Slashdot Mirror
Red Hat And Lineo Respond To MS Embedded Linux FUD
jeffy124 writes: "Red Hat and Lineo, the major spearheads of Embedded Linux, have said that Microsoft's recent white paper comparing Linux and Windows XP embedded is full of inaccuracies, false facts, and overall distorts the value of Linux in general. Lineo has gone as far to say it flat out lies about Linux. ZDNet has Lineo's response, Red Hat comments, and a summary article." Updated by HeUnique: LynuxWorks has also wrote a response (only this one is a bit more detailed).
Honestly, did you expect them to come back with "yup! There right! Everything we did is crap now!"
Obviously, both sides are biased and think their product is better.
The only way to see which one is better is an independent, non-biased study of the two.
Even then, though, I'm sure one will be better for some applications, and the other for other applications...
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
This isn't the first time that Microsoft has lied about XP.
The bad thing about this is that people will only see the Microsoft lies and not the rebuttals by Lineo and Redhat. The people here on Slashdot already know this about MS, but the rest of the public doesn't. That's what billions of dollars of marketing dollars will buy you.
Likelihood of product being used in applications where transferring of cash is occuring (ATMs/casino machines): Embedded Linux: Suitable Embedded XP: Not Bloody Likely
When will we learn. Oh, when will we learn.....
MS has alot more experience getting Windows to work on embedded systems. Linux is realtively new to this area, it was never their goal initially.
If you consider, NT had an embedded version since the mid 90's and they've just released version 3.x of their Windows CE line.
I Heart Sorting Networks
That was the work of Al Queda. They infiltrated Slashdot. Someone call Ashcroft!
Truth Microsoft knows nothing about embedded just take a look at CE
...when these kind of resources are used to attack what is essentially a straw man. If they were going to attack a target with FUD, why wouldn't they attack the market leader, WindRiver VxWorks?
Proof positive they're irrationally scared by Linux.
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
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.
-e.t.
Why does MS always get the marketing leg up on Linux? Momentum is one thing, but it seems to me that Linux is always playing catch-up as well. Why is that so? Has Linux ever had a successful pre-emptive publicity strike against MS?
Let's face it, if Linux is always reactionary, it will never be seen as anything more than an "alternative" OS. Linux should not be an alternative to Windows. It has a niche all its own. Sure, it overlaps with a lot of Windows functionality, but it's not just "non-Windows". It's much more than that.
the funny thing i see about it all is ms' accusations as to why embedded linux wont work are basically critisms that only point to linux being weak on the desktop...
- no ie
- no media player
- no plethora of drivers
- no big company support for end users
etc etc...
I believe sex is highly over rated... unless it involves me
We all like to spit out the rhetoric about how "people listen to Microsoft, but not us", but the fact is, this is no longer true. The antitrust case, while falling short of remedying the Microsoft situation, has at least drastically changed Joe User's perception of Microsoft, as the below-expected XP adoption rate shows. Everyday, Linux becomes more and more mainstream, and as it does, we see an increasing number of mentions of Redhat and Linux in general in tech magazines and newspapers. Any resource people go to to find the latest technology news today is likely to have a Linux section in it (short of "Windows Magazine" and other Microsoft asskissers). It's silly to say that "people will only see the Microsoft lies and not the rebuttals by Lineo and Redhat." This may have been true three years ago, but not anymore.
"The problem with the French is that they don't have a word for 'entrepeneur'." -George W. Bush
The truth?
What's most interesting to me about this is that I don't even need to read the rebuttals to know what they contain. There is a real dearth of assertions in the MS white paper that can be scientifically tested and proven. I suppose in the real world, you have to say aomething; but really, it scarcely merits any notice at all, never mind an actual formal response. (Yes, I am aware that imparts some irony to this very post).
Incidentally, is Linux really putting it's best foot forward in relying on RedHat to leap to the defense of Embedded Linux?
Oops
Please stop making it look like MS is the only company that tries to play the FUD game.
Another Gaping Microsoft Security Hole Goes Unpatched: How about some of the beauties in this one?
I believe the editors on this site spread just as much FUD as the evil borg M$.
(The petition, per se, is pretty useless. Nobody's going to listen to it. But, a slashdotted petition, right now when vocal opposition to Microsoft could actually have some impact on the MS/DOJ settlement, MIGHT create enough publicity to force Microsoft to back down.)
The bottom line is this. Not a single statement in the Microsoft evaluation was honest. Some had some technical points correct-ish, but in a way as to give a highly (and deliberately) misleading impression. Yet this is the information CEOs and technical managers will be relying on.
If it's not made illegal to decieve people out of their money, then it damn well aught to be at least made a very painful experience for the perp.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I noticed this too. I for one am glad, i missed getting first post (3rd) and don't want the world to see my failure
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/xp/techi nfo/develop/training.asp
They make it sound like building with tinkertoys. That's what we really need, right? A whole bunch of imbedded devices with custom-built kernels put together with all the quality of your average Access database.
What a crock. I'll never buy one.
- Freed
"Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love." -Turkish Proverb
"What is the sound of one belly slapping?"
Is if you needed to work with some proprietary MS protocol like CIFS, DCOM (embedded DCOM?? ugh), or some other stupid MS thing.
Someone you trust is one of us.
So it's okay to lie about MS, but it's not okay to lie about Linux?
i guess, you're going to wash your hair in the toilet
"Linux is a follower, not an innovator"
That Microsoft team has been watching too much Elmer FUD recently.
