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).

Comments

What did you expect?

[FortKnox]

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...

Re:What did you expect?

[Syberghost]

Obviously, both sides are biased and think their product is better.

True, but Lineo didn't say "Linux doesn't support plug and play".

Not only is it blatently untrue, Linux DOES support plug and play, but it's supported it longer than NT. And XP is NT 5.1; if you don't believe me, check your web-server logs.

Re:What did you expect?

[Webmoth]

I didn't realize an embedded system NEEDED plug 'n play support.

I mean, how many devices are going to be plugging into your toaster?

# /sbin/modprobe bread
# /usr/local/bin/toast
toast v0.1 alpha
Usage:
toast [flags] slot-device
Flags:
-s n number of slices (increments slot-devices by n-1, default n=1)
-c XX color; (one of dry, golden [default], crispy, burnt)
-e eject toast upon completion (default)
+e do not eject toast
slot-device the first slot you are toasting in (default /dev/toast0)
Examples:
toast # makes one slice of golden toast in the first slot
toast -s 2 /dev/toast2 # makes two slices of golden toast in third and fourth slots
toast -c golden /dev/toast0 -c burnt +e /dev/toast3 # ejects slot 0 but not slot 4
# /usr/local/bin/toast -s 1 -c burnt -e /dev/toast0
# /usr/bin/eject /dev/toast0
# killall -9 firealarm

Somehow, I don't think so. But if I know the Linux community, someone will implement. And put into a crontab. For perfect toast tomorrow morning as you are getting out of bed. If only we had a changer device (toast jukebox?) then we could implement an automatic jellier.

Re:What did you expect?

[Syberghost]

I didn't realize an embedded system NEEDED plug 'n play support.

I mean, how many devices are going to be plugging into your toaster?

None. But how many are you going to plug into your PDA?

Re:What did you expect?

[Chris Burke]

Well, none, if you're talking PnP devices, as that was a concept only meaningful on the deprecated ISA bus.

Normal for them

[briggsb]

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.

Re:Normal for them

[jd]

Which is why we need to take action. Comments on the Anti-trust case are still being taken. If 8,000 - 10,000 people were to file complaints that Microsoft is "knifing the baby", just as much now as before the trial, I feel sure that the Judge in charge of settling this case will be rather harsher to Microsoft than they might otherwise have been.

If those same people lobby the press, it could seriously harm Microsoft's sales. (Remember, it's still the run-up to Christmas, one of the biggest sales periods on the calendar for computer goods.)

FUD is a dangerous weapon, and it CAN be taken away from Microsoft. But ONLY if we tell the people who matter (the press) that it's just too dangerous to allow Microsoft to retain this weapon of mass destruction.

Re:Normal for them

[jamesmrankinjr]

The bad thing about this is that people will only see the Microsoft lies and not the rebuttals by Lineo and Redhat.

As far as I know, there was no ZDNet article touting the whitepaper before the Lineo and RedHat rebuttals. The article focuses more on the rebuttals than the original M$ paper.

This is an example of Linux winning the PR war. Probably very few people saw the whitepaper before this article, and their first exposure to it is a ZDNet article painting it as an attempt by corrupt M$ to misrepresent their scrappy Linux competitors.

As for M$ having better consumer-level PR, how many consumers think about embedded OSes (or even know what one is)? Hopefully customers in the embedded space take due diligence a little more seriously and are a bit less likely to accept FUD at face value.

Best,

-jimbo

Something is wrong in Redmond...

[mwalker]

...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.

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[TheRain]

I think it's just smart public relations. They make it look like they are afraid of Linux taking their user base and they seem less monopolistic. Microsoft has nothing to fear from other companies... the only real threat is public opinion.

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[jd]

Because WindRiver, et al, are not storming the ramparts, threatening King William the Gates with a Peasent's Revolt.

Because VxWorks is not the media's darling, and the European Union's ticket to a cheaper, more secure Government.

In short, this isn't about fighting the "real" enemy, because the "real" enemy can only do so much damage to Microsoft. Linux, on the other hand, could seriously cripple Microsoft's domination and even inflict some damage to their business model.

What's more, in this time of fear and suspicion, FUD is a much more lethal weapon. Even in "normal" times, FUD could destroy "lesser" companies, but now, when Governments and people around the world are scared shitless that the Big Bad Ogre is after them, personally... ...Now, a well-placed FUD bomb could obliterate the computer landscape. Forget the Daisy Cutter - that's just an oversize Molotov. This is serious weaponry.

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[ergo98]

You're completely right, and I'd say it's a case of two competitors pretending each other is the primary contendor, when in reality neither of them are (see major battery advertisements for an example of this in action: Agree to only focus on each other and consumers will be fooled into thinking that you're the two most important games in town [because why else would you focus on each other?]). In the serious embedded sphere I doubt either Lineo or Embedded CE/NT/2000/XP have any market saturation at all versus vxworks, QNX, etc.

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[mwalker]

Because WindRiver, et al, are not storming the ramparts, threatening King William the Gates with a Peasent's Revolt

Huh? WindRiver already stormed the ramparts. They now own the ramparts, and are trying to keep the Microsoft peasants out. Microsoft is the smallest name in the embedded market. They don't make any real revenue there. There's nothing to defend there, only a new market to conquer. But instead of focusing on attacking and annihilating the competion the way they normally do, they're focusing on attacking the other small fish in the pond... Linux.

I think we may actually be vehemently agreeing. I'm saying that Microsoft is acting irrationally in the embedded space WRT Linux because of some other perception. I think you're defining that perception... it's just amazing how tenaciously they will fight for a market they don't even have anything to do with, when Linux is involved.

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[jd]

Ok, I see what you're saying now. (I love the term "vehemently agreeing", btw! And, yes, I think that's exactly what we're doing!)

ObTrivia: If Microsoft is an irrational entity, then multiplying it by any rational number will never return a rational result. Explains a lot. :)

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[Mignon]

WindRiver ... own[s] the ... embedded market.

Maybe Microsoft should petition the DOJ to investigate WindRiver's monopoly position in the embedded market.

