem in which the time taken to arrive at the answer is part of its correctness) people abuse the definition horribly.

    That's a good definition, provided that it is clear we are talking about wall clock time. Unfortunately, it's a bit like the definition of "gender" (a grammatical marker in the sense that person and number are markers); nobody really pays much attention to it.

  67. Re:Completely Offtopic, but anyways... by andy@petdance.com · · Score: 2

    Except that it doesn't go to Best Buy, it goes to some online casino.