Celebrate Steak and a Blowjob Day!
as this shows the exact details of some XP were rather misunderstood
What's with the broken link? I mean, what's the point of intentionally putting a space in the URL--so you can prove to the world how 31337 you are when you copy/paste into your browser bar and delete the space so you can visit it? That's not the purpose behind the hyperlink, my friend.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
i wonder if this attack is due in some part to the linux handhelds (like the Sharp Zaurus and the Samsung) that are coming out. These pdas use the same hardware as the wince machines, but you don't have the MS tax associated with them.
Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
Well, many "embedded" systems are actually things like set top boxes, phones, and suchlike.
Much of the web, like it or not, is targetted at IE.
An operating system which only supports browsers with substantially less functionality than IE, eg it's harder to find downloadable plugins for common formats, is less likely to be used for these applications.
Already posted here
Nice troll though.
It's silly to say that "people will only see the Microsoft lies and not the rebuttals by Lineo and Redhat." This may have been true three years ago, but not anymore.
I disagree. The people that know about Linux as a viable option to M$ are the same as they have always been, the technically oriented *cough* geeks *cough* people that keep up on the latest computer accessories.
A perfect example of this is the Pentium comercials that have been running on TV, where the aliens in the UFO are playing with gizmos (not the gremlin one) and, bored, plug in a Pentium 4. Suddenly, everything comes to life.
What are the average users going to think when they go to buy a computer? Are they going to ask "what is a reliable, cost effective processor?" Not a chance. They are going to say "I want to mix and burn CD's. Obviously, I need a Pentium 4." To reach the majority, PR and marketing are everything.
"...At the end of the day"..."when everyone goes home, you're stuck with yourself." RIP Layne Staley
I really hate this argument! At least with GPL code you have a choice; use the code and release as GPL or don't touch it. With Windows code, you have no choice; as you can't get the code without paying MS money or getting some NDA signed, you cannot use it.
I am sorry .. come again??
And this is a company that still had MSDOS as base of there operating system up to 98 ME release? An OS they never even wrote?
This is coming from a company that did NOT have networking or sound support built into Win 3.1 but my old SLS Linux installation did?
This is coming from a company that created email .. no .. web browsing .. no ... word processor .. err .. no .. spread sheet .. no ... instant messaging .. no .. a windowed interface .. no ..
As far as that goes WTF has Microsoft EVER made!
Lets continue ... Hand Held PC's .. no .. game systems ... no ... finacial software packages (great plains) ... no .. and operating systems ... no .. gawd ... etc, etc, etc!
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
I have done porting work with just about every single embedded OS (some predating windows CE by about a decade). I have built/tested/deployed i960 and AMD29k boards using psos, m68k boards using vxworks, and ppc boards using nucleus, all in house, from scratch. You, sir, apparently have done NONE of those, because if you did, you would know that porting Linux is no different. We did it for three different ppc boards, also in house. The process was no different from developing a BSP for any of the other commercial vendor products. The difference is that Linux 1) is a real OS (even if it is lacking in the RT arena still) 2) no rediculous per unit royalty fees 3) free tools 4) portable tools (i.e. can cross compile from whatever platform I like) 5) rediculously stable 6) HUGE driver support (with source - something the commercial vendors love to nickle-dime you for, btw) 7) a large software library (e.g. just about every useful UNIX app exists in one form another) 8) excellent support via source code, email-lists, and irc. (Yes, the "linux has no support" meme is complete FUD - have you ever tried to negotiate WindRiver's support dept. even WITH a fully paid up support contract?)
The fact that MS has been "doing embedded versions" since the mid (try late) 90's is completely irrelevant. There are a ton of crappy, buggy, useless products that still exist today that their vendors have been "doing" for a lot longer. What makes you think that just because they are old that they don't suck?
Stop trying to make it look like it's NOT a conspiracy! I see it all the time on slashdot--people leave spaces in their URLs and then say "oops" when someone tries to find out what the real motive is. As if the spacebar is close to any other key, anyway. You're one of them!!!!!!!!
Someone needs to post this retort by Lineo somewhere where MS supports will read it. That way, they can see for themselves how badly skewed MS point of view is.
Freakin' cheeseheads...
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
Windows has at least 10 different shells: www.shellcity.com
Not to mention at least 100 of different MP3 players, HTML editors, image viewers, browsers, file managers, etc.
But the fact is: that's not a problem, and neither is Linux.
You are not forced to use all of them: use your distribution's default desktop and you'll be fine.
Embedded Linux offers a standard kernel but no standard device level application programming interface (API). There are multiple implementations of other major OS components so developers end up working with different programming environments and tools for each device, decreasing efficiency, limiting code re-use and increasing application development time.
I guess this means that it's not good that developers can choose what tools they work with or pick the language best for the application. Not to mention the fact that only having a few hundred thousand developers who haven't had to sign non-disclosure agreements can't help you out in any way.
For example, there are at least five different window managers and at least four competing browsers, increasing programming complexity and reducing the pool of available developers.
And as all of us know, competiting web browsers is BAD!!! SO BAD!!!! Bad enough that Microsoft intentionally broke the law to attempt to stop this. I guess we should all strive to be the same. We should all give way to the Nazis^H^H^H^H^H^H almighty Bill Gates!
There is no common integrated development environment (IDE) for Linux. OS development is command-line driven and applications development requires a new set of tools for each device. Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly toolset.
Uh? Kdevelop? Code Crusader? Squid? And there are like, 4 or 5 others. Rediculous.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Yes, and no one has ever lied about the capabilities of MS products right. What goes around comes around. You spend all day bashing MS, its no surprise they return the favor. Just look at the post about embeded XP. Not a damn one of you knew anything about it, yet you all posted all kinds of negitive comments.
There is no common integrated development environment (IDE) for Linux. OS development is command-line driven and applications development requires a new set of tools for each device. Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly toolset.