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[WolfWithoutAClause]

I don't think Redmond cares whether they are right or not. What they are doing is to give some [apparent] reasons for those managers that have chosen Microsoft software, or may be about to do so, that their chosen path [folly] is "correct", if anyone asks [laughs at them- and well they might.]

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[mwalker]

Considering the rate at which they are acquiring and gutting their competition (PSOS, BSDI), let me tell you, you are not alone in your thinking.

Trust me.

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[ghjm]

Or more to the point, *dividing* Microsoft by any rational number will also fail to return a rational result. :-)

Re:Something is wrong in Redmond...

[jd]

Hmmm... What happens if you divide it -irrationally-?

First is better

[Mattcelt]

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.

Re:First is better

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does MS always get the marketing leg up on Linux?

That's bacause the Linux mindset is not adept at hostile, predatory marketing tactics. It just doesn't come naturally for honest folks.

Re:First is better

[reaper20]

Has Linux ever had a successful pre-emptive publicity strike against MS?

(NASDAQ Guy Voice)
Actually, there's a list of them published everyday - BUGTRAQ, the anti-MS marketing engine for the new millenium.

Moving on .... There's MS's marketing, and there are the plain facts. We don't need to attack Microsoft on the marketing front. They do that for us. Their security record and dumb licensing costs will continue to harm Microsoft, regardless of what they say about Linux.

Companies are slowly becoming more enlightened to Linux every day. Believe me, people are starting to notice the ridiculous security problems and licensing costs. One step at a time. I sit in the corner, waiting for the day when someone high up enough asks "I'm sick of this garbage and all our IT money going down the drain, there has to be an alternative, if only we had a choice!"

Re:First is better

[reaper20]

what makes you think that people will suddenly start saying that "i am fed up", etc...

That's where your Friendly Neighborhood Linux Advocacy Guy comes in:

"Man, all that cash for Exchange! This junk is so expensive"
"You know, you can do email without exchange, and for free..."
"No you can't, seriously?"
"Yep, we can even get rid of IIS too, just let me come in on the weekend and I'll set it all up, IMAP, the works ..."
"But what about support?"
"Don't fire me." :)

ms vs reality

[ryusen]

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...

Re:ms vs reality

[the_radix]

You just validated Microsoft's arguments with your third point: no plethora of drivers. No matter how fancy Linux has gotten, it still hasn't been able to interface with the huge base of hardware that Microsoft products can. There are a lot of companies that cannot afford fancy new hardware; they must make do on something that was brought in years ago. And Microsoft products play nice with them.

Now, while we may be talking about embedded systems, realize that there are embedded system companies that have to make their systems work as seamlessly as possible with what their clients have lying about as well.

In addition, since at least 75% (incredibly conservative) of their end-users will be using some kind of Microsoft product on their home computer, having a Microsoft-run embedded system means happier end-users.

As for support, I would much rather have a big, rich company supporting my software than a bunch of chatrooms. If my system is compromised or causes damage, I want to be able to say, "This company here is responsible for it", instead of telling my pointy-haired boss that we either have to fix a problem ourselves with software that we shouldn't have to, or wait an indeterminate amount of time for "some people on the Internet" to fix it, or not. That's too big a liability for a company.

Re:ms vs reality

[Anonymous Coward]

However, the popular architectures for embedded devices are Arm, Dragonball, PPC, MIPS. Which of those does windows XP embedded run on? Hint: None. Yes, Wince runs on Arm and MIPS, but that's /not/ XP embedded, which this article is about... Microsoft XP embedded runs on x86. Embedded developers stay away from x86 in general, because it's such a power-hungry architecture full of legacy backward compatibility kludges.

Now, which of those architectures does Linux (not to mention NetBSD) run on? Hint: All of them (well... you're pushing your luck on a dragonball, but ucLinux exists... )

Microsoft are just lying through their teeth.

Re:ms vs reality

[nyet]

You just validated Microsoft's arguments with your third point: no plethora of drivers. No matter how fancy Linux has gotten, it still hasn't been able to interface with the huge base of hardware that Microsoft products can. There are a lot of companies that cannot afford fancy new hardware; they must make do on something that was brought in years ago. And Microsoft products play nice with them.

You are smoking crack, son.

Have you actually DONE any embedded work? I have. With PSOS, VxWorks, and Nucleus. On several different processors (AMD29k, i960, M68k, and PPC). With SEVERAL different PCI bridges, chipsets, memory controllers, network interfaces, uarts, and DMA controllers. NONE of which are supported by Microsoft, and NONE of which are unilaterally supported by the OS's we have used. Guess which OS does?

As for support, I would much rather have a big, rich company supporting my software than a bunch of chatrooms. If my system is compromised or causes damage, I want to be able to say, "This company here is responsible for it"

Good for you. All you have proven to me is that you are evasive, slime sucking, scum who LOVES to point fingers and blame somebody else for your problems. *I* would rather have the source code and access to the original author, so that if there IS a problem, I can tell my boss we can a) sack up like men and take responsibility and b) fix it, not hide like good corporate lackeys.

Re:ms vs reality

[reaper20]

There are a lot of companies that cannot afford fancy new hardware; they must make do on something that was brought in years ago. And Microsoft products play nice with them.

I strongly disagree. Older hardware is Linux's strong point. I'm sitting here looking at my 386 firewall. Linux only has problems with hardware that Should Not Exist(tm) anyway, things like cable select. Blame the OEMs, crappy hardware is crappy hardware.

"This company here is responsible for it"

That point is irrelevant. If you find a bug in MS's software, you have to wait for MS to fix it, which is the same as "some people on the Internet". Either way, you have to wait. With the code available you at least have the option to fix it yourself.

That's too big a liability for a company.

Do you really think that having MS software is not a liability? Can you blame them when their software fails? If it's there fault what can you do about it? You can't even sue them if your mission critical software fails. What can your company do about it? Nothing! Read the EULA. There is nothing you can do ... you're worse off than the OSS solution!

Re:ms vs reality

[nyet]

Now, while we may be talking about embedded systems, realize that there are embedded system companies that have to make their systems work as seamlessly as possible with what their clients have lying about as well.

Cripes, is there anthing in your post that is accurate? I almost missed this gem.

