Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft's Embedded Linux FUD Part II

Posted by timothy on from the wiping-the-gravy-from-the-bowl dept.

jeffy124 writes: "Lineo has added yet more rebuttal against Microsoft regarding the FUD MS put in a whitepaper comparing WinXP Embedded to Embedded Linux. Elsewhere, IT-Director.com did their own independent review of the whitepaper, with some facinating conclusions."

9 comments

  1. another fp? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    could it be that for the second time today that I, Anonymous Coward, have the first post?

  2. Pot...Kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Isn't it a little biased to say that only Microsoft's whitepaper is FUD? Isn't the entirety of Lineo's rebuttal FUD directed at Microsoft's embedded XP?

    Sure we can get into a "They did it first" shouting match, but it really does no one any good in this case.

    The embedded system designers are not techno-clumsy CEOs. They are highly experienced engineers, for the most part. They know that they need to take MS's words with a grain of salt, and they know that Linux systems have hidden costs associated with them. Embedded Windows and embedded Linux are both getting their asses kicked up and down the block by WindRiver's VxWorks, so this whole thing is like watching a couple sparrows fighting over a crumb that the crow dropped.

    1. Re:Pot...Kettle by hairyian · · Score: 2

      The embedded system designers are not techno-clumsy CEOs. They are highly experienced engineers, for the most part. They know that they need to take MS's words with a grain of salt, and they know that Linux systems have hidden costs associated with them.

      I think it's fairly clear from the wording that MSs white paper isn't targetted at the people developing in any serious way - it's almost completely made out of the kind of information a managerial type might find useful.

      Once Linux is 'demystified' it's clear that MSs white paper is a marketing tool and nothing more. Of course, if you have the hearts, minds and wallets of the managers at various levels then they can ensure than Windows XP Embedded is used in projects. Anyone who has enough knowledge of the project itself, Linux internals and what MS says in it's white paper would find it difficult to rate XP Embedded well /unless/ you're talking about a PDA rather than an 'embedded' system.

      Embedded Windows and embedded Linux are both getting their asses kicked up and down the block by WindRiver's VxWorks, so this whole thing is like watching a couple sparrows fighting over a crumb that the crow dropped.

      By itself this isn't much to be concerned with, and I agree with your statement. Unfortunately, MS seems to be targetting Linux at as many levels as possible to eliminate, before it's too late, any large-scale business interest it may have or be acquiring. The bickerings over the crumb spill over into the other arena's where comparisons between Linux and MS OSs are made.

      Ian Woods

    2. Re:Pot...Kettle by SirGeek · · Score: 1

      And for those of us who've used VxWorks we would prefer linux. MUCH cheaper cost and easier to develop testing stations (just use a PC running linux for most of it then when you get to the nitty gritty you can move into the actual bread boards/etc.).

      --
      UPS Sucks
  3. What would be nice... by jd · · Score: 2
    Would be a COMPLETE, systematic, comparison of the capabilities of the different Linux branches (eg: MOSIX, SE-Linux, Linus' Linux, AC Linux, FOLK Linux) against the different Windows branches (eg: Windows 9x, Windows CE, Windows ME, Windows XP, Windows NT, Windows 2000) and different *BSD's (eg: FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, SecureBSD, TrustedBSD).


    By complete, I mean complete. List ALL network protocols supported (plus a score of 1-10 of compliance to that protocol's specification, and a score of 1-10 of the latency in that implementation). List ALL filing systems suported (same). List ALL drivers. All schedulers. All system calls. All architectures. (And, again, the larency of ALL of these, on a scale of 1-10). Level of POSIX compliance. Level of access control. Granularity of timers, locks, etc. Size of kernel (minimum, typical, and maximum).


    Once a survey on this kind of scale is done, we can truly see which OS is king... and what task(s) they are king OF, for all have strengths, and all have weaknesses. And NONE of the standard comparisons really tell you anything about what those are.

    --
    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)
    1. Re:What would be nice... by Ro-tex · · Score: 1

      That would be very nice, in fact... and just a little harder to do than nice to see. But if somebody gets to it and do it I'll be very happy to read this survey.

  4. Use XP so you're not tied one company by webprogrammer · · Score: 1
    This defeats one of the OEM's key objectives in moving to a general purpose OS--to free up resources from ongoing OS support and maintenance. This "tie" to a particular Linux vendor, in turn, leaves the OEM exposed to the long-term financial viability of that vendor.

    And using XP is somehow not keeping you tied to a particular vender???

    --
    Tim ODonnell (trying to be the most