Uh, yeah, that's what happens when you use a monopoly to put all of your competition out of business. In the old days there used to be a choice of IDEs for Windows. In fact, I remember at one point Borland was the leader in development tools. Oh well, what do you expect from M$?
...is full of inaccuracies, false facts, and overall distorts... Huh?
I bet this is not "First Post."
double check your logic
that its their nature to diss each other's products because they are biased, and that redhat / lineo overreacted to the m$ propaganda...but think of what would happen if they DIDN't respond to them. everyone would keep believing m$, and we would all be bought out...
QED
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
(If worst comes to worst, you just run the MS driver through the WINE module, and do some fancy coding to make it -appear- like a Linux driver.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Anyone else notice how MS seemingly wants to do for the embedded world what they did for applications development? Today they have an army of relatively clueless VB developers who supports Windows.
If you look at the kinds of things they're offering (a 'windows embedded studio', with wizard looking things, MCSE/cookbook type classes for wannabe embedded systems programmers), it becomes apparent. It's like they want to make embedded systems programming a point-n-click process.
God help us..
Lineo has gone as far to say it flat out lies about Linux.
:)
Lying is just another way of looking at the truth
Appears to me that interpretation is the keyword here.
In Microsoft's viewpoint, the ideal system is a "ready to run" package containing everything they think you might possibly need, taking most every possible situation into account. Microsoft seems to be interpreting the phrase "major OS components" as meaning "everything we provide in the package." Some developers may want purchase a large feature set in one lump, and Microsoft delivers a superior product in this respect.
To the Linux developer, however, "major OS components" is interpreted as meaning "the kernel." And only the kernel. Everything else -- device drivers, window managers, web browsers, server daemons, user interface, user software -- are extras added on top, with only those components required being chosen.
Linux also provides very model-generic and very model-specific hardware drivers, whereas Windows drivers tend to be very model-specific. As a result, a windows hardware developer must rebuild the driver in order to use it on an updated device; in Linux, chances are the generic driver will work (even if not optimally).
Microsoft interprets "solid development" as "we make everything." While this does allow for tight quality control (debatable) and standardized programming practices, it loses the adavantage of a-thousand-monkeys-at-a-thousand-typewriters efficiency that Linux development has. When you have a large, diverse programming base, you can pick and choose from the best of the code offered. It is unlikely that any Microsoft developer can see the entire code base of his project; only in Linux and other OSS OS's is this possible.
I like this little bit of FUD: "Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly toolset." Microsoft implies here that their toolset is not costly, in fact cheaper than the many free toolsets available for Linux developers.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Actualy, its not that great, although the irony of you actualy getting first post makes it a bit humourous :P
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Self improvement is masturbation - Tyler Durden
Is that like one of those slogans in 1984, you know that can be read backwards and forwards? that is, if Self improvement is masterbation, does masterbation improve the self?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
This piece was definately written for the kiddies here on /. and it contains as much fud as the ms piece. Here are my criticisms...
According to Lineo, nothing in the entire universe is not supported by Linux because someone will volunteer to write it for you or you can write it yourself you lazy bastard. This is amazing. I guess GM and Ford can call all of their cars electric since they could actually replace all of the engines.
IE is less compatable because it includes ms extensions. That doesn't make it less compatable. If that's the argument than it don't work.
Java is not agreed upon by organizations and companies. Unless Sun has split into multiple companies and organizations. Java is still owned by Sun, is still mostly interpreted and still slower than something written with the os in mind.
Linux has multiple GUI's. If your product needs a gui and you want to have the largest pool of customers to draw form than that is an issue. In my mind the lack of a common GUI is what keeps Linux from grabbing more desktop space. Lineo's answer is par for the course, support them all you lazy bastard and not only that but be glad you have the freedom to choose and differentiate.
Fighting FUD with FUD is a losing proposition. Fighting MS FUD with Linux FUD is also counter-productive and playing into their hands.
.. how effective a completely content-free marketing campaign can be. I didn't mean to offend, it just rankles when people base their opinions on what they see on TV and not what their experience tells them.
You're right, everything Microsoft sucks completely and Linux is the best operating system for everyone everywhere all the time. I can't even figure out how companies even make any money using Microsoft products because they suck so much.
It must be a conspiracy.
I Heart Sorting Networks
There is also a response from LynuxWorks
Actually, having just read the articles in question, MS didnt lie about a damn thing, and Lineo's "point by point refutation" was nothing but cheerleading. In other words, business as usual in La-la Lunix land.
Conclusion: They are not in the same general vicinity. The truth must therefore be moved further Out There, if Microsoft is to be able to provide it.
Work on this is apparently underway.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Red Hat and M$ accuse each other of being followers instead of innovators. I consider this to a display of bad "sportsmanship". In a free market, people should be able to take a product and try to get it to the consumer at a much cheaper price. Could you imagine being told that you couldn't sell water melons because somebody already sold them first?
Don't get me wrong. I think that it is good to have patents and copy rights. However, criticizing a company for making software that reproduces the functionality of yours is not in keeping with the principles of a free market.
This is also true for M$. If they want to take somebody else's idea, then they should go ahead and do it. The only issue is whether or not the copied work is copy righted or is even copy rightable.
I use RH6.2 because it's free and a few other reasons, not because it crashes less often than M$. I personally want software that works better than [or as well as] M$ software. So if Red Hat or somebody else creates something cheaper than M$ and is good enough in quality, then who is anybody to complain?
Sincerely, and with thanks,
Eugene T.S. Wong
testing out my trending skills
I am a software engineer writing networking code that runs in embedded environments. No one in their right mind would choose Windows XP for embedded development for a number of reasons.