While MS products ARE engineered to work well with other MS products, MS also spends most of its time trying to figure out now NOT to interoperate with other vendors whenever possible. Everybody else (other than MS) is aiming to interoperate with everybody else (including MS). Now, tell me again, if interoperability is a requirment, why I should choose MS?

Re:ms vs reality

[markmoss]

For embedded systems, you don't worry about a plethora of drivers. You just need one driver -- for the circuit you're going to put into the product -- and you're probably designing that circuit yourself. If a generic driver will work, that's nice. More likely, someone's going to have to tweak the driver a bit. Would you rather do that in the secretive world of MS-approved code, or starting with open source?

Admittedly, the GPL can sometimes be a stumbling block here -- companies might think that publishing the source code to their particular driver hack will give away some of the secrets of their design... 10% of the time, they might be right.

Nonsense.

[Flarners]

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.

Re:Nonsense.

[RazzleFrog]

It is very difficult to make a direct correlation between the XP sales and the Microsoft case. PC sales have also decreased dramatically. Joe User doesn't see any reason to upgrade to XP since they are happy with what they have.

I seem to remember also reading how consumer polls people siding with Microsoft. I will try to find them.

Petition online!

[jd]

When I read these reports, the Microsoft stuff sickened me. I've started a petition online, in the hope that the negative publicity might spur Microsoft into retracting some of it's FUD.

(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.

Re:Petition online!

[jd]

Of course not! Katz have nine lives! You've gotta run another 8 petitions.

For a good laugh...

[iforgotmyfirstlogon]

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

When the burn the Reichstag

[Zen Mastuh]

...will they convince the masses that the open source people did it?

The only possibly reason you want Embedded Windows

[selectspec]

Is if you needed to work with some proprietary MS protocol like CIFS, DCOM (embedded DCOM?? ugh), or some other stupid MS thing.

Re:One comparison they forgot...

[ergo98]

What makes you say that Embedded Linux is "suitable" for use in ATMs/casino machines? I totally agree that the likelihood of Embedded XP taking off is unlikely, however at the same time I doubt any of the hardcore engineering crowd (that is use to the rock solid reliability of PLCs) is going to be touching Lineo anytime soon (yeah I'm sure there are some case studies/design wins where some cash was passed around and some token implementations took place in non-critical sectors).

If I were to build a critical embedded system right now I wouldn't touch embedded Linux with a 40ft pole: It'd be QNX or one of the other proven systems that I'd trust. Let embedded Linux prove itself for a decade and then maybe then it'll be trusted, but as it sits it seems like yet a Microsoft like "try to get the same code to run everywhere" type of attempts.

Re:But sometimes there ARE better alternatives

[WasterDave]

Didn't you post exactly the same thing about three weeks back? I believe at the time the conclusion was that the legal deparment fscked up because all you had to do was put a link to the kernel patches on your website.

So, what's the problem with embedded NetBSD? Have you talked to the core team about it?

Dave

threat to pocket pc

[frankmu]

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.

Tell that to average users

[zeus_tfc]

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.

Re:Tell that to average users

[nick_burns]

The same thing happened to me. My computer became absolutely useless once I saw those first Windows XP commercials. I immediately went out and bought it so I could use wireless networking, Instant Messaging, and CD Burning. I then played some Madonna and flew around while high on angel dust.

Re:Tell that to average users

[TheFrood]

But the Microsoft white paper and the Lineo/RedHat responses aren't targeted at consumers; they're targeted at developers of embedded systems. I would guess that the responses will reach most of the people the white paper did.

TheFrood

The "GPL is bad" argument

[larien]

Microsoft keep trotting out the same old argument about GPL code, specifically that because of the "viral" nature of the license, any code incorporating GPL code has to be released, potentially opening up Intellectual Property.

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.

Re:The "GPL is bad" argument

[osgeek]

Yeah, but the option of at least having a binary library that does what you need is usually all you would ask for. Microsoft definitely wins the business case on this bullet item.

I like the embedded Linux option in a lot of ways, but honestly, the scariest thing about it is the GPL. There are too many competitors out there who'll just blatantly use every line of your source code in a knock-off box.

I've known firmware developers personally who've copied binary driver code illegally and used it in commercial products. Open sourcing your own work is just like handing those crooks the keys. You might as well give up your whole business model and go do something else.

Just paying MS for the libraries up front is a lot wiser of a business decision in most cases, because you're dealing with known, mostly-reasonable costs.

Re:The "GPL is bad" argument

[Shagg]

I like the embedded Linux option in a lot of ways, but honestly, the scariest thing about it is the GPL. There are too many competitors out there who'll just blatantly use every line of your source code in a knock-off box.

I'm not sure you understand the GPL entirely. Just because you are running your app on a linux device, does NOT mean you have to release source code. You can market your product to run on linux and keep it proprietary.

The only time you are forced to release your own work is if you incorporate GPL work into your own application. The idea is that if you stand on the shoulders of GPL programmers in order to create your product, you have to give your work back to the community as payment for using their development effort to jump start your own development. Merely running your proprietary app ontop of the linux OS does not mean you have to release anything to the public.

Re:The "GPL is bad" argument

[Chris Burke]

No, you can't... but you can call LGPL'd libraries from a proprietary binary, and most authors of what are strictly libraries are kind enough to make it LGPL. Glibc and GTK are two examples that spring to mind, but others also.

Re:The "GPL is bad" argument

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, but the option of at least having a binary library that does what you need is usually all you would ask for. Microsoft definitely wins the business case on this bullet item.

Not even close, so the cigar stays safely within its humidor. If you just want a library that does something (and clearly you aren't wanting to edit the source in this case, if binary-only would work), then you can just link your closed app with any LGPL'd library without concern.

Here you get the same functionality of the windows library, but with the advantage of having the source, just in case you need it. And if you -do- need to modify the source (to fix a bug, for example) that probably isn't some huge distinguishing feature you don't want your competitor to have.

I've known firmware developers personally who've copied binary driver code illegally and used it in commercial products. Open sourcing your own work is just like handing those crooks the keys. You might as well give up your whole business model and go do something else.

I've known firmware developers personally who've copied binary driver code illegally and used it in commercial products. Open sourcing your own work is just like handing those crooks the keys. You might as well give up your whole business model and go do something else.

