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.
...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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
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?
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.
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$?
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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
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. :)
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
"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
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"