1. Embedded devices use a wide variety of microprocessors, memory architectures, and hardware, often with custom boot code. At least in the hard-core networking industry, X86 is not a big player since RISC processors tend to be a better fit (almost all networking protocols are big endian, for example). As far as I know MS is X86 only (not counting Intel's Unobtainium).
Also, many embedded products are based around non-Intel processors to cut costs and power requirements. There are a wide variety of RISC processors out there with varying levels of integration.
In the networking area I'm in (dealing with network processors from companies like Agere, Broadcom, Intel, MMC, Vitesse, etc.) most of the parts come with support for Linux and VxWorks. I do not see much support for Windows.
2. Embedded developers often need very low level access to the operating system. I doubt very much that MS will make available the source code to their OS. Where I work, we have the full source code to VxWorks ($$$, but worth it), which our product is based. This allows us great flexibility in terms of adding features or fixing bugs (what, bugs in commercial software???). If we had to wait for Wind River (or Microsoft for that matter) to fix a bug we'd never get anything done.
3. Linux is becomming very popular in the embedded area in part due to its open source and the licensing issues in many instances. Linux also has a proven track record of having been ported to a wide variety of hardware, from IBM mainframes to the Sega Dreamcast and other platforms. XP has no such track record.
4. Many embedded environments do not want features like IE, media player, or even a GUI. In the networking products I've worked on the only front end is either through a serial port or a telnet session.
Embedded developers are not your typical programmers. It's one thing to write an app in a nice GUI front-end and be able to step through the code in a debugger (like one can do with user-space apps). In the embedded world it's often the case that everything is running at the kernel layer.
-Aaron
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
I used to belive that people in this industry were smart enough to choose for themselves. Now 15 years later I see things happening that I would have never belived before. This is a perfect example. These documents are targeting people with little or no technical skill. The people who (in my experience), make the decisions about OS and in my case the RTOSes have very little to do with the actual development process outside of a very high level managerial roll.
Based off of documents like the ones from the MS people I feel I can safely assume that this is often the case elswhere.
I guess the best question to ask is why the people who are the most qualified to make these desicions not the ones who make them?
It seems to me that a project engineer who is developing an embeded product should be the one to make the bussiness case for an embeded linux, XP, or whatever, not the division manager who understands the accounting and has little real skill or experience with code.
I guess a better question to ask is why in this case is the product image important? The people who are working with this stuff should (and I do understand that in some cases are), the ones who have the final word on OS choice?
-- sorry about the spelling I just woke up, and am on my firdt cup of coffee.
Why Microsoft Windows XP Embedded and Not Wind River? -a lu ation/compare/notwindriver.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/Windows/embedded/xp/ev
It's exactly the same type of article they used to attack Linux. But that's a far less juicy story, isn't it?
Speaking of which, does anyone have any figures on how much the other embedded OSes cost per system? I assume they'd have to be rough figures as I expect the various companies negotiate the exact price based on units to be licensed. I'd be curious.
Really the biggest issue we ran in to was with releasing our kernel mods back to the community but I believe we decided to do so. I and my kernel-hacking co-worker were lobbying to do so, and there were really no reasons not to. The interface and higher level software was not going to be released, which is just as well as I'm sure it would have been as dangerous as Monty Python's "Funniest Joke in the World." (A joke so funny you die laughing, for those who missed the skit.)
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
But I thought Lineo were out of business? It's even on Fuckedcompany from December 3rd.
lineo could demand microsoft retract the blatantly innacurate statements or else lineo would sue for slander.
lineo could then sue for slander if microsoft refused.
why not? it would actually get some *press* then. if microsoft said any definitely provably untrue statements in its white paper, could anyone give me any reasons *not* to do this?
I worked in the embedded systems field (automated test equipment) some years ago, and it was not at all anything like the typical IT shop. For starters, the President and founder was an EE, as were most of the VPs, and the designers, and right on down the line to my little corner of the world. There were no gullible PHBs with liberal arts degrees masquerading as wannabe technologists; my managers ate, slept, and breathed silicon and clock rates. They didn't buy into anybody's slick and deceptive marketing practices back then, and I'll bet they don't fall for it now.
A colorful GUI with bundled streaming media is not going to send those guys flying through the air like in the commercials, but it's guaranteed to send the salesmen flying out the door.
... nor did I claim that all MS products are garbage.
I clearly stated that for OUR applications, a variety of different OS's met our needs. Not just Linux, but also PSOS/VxWorks/Nucleus. I also clearly stated that Linux has several weaknesses, most notably RT requirements (which several groups are working on as we speak) and relatively large footprint (compared to some of the VERY small OS's). One thing I will say is that MS does NOT currently make any embedded products that meet our requirements, and they are unlikely to in the future.
All I ask is for you to not believe the hype.
The poster is suggesting Lineo/XP for casino machines.
So your whole argument is: "Linux is better because it's GPL'd!" And claim that the person you're replying to is basing their assumptions on marketing material and not on real-world practical experiance?
Yeh... Okay...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Tell me when I can copy from one app to another on Linux.
But one has to wonder, is any of the stuff on slashdot FUD, opinionated and/or innacurate wrt Microsoft? (witness michael's article about MIME type holes recently)... mm... just a bit ;)
And, just to secure my Troll rating (and to prove that I too probably dunno what I'm on about), an OS which compiles into a 350K or so kernel for even the most basic of functions, plus tacked on realtime scheduling doesnt strike me as being very appropriate for embedded applications. Sorry folks, but this is one area where you NEED to pay for a lot of R&D and yea that does mean proprietary software; I'm no CS student but I do know that hard RT is a thankless thing to get right, as is supporting embedded microcontrollers and peripherals (CPU's dont exist in vacuum, right?) and consistent support for dozens of possible platforms (and, yes, bootloading said platforms). I remember RedHat was making something called EcOS.. it's young but the architecture at least seems designed for embedding; anyone know what's up with that recently?