If writing firmware is your business model, then that might be good advice regardless. Unless you're contracted to write the firmware, but then the existance of a contract would mean any competitors getting the code would be meaningless anyway as you have the guaranteed income of the contract.

Just paying MS for the libraries up front is a lot wiser of a business decision in most cases, because you're dealing with known, mostly-reasonable costs.

Is this a non-sequitor, or am I blood type AB+? I don't follow the connection between having to distribute the changes you make GPL code means you should use MS libraries which you cannot modify in the first place. I mean, at what point are you actually writing code of your own that you're worried your competitors will take?

It sounds like the problem is you just don't understand the GPL at all.

Re:The "GPL is bad" argument

[Trepalium]

You're assuming the Microsoft assertion that anytime you use any GPL code in any project, you must release all code that uses that GPLed code, which is completely untrue. There's only one real time when you need to release -- when you link the code of the GPLed product to your own. Calling external GPLed programs is perfectly legitimate, as is running proprietary programs on a GPLed kernel. The only time you need to release changes would be if you modified either the GPLed kernel or one of the GPLed programs you were using.

Quite frankly this argument is getting old. If you copy someone else's code and don't abide by their licensing terms, you're no different from the person who makes unlicensed copies of proprietary software. Most Linux libraries that provide common functionality are LGPLed (which is allowed to be linked against a proprietary binary program) or can be licensed from their author under different terms for a sum of money. The GPL really is no more viral than a Microsoft EULA -- you either agree to be bound by it's terms or you cease the infringing activity.

Re:But sometimes there ARE better alternatives

[Omnifarious]

You want the liscensing changed, and you completely ignore the alternative, which was releasing the source. In fact, you ought to be sued to force the source to be released.

I'm betting the competitive advantage your competitors might get from seeing the source to your kernel mods would've been heavily outweighed by the time it took them to decipher it. Also, the easiest thing for them to do would be to also use Linux in their product, and releasing source, leaving you on a level playing field with respect to intellectual property concerns.

If they had tried to copy you, and also used Linux, it would've come down to which of your development teams could make a better product more quickly. Gee, that sounds like competition doesn't it?

I have to admit you need a clue.

[nyet]

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?

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[turbine216]

no, i think that WAS the point. I read the whole white paper, and all the corresponding articles, including the responses from Lineo and others. The white paper does NOT blatantly lie about anything. It points out a number of features of embedded XP that are either not present in Linux or are not as good. That's called marketing. Of course the truth is stretched at some points, and of course MS is trying to make Linux look bad. THAT'S FUCKING MARKETING!!!!!! That is how customers are won and lost!!! What is MS supposed to do, release a white paper that says "Linux is every bit as good as our embedded solution." They might as well say "don't buy XP!!" That is not how business works, my friend. The world is not the Linux-centric commune that all of you daydreaming hippies want so badly. It's never going to be that way. There's always going to be competition, and most of the time, some company is going to dominate that competition.

But i digress. My point is, if you want to say that MS actually lied in its whitepaper, you show me one point in that press release, and give me some facts to prove that it is an outright lie. Then you can say that MS is in the wrong. Until then, MS is merely competing.

Re:you gotta admit...

[nyet]

I would not be surprised if XP was better than Linux in alot of aspects for embedded systems, since MS has focused alot more effort towards it.

Do you have ANY real evidence of this other than your perusal of Microsoft's marketing materials? Spend some time in the trenches doing actual work, and less time reading the trade rags, and you might BEGIN to get a clue.

There are hundreds of developers WORLD WIDE who are working hard at building embedded linux devices - and thanks to the GPL they are working cooperatively, and not wasting time re-inventing the wheel.

Have you actually ever worked with any embedded OS's? Vendors LOVE to sell you their OTHER customers code! I don't know about you, but if i needed a driver for a whizbang6583k chip, I would rather talk to the author than a vendor who simply repackaged somebody elses (old) code and sold it to me. Now picture dozens of customers, all fixing the SAME bugs in this whizbang6583k chip, but not knowing that the bugs have already been addressed?

What?

[SirSlud]

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.

Re:What?

[SirSlud]

Now now. You are getting a little too exscited. (I suppose this could constitute troalling, but what the hell; you called me a Karma monkey!)

Typical

[Pedrito]

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$?

Re:Typical

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly toolset.

So they admit that Visual Studio(r) is overpriced?... oh wait, they were trying to make that point about Linux, weren't they?

Re:Typical

[tshak]

There aren't any other IDE's? First you preach Open Source, then you complain about a lack of choice for Windows IDE's. Well, if there's a lack of choice, start an OSS project and make your IDE the Right Way(tm).

Re:you gotta admit...

[jmccay]

So what?!?! Translaeted, that just mean's it took them that much longer to get something that only crashed every 30 days! I don't want to buy an embedded device that crashes!
Do you see XP on a watch? ( I should clarify this for you, XP on a watch as the OS of a small embedded device and not some promo with XP painted on it.) Linux has been put on a watch. IBM did it as a test of Linux's scalability, and they are teaming with another company to make a commercial version.

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[Steveftoth]

If you really read the white paper, it seems to me that the only real point that MS is making is that under linux you have a choice of what to include or use in your embedded device.

The windows solution they provide may be very good, but what if you don't want it? I mean, it sounds to me from the paper like if you use MS, then you are building an wireless internet wma/web browser/email device. They talk about how much better the web is on it and how much better the media playback is on it. Why don't they just release a device with all these features themself?

On the other hand, the linux solution they describe is not very concrete on what it can or cannot do. Seems to me like linux has options, while win XP doesn't. (except in the choice of languages aparently, you aren't contrained to java and C like in linux ;) )

If I were desgining an embedded device, I would use linux, cause even though it might be 'more work' according to this report, at least I'd have a choice of what tools and features to include in my device.

Nice argument, but bogus

[jd]

• Modules can be binary-only, and under any licence you like
  
• If the plug-in support is insufficient, then you can always extend it. HP offer a plug-in scheduler system (although they say Linus hates the idea), and plug-in IP stacks have been supported for some time.
  
• "Internal" releases can be binary-only, where "internal" can reasonably be interpreted as anything other than the "mass market".
  