On microsoft.com, today:
Inheritance from a base class:
Find out how to start saving time today with Visual Basic
These are the people that want to advise you on choosing an embedded OS? Let's get real!
there's no place like ~
I probably shouldn't have said "user-space applications programmers", but just applications programmers.. since that really has varied.
Most mid- and upper-level managers who end up choosing Linux are intelligent people, and they chose Linux because they see the light. For people stuck working at companies where the management are idiots, that's just too bad. Deal with it.
To the companies who chose Linux over the past years: way to go! Keep ignoring MS, as it should be.
To those companies who actually buy this FUD: I'll laugh when you vanish into extinction.
... sort of. Not suitable for the embedded space. If you want CIFS to work on an embedded file server you are not going to run samba. trust me.
Someone you trust is one of us.
... if I could read half of the white paper. In Opera at 100% the examples cited by Microsoft in their tables are barely legible. So much for standards compliance!
Sig: Where I'd put something witty if I could think of it.
How could microsoft possibly be worried about a competitor they can afford?
Wind River has a market cap, and they could easily end up with a Microsoft controlling interest if they are insurmoutable with the usual techniques.
Redhat and Lineo could be bought out as well, but their product couldnt be.
Linux has an unfair advantage: the GPL.
That's not the point of the space, its put there automaticaly by slash, to prevent the layout table from getting fucked up.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
it was a joke. liten up.
Speaking of the X-Files, I just had to lookup this word from the opening credits:
INVEIGLE - To lure, or entice, or lead a person astray by false representations or promises, or other deceitful means.
I believe this definition is a legal one, but I don't think it automatically synonymous with "FUD".
FUD other the hand gives the perpetrator plausible deniability for screwing with the consumers' minds.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
For example, there areat least five different
oh, no! competition!
My server
From the white paper (describing Embedded Linux):Translation:
I fail to overlook your blatant contradiction here. If a crook is a crook, they're going to use your code either way. Obviously security by obscurite doesn't work here either. Now, I can hear you saying "but open sourcing it just makes it easier for them!"
If your whole business model revolves around writing binary drivers for something, maybe you should go do something else. Reverse engineering is still legal. Hiding your code just makes it tough to figure out where it's broken. If your competitors are using your code, then you can force them under the GPL to open up their code as well.
Now I can see the real finger pointing, "see, see, there's the viral GPL in action!" Let's get this straight: your competitors took your code, your code is not an airborne disease that forced itself on them. This is the GPL protecting you. And again, if your whole business model relies on merely writing some drivers for something, it's not a very good one. If you're actually manufacturing a product, your product should be the thing worth something.
Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
> Windows XP Embedded delivers a feature-rich multimedia experience. Full support for DirectX 8 provides superior graphics rendering and performance. Direct3D -- advanced support for interactive 3-D graphics applications. Windows Media 8 for industry-leading codecs and Digital Rights Management (DRM). Support for advanced graphical functionality including ClearType fonts and multiscreen. DVD video support.
When is the last time you see ANY leading video card manufacturer that ACTUALLY makes a Linux video driver that works as good as the Windoze counterpart??? Sure, NVIDIA has, but it's just as proprietary as the Windoze one. HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Don't forget, OpenGL doesn't even support vertex and pixel shaders quite yet, and all you get is the NVIDIA shader extensions. Good luck on porting DX8 games to Linux without locking out or crippling performance on other video cards.
I have used ucLinux and Windows CE in the past and favor uCLinux.
Lineo, PLEASE get a new PR person. Just reading your responses to Microsoft's claims is agonizing. If I hadn't used uCLinux before, reading your remarks alone would stray me away.
Simple and to the point answers are effective in showing how simple and to the point uCLinux is.
Sorry friend, you missed one piece of functionality, perhaps for version 0.2.
--e eject toast forcibly so you can catch it in various suave fashions.
Slay a dragon... over lunch!
I was just at Novell's website and saw an article on their groupwise page about how microsoft sent out a document to all of their customers trying to dissuade them from converting to Groupwise from Exchange. The document was full of lies about what groupwise could not do. Novell has a reply to each issue in the document on their website.
It seems that if Microsoft cannot properly compete in the marketplace by making a quality product, they simply lie about the competitions product. Hrmph!
While reading the microsoft arguments against the GPL, was it just me or did anyone else see it's absurdity? They seem to think that by using Linux you are forced to release your code. Obviously you have the choice, it almost sounds like they are saying "don't use Linux, because then you can't steal code!". Their anecdote about the nvidia driver just makes me mad. Did the nvidia team think they could just use someone else's code without giving credit? And doesn't that contradict MS's argument about intelectual property rights?
This is (as the subject says) another example of the Microsoft FUD War. Only this one is far more directly targeted than MS's previous shots.
I was covering the FUD War for a while.. check out "Anti-American Communist Cancer/Virus: Microsoft vs. the GPL", which is over on linuxppc.org. Previously, they were targeting the GPL specifically, Linux by extension (and sometimes directly). This time, though, they've far outdone themselves. Bravo, Steve, Bill. Bravo.
-- haaz.
.. I have had real world experience with several different embedded OS's running on several different platforms. Have you?
Read this and point out any inaccuracies.
This really isn't anything to get too inflated over. It was a pretty standard marketing whitepaper and could have come from just about any company. In college I did research on battery technologies (lead acid, lithium, ni-cad) and every company in this market drew a chart of power efficiency and capacity on a white paper that indicated their technology was favored.
Whitepapers are meant to point out your product's strengths (not weaknesses). Where there are gray areas, you spin it in your favor. To us, these spins look like inaccuracies, but I just assume that any company whose looking to embedded devices will take it with a grain of salt and do their research.
That aside, to me, one glaring thing that's missing from the whitepaper is that a company won't own any technology through licensing XP. With Linux, you can own it... and that's a large consideration when trying to build value from your work through IP or otherwise. I don't expect Microsoft to put that in their whitepaper though.
Wonder what Thurrott will say about this one... can't wait to read his uneducated and overexaggerated opinions.
articles address the actual document. They lash out at generalities instead of mentioning exact responses....
I'm glad to see this sort of thing -- the day has finally come when Microsoft tries to throw their weight around and the Open Source community gets to shout back just as loud. But I'm really not all that worried about Windows XP anymore; I haven't been for months. Here's why.
How many tech people have you talked to who are honestly enthusiastic about Windows XP? Granted, we Open Sourcers tend to group together, but even still, the vast majority of people I know who are serious about computing are infuriated as all hell about the direction Microsoft is going. I have relatives who are CTOs for large non-tech firms, and while they're still using Windows out of necessity, they're seriously looking at switching to Linux in a couple years. It looks to me like Microsoft, with their strong-arm tactics and "us or nothing" attitude, is alienating a very important part of their business: the people who understand technology.
I know people who used to be avid Windows 2000 supporters, and now they refuse to use XP. Whether it's the forced registration, or the new integrated software, or just Microsoft in general, they don't want to be force-fed anymore. "So what?" you say. "Microsoft will still take over the market." I think that's an accurate assumption, but -- which market?
I say that Microsoft has already put nails in the coffin of their share of the server industry. That isn't to say they aren't being successful; quite to the contrary, Microsoft (compared to the rest of the tech sector) is doing extremely well. But I say the software giant's peak is coming soon. Within a year or so, they'll hit maximum sales and maximum power, and then they'll level off. And sure enough, one by one, slowly but steadily, people will drop Microsoft in support of a more secure and reliable alternative: Linux. (No offense intended to the other OSS flavors out there, it's just that Linux is getting the most press.) Within three or four years, I predict that Microsoft will have lost a severely large percentage of the server market; the only demographic they'll manage to keep hold of will be the end users, the people who either don't know or don't care how to do anything other than open Word and play Solitaire. And that won't last forever.
Once Microsoft realizes it's screwed itself over with the server industry, it will be forced to reinvent itself as an even more "user-oriented" company; MSN will replace Windows as their dominant product, everything they do will be aimed at the average (read: clueless) computer user and his kids, and Microsoft will become more like AOL and Yahoo! than anything else. Then, as the general population slowly becomes more adept with technology, the barriers to change from Windows to an alternative OS will ease up, and Microsoft will finally start to lose their hold on the home PC market.
I give the company something in the ballpark of eight years before Chapter 11.
Far be it from me to point at that you seem like a clueless, knee-jerk Linux zealot who loves to feel persecuted by Microsoft, but...
If you go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/xp/evalu ation/compare/notwindriver.asp, you'll see that they have the exact same type of article discussing Wind River. Gee, and it's even titled "Why Microsoft Windows XP Embedded and Not Wind River." Truly amazing. Sorry if I ruined your persecution complex. :)
I thought the topic was M$FUD.
--ZM, anxiously awaiting mod pointsThe sad thing about this that I got from reading the articles is that Microsoft seems to be telling the world that Embedded Linux is bad because it doesn't support all of the Microsoft "standards" out there today.
What's even sadder is that Joe Consumer doesn't know the difference between Microsoft standards and Open standards.
What's even scarier than THAT is that Joe Consumer likely doesn't give a rat's ass about the difference, and will buy within his comfort level.
So that leaves the rest of us standing around with our dorks in our hands trying to piss farther than Microsoft for wont of a team of marketroids to descend upon the masses and convert them to the Linux alternative in a vision of holy righteousness.
So what do we, the educated, do about this?
Toga! Toga! Toga!
Actually, I think RedHat, Lineo, and other embedded Linux developers need to start taking the offensive and stop trying to defend themselves. Why does Microsoft always get the first kick in, leaving the Linux community sputtering in outrage at their slanderous remarks. When Microsoft says "Linux Sucks" and the Linux community responds with "Linux doesn't suck!" all the consumeroids hear is "Linux doesn't sucks."
Also, until Linux can prove itself on the desktop in front of Jane Slackjaw and her Family of Five, Linux will never have a chance in her hand.
Mmmm... Pistol Whip...
QNX > Linux > Windoze
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
But you may be right--Linux may be heading down the road of a "write once, debug everywhere" OS too.
I believe that the Telocity routers run on embeded Linux with a Motorola processor. Is this correct?
--------------------------
Is this a sig?
--------------------------
Why does M$ feel its necessary to make up things all them time about its competitors products. Why can't it just rely on the quality and merit of what it produces! In a recent white paper, Microsoft® compared its Visual Studio.NET with WebSphere for developing Web services. This white paper reveals how Microsoft set up the comparison and enchmarks to produce a predetermined result. It shows how, in an unbiased comparison, WebSphere creates the sample Web service faster, more economically, with fewer steps and fewer lines of code. And it does so in a heterogeneous, non-proprietary environment.
" ... In general, Microsoft says it offers an "unmatched technology portfolio" while Linux is "a follower, not an innovator." ... "
In General, MS is neither a follower nor an innovator. MS's technology portfolio consists of bagmen with cash to lure innovators; whereupon the technology is closed an implemented or buried forever.
bad "sportsmanship".