• If none of that convinces you, then what's the commercial value of a driver? It's just a transliteration layer, and a cinch to reverse-engineer with nothing more than basic electronics diagnostic tools. (You know the inputs, you know the outputs, so you know the black box in the middle.)
  

Re:The only possibly reason you want Embedded Wind

[jd]

But people have cloned most of those for Linux already. Sure, they're proprietary to MS, but that doesn't stop anyone, really. DCOM for Linux has been around for many years.

(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.)

The difference is in interpretation

[Webmoth]

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.

Re:False Facts?

[renehollan]

I think is a polite way of saying, "LIES".

Re:you gotta admit...

[jd]

Hmmmm. You've a good point. Most people, after using Windows, embed their computer in the nearest wall.

Linux' embedded support includes stuff like LinuxBIOS, COMEDI, assorted VME drivers, CAN support, possible low footprint (
In short, Linux is hardly a new player to this game, it's just not been particularly well-publicised. If 2.5.x had Controller Area Network support (which it could, very easily), COMEDI (a HUGE set of CAN-type device drivers), the MSX patch, and the LinuxBIOS patch, there is not a single platform in existance that could even IMAGINE competing with Linux in the low-to-medium end embedded markets. Linux would simply own those, almost by default.

But the patches, although they exist, MUST make the stock kernel, before they're truly accepted. And only Linus can do that.

Re:What do you expect from M$ marketing department

[jd]

• The Truth Is Out There
  
• Microsoft's Marketing Department is WAAY Out There
  

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.

XP Embedded, surely you're joking?

[AaronW]

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

Re:XP Embedded, surely you're joking?

[nd]

Initially, I would have agreed with your assessment.

But, as per my comment I posted above, I would argue that this is only true for the current embedded software engineers. There was probably a time when user-space applications programmers were extremely talented and technical, and made their own choices. Today this is obviously not the case. If some of these guys are still around today, I wouldn't be surprised if they think back about the good ol' days when programmers were real programmers.

My theory is that if Microsoft has its way, the same thing will happen in the embedded world someday. You'll have clueless "Microsoft Certified Embedded Systems Engineers" providing "100% Microsoft Solutions", and they will be numerous.

I would like to think that the amount of technical ability requied for embedded development is too great to allow this to happen. But then again, the user-space application programmers several years ago probably thought the same thing when they were squeezing every ounce of performance out with hand-optimized assembly.

Re:XP Embedded, surely you're joking?

[mpe]

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 also renders all Microsoft's fuss about "driver signing" utterly irrelevant. Since how can they possibly certify drivers for hardware they have never even seen

Re:XP Embedded, surely you're joking?

[AME]

Your entire post strongly suggests (to me, an embedded developer for motion control systems) that you haven't done embedded development yourself.

Yeah, that whole thing was a load of crap...

[Greyfox]

I did some work on an embedded Linux device and as near as I can tell, development costs are about comparable to the other embedded projects the company was doing (Though they did choose a bunch of Windows-programming idiots who didn't even know what processes were for the development effort, so I and the kernel hacker were the only two Linux guys on the proejct, but that's another story.) Factor in the savings in royalties and you've saved the company a pretty penny. Most people don't realize it but most of the time you also have to license a BIOS if you're working with an X86 solution (Dunno about other platforms.) We were working on rolling our own to avoid that expense as well. A few dollars does make a HUGE difference over the course of a million units.

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.)

Foreign territory for MSFT

[r_j_prahad]

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.

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[SubtleNuance]

That's called marketing. Of course the truth is stretched at some points, and of course MS is trying to make Linux look bad. THAT'S FUCKING MARKETING!!!!!!

Did you ever stop to think that blatantly propagandizing falsehoods in the marketplace is not of benefit to anyone... I would suggest Marketing is a wholy un-ethical and un-necessary 'thing'. Who needs it if it is constructed of obvious lies meant to mis-represent reality and truth.

That is how customers are won and lost!!!
That is not how business works, my friend.

And here-in lies the root of the problem...capitalism prevents honest objectivity. See Capital by Marx.

But I digress, what is important here? If M$ is publishing purposefull half-truths and out-right lies, is it no longer " wrong "? Or do you expect us all to accept this swirling mess of self-serving lies as truth simply because it is 'marketing' meant to 'win customers'? Really turbine216, is it now wrong to take issue about being immoral? Or does serving $$$$ make up for all? The entire basis of your argument requires immorality - even for extremely liberal and wide definitions of 'morality.'

Wow.

[autopr0n]

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...

Microsoft spreading FUD, oh my.

[Second_Derivative]

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?

Re:It's just sad

[renehollan]

Microsoft is selling to the PHBs that control the $$$. Since they are so often clueless about the actual tech, giving them a warm and fuzzy feeling that tech decisions don't have to be made with the M$ solution is part of the sales strategy: PHB thinks "Ooh, this is easy! I understand all the tech stuff is done. If I understand, my developers will understand all that much more. This is the solution for us."

Of course, this lets you build what M$ thinks you should build, and not necessarily what you want to build.

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[turbine216]

you're completely off the subject. we're not dicussing morality here...we're discussing the facts. Your idea of what is moral or immoral means nothing to microsoft's investors. The fact of the matter is that Microsoft published a white paper detailing what they believe are the features of embedded XP that make it a better product than any embedded Linux distribution. If embedded Linux distributors disagree, fine. Let them disagree. But to accuse microsoft of "blatantly lying" about its product or the competing product would be to part with reason. That IS how business works...in order to compete, a company must show consumers (and in this case, developers) why their product is superior. If they don't, then the other company wins.

I'm very sorry that these bad bad people happen to disagree with you and mr. marx, but hey - that's life.

Who cares what MS says?

[pclminion]

Really, who cares? Those companies smart enough to be running Linux already know its capabilities and strengths (and yes, its weaknesses). They don't need Microsoft to tell them what to do, and they don't listen to bullshit like this. Recently, the president of my company came to be and said: "I don't want to use AIM anymore. I already have to run enough of Microsoft's crap. What can we do around here that runs in Linux?" Immediately I suggested IRC, and since then we've had a company IRC server for the engineers and tech support folks to chat on.

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.

Re:The only possibly reason you want Embedded Wind

[selectspec]

User #1658 Info) But people have cloned most of those for Linux already

... 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.

I'd say something...

[Master_Eagle]

... 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!

Why the hell would they

[Srin Tuar]

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.

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[nagora]

THAT'S FUCKING MARKETING!!!!!!

No, it's fraud and misrepresentation. They're both illegal. I take it you think libel and slander are just "FUCKIN MARKETING" too?

if you want to say that MS actually lied in its whitepaper, you show me one point in that press release

"Linux lacks an integrated tool set, so OS and applications development time is slowed"

This is not true, there are several. Go to Trolltech's site (www.trolltech.com) to see one.

"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."

There is no reason why this should increase the complexity of development; the WM makes no impact on the code; there may be several browers (it's called choice) but there's only one HTML spec. Since these have no effect on the code the second part is also false.

"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."

This is bollocks from start to finish; most of it was true in 1998, though.

"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.

Then there's a bunch of benchmarks followed by "Note: WindowsXP Embedded was not tested directly. Internal Microsoft testing indicates that WindowsXP Embedded exhibited similar or better reliability and performance characteristics than WindowsXP Professional."

'Not tested directly' is the same as 'Not tested'.

"Linux looks to Java as a distributed applications development environment."

Linux has never done this; Linux looks to source code as a distributed application environment, in general.

"Open Source does not an ecosystem make"

Making this claim raises the question of is it true? I can't see any reasonable way to describe the millions of programmers supporting Open Source and the newsgroups and mailing lists where they can be contacted as anything other than an "ecosystem" in the sense MS is using.

"The Red Hat Worldwide Technical Support Guidelines and Definitions document states that Red Hat will not support any modifications made to their distribution of Linux that are not approved or recommended by them."

The lie here is only implied but is a lie all the same, it is that MS will do this. Try modifying Windows XPE's code (assuming you have it) and see if MS will help you debug it.

The distortions in the rest of the piece may indeed be marketing but if you said them of me I'd be laughing all the way to the bank with the damages award.

TWW

Monopoly, anyone?

[CTho9305]

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.
For example, there areat least five different

• window managers and at least four competing browsers, increasing programming complexity and reducing the pool of available developers.

oh, no! competition!

Gotta love the FUD

[zurkog]

From the white paper (describing Embedded Linux):

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.

Translation:

We sell a black bicycle, while these "automobiles" come in at least five colors and four models, increasing your available choices.

Err. What?

[oGMo]

There are too many competitors out there who'll just blatantly use every line of your source code in a knock-off box.

I've known firmware developers personally who've copied binary driver code illegally and used it in commercial products. Open sourcing your own work is just like handing those crooks the keys.

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!"

You might as well give up your whole business model and go do something else.

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.

Lineo, find a new PR person

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Missing Functionality

[nahdude812]

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.

Re:Oh yes, lets bash MS some more.

[TheAwfulTruth]

Oh yes, the millions of windows developers and users are all named "Bill". And everyone on /. is named "Linus". Now it all makes sense...

Another example of the Microsoft FUD War

[haaz]

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.

Yes. Because unlike the poster..

[nyet]

.. 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.

Typical Sales tactic.

[unsung]

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.

I'm not surprised. My prediction...

[mesozoic]

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.

Whoops, looks like you've got egg on your face

[Zico]

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. :)

Re:Whoops, looks like you've got egg on your face

[Malcontent]

Yes but are they lying in that white paper too?. I guess we both know the answer to that one. MS fires emplyees if they don't lie to at least 10 people by lunch. Ok maybe I am going overboard on that one but I can not think of one public statement made by any MS executive or mouthpiece (including the ones that troll here) that did not contain at least one lie. Same goes for white papers.

MS is a corporation of liars. No one can dispute that.

Re:Whoops, looks like you've got egg on your face

[Pseudonym]

According to Microsoft...

• Windows XP: Business model that is better aligned with your business for the long term
• Wind River: Wind River's business model favors Wind River

I'm convinced!

Re:Whoops, looks like you've got egg on your face

[Malcontent]

Sue Microsoft? You think a small company like lineo can sue MS? Unfortunately in this country might makes right and MS has the might. This is a company that can bitchslap the United States around like a red headed stepchild for god's sake. You expect lineo to sue them? Yea right. All they can do is post their reply and hope that there is some media out there who hasn't been bought by MS and is brave enough to carry their story.

Yes MS is Lying, yes every time any higher up from MS says anything in the media there is at least one lie. MS is a corporation of liars, thives and scum. It's their corporate culture.

JUF

[nagora]

Just Use Forth. That's what it's there for, no OS required.

TWW

Re:Fighting FUD with FUD

[King_TJ]

No way... A common GUI has nothing to do with why Linux hasn't dominated the desktop space.

That's a defecit in MS products, NOT an advantage.

The reason has MUCH more to do with what comes pre-loaded on a new PC, and the "critical mass" of users who have already learned the Windows way of doing things. Once you sell a new user that first PC with Windows on it, you set them on the road of learning that one style of desktop. If they started out with X and KDE (with options to use Gnome or other desktops with just a few clicks of the mouse), they'd be just as comfortable with that.

Re:Innovating, following, or just good competition

[(void*)]

Red Hat and M$ accuse each other of being followers instead of innovators. I consider this to a display of
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. :-)

Re:you gotta admit...

[connorbd]

Pretty simple, really:

Linux was created as a toy for Linus and a few million of his best friends to play with. The fact that it has grown up to be an industrial-strength mid-size server solution (I'd still go clustered FreeBSD or Big Blue for the *really* big guns, but Linux can do an awful lot in the sub-enterprise level) is nice. The fact that it's demonstrably more stable and for the most part more secure than Windows of any stripe is nice.

But the fact is that Linux is what it is because people like us (M$-haters) latched onto it. Me, I used to be a hard-core Mac guy (still am, I just have divided loyalties now :-) ), and I know what damage Microsoft can do. But Linus is only one of us insofar as he's out to make Linux the best it can be, with no regard for pressure from outside.

/Brian

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[connorbd]

Pick up Microsoft's Server+ certification guide sometimes.