Look here. The similarities are superficial. MS is the one that has been going around chanting "innovation", "innovation".
They came out with this basis of comparision FIRST.
I'm on a bit of a ./ use of English downer at the moment - mod me down - but what's a "false fact" when it's a home? A lie?
If it *is* a lie then why not *call* it a lie. What the's matter? Are you scared of M$?
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"
Open Source does not an ecosystem make
I didn't realize we were required to present our thesis in Yoda-speak.
Can you imagine a MOSIX cluster of these?
Microsoft is scared (and lying). For a multi-million $$ company that is all they can come up with. If Linux is so bad how come it works so well for us.We are using Linux on automotive assembly equipment 20 machines+, eventualy 100+. And it is working great. Development problems-some problems, but no different than any other OS. No single source for tools, GUI etc. So this is bad, choice is bad, it is if you want 100% of the market. Yes they mention it cost a lot, o wait we paid $2.00 for those blank CD. I thought they said CE was great. I guess it does not exist now. CE what is that. There was no CE.
midori from Linus/transmeta
Did a search on the comments to see if there was any mention of midori. Didn't find any.
Any comments on Midori as an Embedded linux?
I can't figure it out:
2001-12-17 14:53:43 Embedded Linux versus Windows XP Embedded (articles,news) (rejected)
I must have b.o. or something
Lineo has exceptional support and excellent dev tools. I had a small project where I would be selling two custom routers based around their Netel boxes running uClinux. I told them about the low volume, and that didn't affect their support at all. I was able to talk to the people that designed the hardware and wrote the code - and they provided actual answers and solutions. We looked at embedded NT and none of what we were doing would have been possible. At minimum we would have had to buy 10 licenses, which is big $$$.
On a side note, the Coldfire / Dragonball processors have great debugger support. I got a BDM module that lets me use GDB to control all of the registers in the processor and do line by line code debugging. Try getting that sort of hardware level debugger from an X86 - even if you had it, it would be a pain to step through 100,000+ lines of Micro$oft bloat in order to find my bug.
-James Jefferson
Well it may not be an option to sue them for slander, but is there any legal action companies such as Red Hat and Lineo can take against Microsoft for attempting to hurt their business with lies?
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
That statement leaves us with two options:
1) M$ is lying about something that does not matter. This is typical of pathalogical lying and is designed to create a maximum of confusion.
2) M$ is lying about something that does matter and you are unable or unwilling to grasp the significance from too much of #1.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
See.. regardless of what either side says.. neither has a significant share of the embedded market.
Now.. from what I've seen of real embedded OS, Linux is likely to be much more popular with them than XP.
Now.. if we speak strictly of more 'custom computers'.. like set-top boxes, kiosks, atms, etc, sure, XP 'embedded' might be a good, easy solution in some cases; even better than linux.. especially if you want windows functionality.
But arguing which is a 'better' embedded OS based on things like networking, GUI, web browser, 802.11b zero-config, etc, is absurd; those are ideas from the PC world.. not the embedded world.
Your new toaster does not need a web browser.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
-Abraham Lincoln (1809?1865)
* * Always question "the National Interest" - 9 times out of 10 it is a cover for evil
I think you should just fuck off and die, really, but anyway:
1) Will the end-customer be required to do a "build-and-nmake" on their own PDA or other eLinux device when a new rev of the software is released?
Of course not, fuckwit. They're not required to on desktop linux installations, either, haven't been since people invented RPM. And even if they were, they'd be using GNU make, not the abomination that is MS nmake.
2) Who will the end-customer go to for support; the manufacturer of the device, or to some arcane amalgumn of Linux/OpenSource coders who tell the end-user that they'll have to change such-and-such lines in the sourcecode and then re-compile & re-build the OS?
They go to the manufacturer of the device - Just like with MS and OEM Windows Licences, it's the OEM who handles OS support - e.g. Dell, NOT Microsoft, have to support the OEM windows installs on their dekstops, Compaq, NOT Microsoft, supports Wince installations on their iPAQs. As you should well know if you really are who you say you are. So, you're just engaged in FUDspreading.
3) What will happen when the end-user wants to make use of 802.11b or the other new "WiFi" connectivity scheme; have drivers made by the manufacturer that are certified by the manufacturer of the OS,
In essdence, yes - if you follow the LKML, you'll see that, unlike the early days of Linux, most device drivers are written by teams in the hardware company itself. The equivalent of "certification" in the Linux world is probably when those drivers make it into the official (Linus) source tree. (Unlike the windows world, however, a pre-requisite for this "certification" is that the drivers be open-source.)
All in all, you are a fuckwit who doesn't know the first thing about Linux and its use in the embedded space. Embedded XP? Don't make me laugh. Now, personally, I prefer QNX to embedded linux, but that doesn't mean that Linux doesn't already fulfil many embedded developers needs, particularly when it's a linux patched with RTAI or RTLinux for real-time work. The MS article doesn't even mention the existence of the RT patches to the linux kernel, talks about redhat 7.1, which is definitively NOT an embedded linux product, and conveniently fails to mention that the ONLY processor architecture that embedded XP currently works on is IA32. Linux reliable works on: IA32, Arm, MIPs, Sparc, CRIS, m68k, PPC, etc, etc.
The comment from LinuxWorks about the NSA producing a "secure Linux" is an interesting concept.
But how about the fact that the NSA's technique can be applied to embeded devices too? Not mentioned, only implied. Too bad, that makes a good argument point.
I would prefer it if the comment were slightly reworded, however.
The NSA has developed security techniques that provide a Linux platform even THEY can trust, that can be easily applied to embeded systems.
I also don't think they used enough, "Microsoft doesn't mention that the licensing they are objecting to is the way Microsoft licenses are written."