I work in the computer department of a large downtown Boston bookstore (the best in the area, though ironically not belonging to the biggest chain -- if you're from around here you know where) and I actively steer customers away from Microsoft-authored books because they're not to be trusted for their information. I felt particularly vindicated the other day when flipping through their Server+ guide and found a sort-of-irrelevant passage on selecting network operating systems.

Linux was mentioned but no other Unix; Novell and (of course) Win2k were also mentioned. The hilarious part was the comparison of features; Linux got a thumbs down for security (okay, Linux isn't great but...) and Win2k, natch, a thumbs up (... it's better than this!). Love it, love it, love it: FUD even in the context of a guide platform-independent certification exam.

/Brian

Midori anyone?

[3seas]

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?

Java lies

[sigwinch]

Microsoft lies through their teeth: Java was designed for use with a single programming language -- Java. Developers have no option to choose the best tool for the task and cannot use knowledge or code from other languages.

Jython, for instance, lets you run Python programs natively on any Java machine. I've also seen Java-targeted compilers for other languages, but I can't find a link at the moment.

Re:Java lies

[babbage]

This isn't actually a lie on Microsoft's part though -- the Java Platform was designed just to run one language. The fact that people managed to get Python running on it was an incredicly cool hack, but it isn't what Sun (or whoever) had in mind when they were working on the JVM.

I hate to say it, but Microsoft's Common Language Runtime is designed to do this sort of thing, with special hooks for VB & VC++ maybe, but also support for Java, Perl, Python, Cobol, or whatever else people want to port to it. From what I can tell, that basically means porting a parser that can digest $foo code and spit out a bytecode that the CLR will know what to do with. Or something to that effect.

More interestingly, the "ha ha only serious" Parrot effort seems like it should be able to one day handle any of a variety of high level dynamic scripting languages, from Perl & Python, to Ruby, PHP, Tcl, Scheme, and beyond. Hopefully, it'll be able to go a step further & be able to emit another CLR compatible bytecode that can run on hypothetical .NET machines of the future.

The important thing though, and the common strand with Parrot and the CLR, is that they were both designed from the start to handle different language interfaces, rather than having support for them hacked in later. Microsoft is only wrong here to the extent that people have surripitously [sp? i.e. without official vendor support or sanction...] pushed the JVM beyond where it was originally meant to go, but again it wasn't designed to do this, and I don't think Sun or any of the other major Java vendors is going out of their way to support these kinds of extension efforts.

Re:Java lies

[sigwinch]

...the Java Platform was designed just to run one language.

Not true. The Java machine designers *knew* that Java itself would change over time. They *knew* that future versions of Java would need to do things that had not yet been imagined, and therefore they designed a fully general-purpose machine. And they succeeded admirably: not only are they forward compatible with later Java languages, other languages may target the machine with ease.

The fact that people managed to get Python running on it was an incredicly cool hack,...

True, if you mean "hack" in the sense of an optimal and elegant engineering solution. In particular, the Java machine can garbage collect circular references, while the original Python machine cannot. Far from being a kluge that "seems to work", Jython is in fact a technical advance.

Microsoft is only wrong here to the extent that people have surripitously [sp? i.e. without official vendor support or sanction...] pushed the JVM beyond where it was originally meant to go,...

I disagree. The sole evidence of the intent of the Java machine is its formal specification, and that specification is a general Turing-complete machine that can be used for a wide variety of languages. It obviously supports Java, but that does not mean it has some sort of divine destiny to not support oher languages.

Microsoft also specifically claimed that no other languages were available for the Java machine, which is patently false. The claim that developers "cannot use knowledge or code from other languages" is equally absurd. The Java language is sufficiently similar to other modern high-level languages that tricky algorithms in any language are worthwhile to port, and C/C++ code can be ported in many cases with trivial formatting fixes.

Why are they lying about Java? Because the courts slapped them down when they tried to "embrace and extend" it. The .NET campaign is a blatant attempt to displace existing systems that are viable but not controlled by Microsoft.

Re:Java lies

[babbage]

The Java machine designers *knew* that Java itself would change over time.

Yeah, but you're specifically not saying that they knew other languages would be run against their JVM. They might have known that the language would have evolved -- that's obvious -- but they probably assumed that it would continue to have certain runtime properties, so even if the syntax was different it was just a matter of updating the parser, not the execution engine.

According to Dan Sugalski, there are some pretty significant constraints on the JVM and, to a lesser extent, the CLR, that make it [them] harder to port languages to, because they're geared towards static, strongly typed languages. Getting Python to run on it was impressive (in the well-engineered sense), but getting it to run ultra-dynamic Perl is probably beyond it's capabilities. That's not to dismiss it as inferior, but just to indicate that the JVM is designed for Java, and Perl is just too different to get them to run together on that platform. Parrot might be able to run them both someday, but you probably wouldn't want to, as Parrot will be optimized for Perl type dynamic languages, and Java is likely to run sputteringly on it.

I don't doubt that Microsoft wants badly to scuttle Java, and I fully accept that Java and C# are for all purposes the same language, with the latter being a blatant ripoff of the former. But I also feel, in spite of your well argued points, that the CLR on which C# is meant to run *is* being designed from the outset to run a variety of languages, while the JVM was never meant to run anything but Java & Java derivitives. The fact that third parties have managed to shove other languages onto it, *without Sun's blessing*, does not contradict the Microsoft quote you originally posted. To the letter of the word, Microsoft was speaking accurately, even if they had the spirit of things wrong, as you hold.

bad logic

[Erris]

I didn't realize an embedded system NEEDED plug 'n play support.

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.

This is funny

[mindstrm]

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.

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[nagora]

1) There is no integrated development environment and toolchain for general purpose C/C++ coding for Linux that is comparable in integration and featureset to something like MSVC on Win32,

"Comparable" is subjective; MS said there was none

2a) if slashdotters wobble about these things being WMs or Environments, how are potentially inexperienced developers supposed to figure it out in a reasonable amount of time ?

This is a non-issue. You write the code and the window manager manages the window. It's the same under Windows.

Case in point - write a configuration for a window manager. Now convert it for use with a different one.

I'm starting to wonder if I just don't get what you're talking about. What do you mean by "a configuration for a window manager"? Do you mean a configureation program or a program configured for a particular window manager? In the latter case it's your own fault if you paint yourself into a corner by working to a specific WM. There is simply no reason to do this.

3) You cant say XP isn't proven, and then later say XP is just NT all over again.

I never even mentioned NT!

XP has _10 years_ of OS development behind it.

Development is change. Certainly parts of the Win32 code have remained for 10 years, but there is a lot of new CODE in XP and it's code that crashes, not experience.

but its still a bit of a stretch to call the guts of XP "unproven" in the same breath as saying "its really just W2k with some extra gui bits".

Maybe that's why I didn't say it.

but I know for a fact MS internally has a toolchain which gives statistical test coverage assurances based on deltas between binaries. Guess thats what happens when you have a group like MSResearch at your disposal.

Guess that's why they produce buggy shit like Outlook, IIS and IE. If you didn't test the final build you didn't test the product. "Not directly tested" is marketing bullshit for "test this for us, please".

There may very well be things that are demonstrably false in what MS has released. You haven't mentioned any of them, if there are.

Clearly you would say that if MS had said that the sky is pink with orange polka-dots and I quoted them.

Common slashdotter tactics used in your message include: - "I am an Armchair legal expert"

Yes, slander and libel are little-known technical areas of the law, aren't they?

"I get to have it both ways" (its a WM, its an environment, what is it ?)

I never mentioned environments. It's a WM. KDE and Gnome come with their own WM but I don't use or need either, but everyone has a window manager. You can define environment any way you like but it's got nothing to do with the WM.

"Your test isn't good enough for me" (because it doesn't say what I want it to say)

Your test isn't good enough because it didn't test the product. They even SAID they didn't test the product.

Well, that was a breath-taking bit of denial. I particularly enjoyed the bit where you made up bit that I had said. And the bit where you claimed that MS saying they hadn't tested the program meant that they have. Stunning. I hope Bill gives you that promotion you're obviously looking for.

BTW, the Dreamcast was a Windows-box.

TWW

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[Steveftoth]

I really liked your post until the part about the Dreamcast being a windows Box.

That is not true. There was a version of win ce that ran for the DC. A developer had the option of using it, but it was not mandatory. In fact, most games didn't use it. And all the really great games (SC, Shenmue, etc. ) don't use it. They use their own custom kernel.

Sorry to be so anal. I just really love consoles.

What? You can modify linux to make it crash!

[MathJMendl]

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!!!

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[bmajik]

Fine. I live in seattle, you can meet me here.

Obviously you could construct a definition of "informed" that I wouldn't qualify for, but the assumptions you've made about me are unfortuneate, and because i've been shooting from the hip all day, I'll respond to them anyway

1) I've spent a lot of time with linux. Not as much lately, but "enough".

I've also spent a lot of time with OpenBSD, Solaris, IRIX, and even NeXTSTEP. Infact, I would wager to say that I know Solaris and "general unix" stuff far better than I know windows.

Please dont assume that because I've reached a different conclusion than you that I'm ignorant.

2) I've tried to learn as much as possible about every system I've come in contact one. I haven't "decided" that _any_ of them do everything i need done well. I envy you in that you have found that linux seems to meet all of yours. At the current time, my home network consists of windows 2000, windows ce, macos 9, openbsd, solaris 2.6, and irix 6.5. If there were one OS that met every requirement, i'd save a lot of time and money, i think.

So, while its too bad that we see things differently, it'd be nice if in the future, you could leave me out of the "just some other microsoftie that doesn't know linux" bucket.

That said, do you have any pointers for how i can further educate myself in order to see how senseless i am ?

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[Malcontent]

"Try running either on a microcontroller that can address a grand total of 64K"

What kind of a microcontroller is capped at 64K AND is able to run XP? I can't think of one perhaps you can.

The point is if your embedded system is running on intel then you have the MS options otherwise you are most likely to be using linux.

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[blane.bramble]

3) You cant say XP isn't proven, and then later say XP is just NT all over again. XP has _10 years_ of OS development behind it. Not the same as 30 years of UNIX, but its still a bit of a stretch to call the guts of XP "unproven" in the same breath as saying "its really just W2k with some extra gui bits".

No it hasn't, or are you claiming that Microsoft started developing XP in 1991, back in Windows 3.x days? In which case it can't be a full 32 bit system. If it is a new kernel, then it has 18 months development. Just because Windows has 10 years development behind it doesn't mean XP has. This is typical FUD.

Re:The only possibly reason you want Embedded Wind

[selectspec]

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.

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[bmajik]

Follow the lineage back

XP->W2k->NT4->NT 3.51->NT3.1, iirc.

I think you'll find that the First windows NT, while not widely used, came out in a similar time frame to what I claim.

Remember, NT and OS/2 were intermingled in the early days. OS/2 2.x was out in the Win 3.1 time frame. IIRC, MS was already working on NT when OS/2 2.1 shipped.

So, I stand by my claim (for now :)

Re:One comparison they forgot...

[Kymermosst]

You know, if I was making a slot machine, I probably wouldn't be running ANY OS like XP, Linux, QNX, or anything. I'd probably write in C and do EVERYTHING myself.

Slot machines are not complicated enough to need a full OS...

Re:heh, that's not the point...

[Steveftoth]

I shouldn't try to be funny when making a post, it only messes things up. I was trying to make a (bad) joke about the outragous MS claim that their os supports like 50 million languages, while linux supports like 2.

Oh, and I have no experience in embedded dev, I never claimed to. I was just saying that, given that paper, and my current outlook, I would choose linux cause it seems from what they are saying that windows is very constricting.

I don't think that linux is the end all of anything. If I ever got a job in embedded dev, then I don't think that linux is always the right choice. I was just saying if I ever decided to do a hobby type project, then I'd probably use linux. Mostly cause the tools are free to cheap and I could customize it easier. Or at least that is my impression.

Re:One comparison they forgot...

[Kymermosst]

Yeah, that makes sense. Though, if you wanted to NOT use QNX et al., it's a good use for that Zilog Z80 update with the built in TCP/IP stack...

Some friends of mine went to the Oregon Institute of Technology, and International Gaming Technologies is a BIG corporate donor to them, so the students have projects usually involving slot machine design/programming... I should ask one of them how they'd do it.