Bob-
The Ludwig von Mises Institute. The reasoning individuals economics
Aren't there little 'server in a box' products that use Samba right now? Or am I completely on crack?
Like the subject says...
How can they not compare XP with Linux? I'm sure their software engineers are at work RIGHT NOW setting up Linux to crash, and working out how to display the blue screen of death! Linux is open source, so they can do whatever they want with it! So they make up FUD? Then make a Linux distro as slow as XP!!!
"I have not failed. I've simply found 10,000 ways that won't work." --Thomas Edison
It's not irrational, really...I mean, if people didn't have their heads stuck up their asses they'd realize that there was a better alternative. THEN they'd have a reason to be afraid.
But then, maybe the reason they're scared is because most of the Linux/Open Source community actually knows how to speak English. All that Microsoft drones have been progra--err, educated about is that "Open Source does not an ecosystem make". *cough* Err, wow, either someone idolizes Yoda or was stoned. I'm guessing the latter.
[insert witty comment here]
Well, actually, that kind of stuff really is normal in marketing. It may not be nice and usually is misleading, but that's how it works.
The only way to fight it is with hardcore info or similar claims of your own.
How about reacting to this statement in the article:
"Microsoft asserts that it has teams devoted to patching security holes, whereas Linux relies on the open source community for bug fixes, as though the open source model posed a risk."
You could analyze the bugfix-behaviour of both systems for the previous XX years:
(Date of issue of a patch)-(Date of publication of the security-hole).
Lotta work, but maybe it's worth it. Probably not, though: "I don't trust any statistic which I didn't forge myself"...
just my opinion, if MS are writing articles like this doesnt it show that MS are feeling the pressure of Linux?
While they say that Linux isnt viable competitor to Windows, so why is there so many MS vs. Linux articles? Strange but true (i'll have to dig some up!)
I think due to the ever increasing share of server PCs sliding over to the linux side, there worried that there new baby (WinE for short, not to be confused with WINE) may crash and burn cause Linux might provide better to OEMs in embedded systems...
I confess that i dont know much about the embedded market but wouldn't OEMs choose flexabilty over the ridgid closed software views of MS? maybe MS realise this and are starting to defend themselves...
---"What do you mean you have no ice? Do you expect me to drink this coffee hot?" - Random Customer, Clerks
"Comprehensive OS foundation with proven performance and reliability"
This can't be true since XP has not been out long enough to be "proven" as reliable"
Oh you mean in comparison to an OS that has been in beta testing since it's first day ?
And STILL is in Beta testing, all the time ?
That's why people choose Ms, possibly, the illusion of a finished product...
Marketing is just like Free Speech. It's just a way of seeing truth, not saying the whole truth, just showing the part in your interest.
Also Support is harder to get for Linux (Try Exotic hardware, find driver for linux (hope) try to install it (pray) and if no driver exists, then take this nice DVD card and go nail it to wall...
BTW I just reinstalled W2K on mymain computer.
It works.
And allows me Games / Work / DVD / Divx.
With no fuss
Wich is what I ask.
So to Hell with Linux and let's just speak of stable computers
If one carefully examines human history (in particular that of Europe in the late 1930s), one finds a similarity between a certain power of that time and Microsoft. Both have learned that if a lie is repeated loudly and frequently, the general public either cannot or will not distinguish it from the truth. Linux is now the target of an all-out marketing and PR assault by Big Redmond... and they will not consider validity or honesty in their quest to gain all the wealth of the world.
"We are Microsoft. You shall be assimilated. Competition is futile."
The lowest end storage boxes uses samba. The mid tier and enterprize boxes use either offshoots from the original embedded NT, their own propriatary implementation of CIFS, or the new embedded NT.
Someone you trust is one of us.
"Embedded Windows" - an oxymoron if ever there was one. It's GUI oriented - and quite a number of embedded appliances will not require one.
Linux will still boot and run off of a floppy which is a lot smaller than 4.8Mb!
And as for MS claiming that the ability to playback multi-media content such as movies, sound etc is somehow part of the OS is ludicrous - these are applications. I know MS likes eveyone to believe that everything they see on the desktop is somehow provided soley by the OS (IE for eg) but this broaches new levels of stupidity even for them - check out the "tour" on Windows XP - you'd think they'd just invented everything - including the Internet, and that it's all new in XP - and only XP.
And as for XP having a "proven" track record of reliabilty and stability - Guys - you are in danger of looking more than a little bit thick here - how can a product that's been out 5 minutes have a proven track record? Not to mention it s based on past products with a proven track record for disaster, inflexibility, and a "can't do" attititude.
For those who haven't seen it, IBM has a whitepaper on this sort of thing.
-- The Hollow Man
Non illegitimati carborundum
They cannot possibly compare XP to Linux. They are pissed off because WinCE failed in the embedded marketplace, and they know that Linux is OBSCENLY more flexible and reliable than any of their OS's. Linux has a place in the embedded world.
MS can have thousands of devleopers on a project, but there is no match for the number of developers with the pride and the passion that Linux posesses. Good luck MS.
1) kdeveloper is comparable.
2) No, they are just window managers. Errrr, why are you supporting multiple window managers for _your_ embedded product? Choice means you can choose which to support, not that you have to support all of them.
3) XP _is_ unproven until it has been in the field for non critical apps for at least 1 year. Deploying a solution that fails for your customers is not a good way of ensuring job security.
4) Something has either been tested or not. This is a boolean condition. If it wasn't directly tested, then it wasn't tested.
>> Good job ace.
You must still be young (or very immature for your age) to be so wrong and yet be so strongly committed to your own opinion. Don't worry with time will come maturity.