Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Requirements for Embedded Linux

Posted by michael on from the no-eye-candy dept.

An anonymous reader sent in: "As Embedded Linux becomes established as a solid alternative to many proprietary OSes and RTOSes, demands on embedded Linux developers and providers are increasing. This detailed technical article by Nicholas McGuire sketches the top requirements for Embedded Linux systems including considerations of user interface, network capabilities, security issues, resource optimization, performance requirements and issues, and compatibility and standards issues."

79 comments

  1. In-bedded? by TheDick · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    1) Get Linux Drunk

    2) Take Linux to my place

    3) Look lovingly into Linux's eyes and tell Linux its the only one for you

    4) Give linux a back massage.



    Bam, but be careful some people go to be with Linux and wake up next to FreeBSD.

    --

  2. One disadvantage of Embedded Linux -- Hackability? by philbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One thing that I think may detract folks from using Linux as an embedded OS is its hackability. For example, TiVo is now hacked 10 ways from sunday. As long as it's adding hard drives and so on, the TiVo folks have been pretty cool about it, but when the encryption scheme for storing recordings was hacked, that leaves them open to legal problems.

    While proprietary EOS's are more difficult (for many of the reasons outlined in the article), they can be much more secure (in the weak sense of security through obscurity) than Linux.

  3. Embedded Linux by BrianGa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lots of info on Embedded Linux at the Embedded Linux Consortium

  4. An important concern they left out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting
    And that concern can make or break the deal (and potentially make or break the company): Licensing.

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

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

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

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

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

    -Name withheld so I don't get canned

    1. Re:An important concern they left out by Zach+Garner · · Score: 1

      Is your company primarily a hardware company or a software company?

      If it is a hardware company, why should you be concerned that more software or a different OS would be ported to your hardware? More software or another OS could only mean more users.

    2. Re:An important concern they left out by asobala · · Score: 1

      Because the whole point of the GPL is in order to allow people to share software development instead of keeping it proprietary and secret. A GPL relaxation? In your dreams.

    3. Re:An important concern they left out by UncleFluffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But the question I draw from this is: why not relax the GPL restrictions a bit for embedded applications?

      To which, I'm afraid, the only reply is: "Why not go write your own closed kernel - or actually pay money for one someone else has already written ?"

      The whole point of the GPL is that, in return for the millions of lines of code you receive, you are expected to return the few hundred/thousand you produce. If you don't want to share, no-one is making you.

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

    4. Re:An important concern they left out by JesseL · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When it comes to embedded systems, most companies dont easily fall into hardware or software, they produce solutions that unify hw and sw. Since most hardware can easily and legally be reverse-engineered and produced in some third world country, the only thing makers of embedded systems have standing between being successful and dying from inability to compete in a commodity market is their software.

      It's really very similar to Apple's market position.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    5. Re:An important concern they left out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with what you are saying about embedded developers using their time to join hardware with software; however, I don't see a requirement for their applications to be GPL'd. The underlying OS might be GPL, but the applications are distinct entities that can be derived on their own or from other licenses more favorable to closed source.

    6. Re:An important concern they left out by JesseL · · Score: 1

      Yes, you're right. It's perfectly feasible to build an embedded asystem with a GPL'd OS and a proprietary and/or differently liscensed application. I was replying more to what I keep seeing as a common misconception about the nature of embedded system producers.

      --
      "Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
    7. Re:An important concern they left out by awptic · · Score: 1

      The restrictions of the GPL for embedded linux _can't_ be relaxed,
      everyone who's ever submitted patches to the linux kernel
      which were licenced under the GPL (almost all) would have to give permission
      , not even linus himself could make that decision. Why not just make any changes you
      need localized to a seperate kernel module? You could then have just the module under a proprietary
      license and keep the rest of linux open, and not break a single copyright law.

    8. Re:An important concern they left out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah. People who design a technical instrument or a POS system are just thrilled by the notion that some hacker can slip in a different OS. That cash drawer interface code is really cool, and as soon as it's in the kernel source tree people will be able to make boot floppies with an 'eject' command and have loads of fun hacking.

    9. Re:An important concern they left out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is, gimmie gimmie gimmie. If you're going to do anything useful with GPL'd software, you'd better be prepared to join the hive.

    10. Re:An important concern they left out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is only true, however, until the 'IP Freedom Fighters' have done their work, and copyright lasts for about seven years. Then all the code in Linux, and all GPL code, for that matter, slowly slips into public domain.

    11. Re:An important concern they left out by AviN · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but only a 7 year old version of Linux would be public domain. Anything more recent would have the copyright renewed at each release.

    12. Re:An important concern they left out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just in case there are those who don't know: RTLinux (from FSMLabs) can run on either Linux or BSD! It's a great alternative to companies who want a keep the source for themselves.

      And I'm sure GPL restrictions (not restrictions, rulez) can't be "relaxed". If you did that, then someone would ask for a relaxed version 2, etc. until it became a total mess.
      Besides there are "relaxed" licenses out there - LPGL, etc. and, like you said, those who don't like it can always use BSD or Windows!

      Personally I would prefer the "who would find out" approach but since it's illegal I'll probably go BSD or share the code :-).

    13. Re:An important concern they left out by selectspec · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You've hit the nail on the head for some embedded applications. We must draw a distinction between embedded systems which are tooled for a single purpose (routers, switches, storage appliances, caching appliances, accelerators, firewalls, etc), and systems which rely more on an application and service layer (PDA's, game consoles, cell phones, etc). Clearly both are technically suited for Linux, but it is unlikely that the first catagory will ever be dominated by linux given the licensing. This is especially true for the high end. Few will build a $100,000 box with GPL'd kernel modifications. The risks in building hardware are too high as it is, (because its so damn expensive todo!).

      --

      Someone you trust is one of us.

    14. Re:An important concern they left out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To which, I'm afraid, the only reply is: "Why not go write your own closed kernel - or actually pay money for one someone else has already written ?" The answer is in the original post: He doesn't have to do either, he can use BSD.

  5. qt-embedded / zaurus by ComSon0 · · Score: 1

    There is quite a bit of info at http://more.sbc.co.jp/slj/docandtool.asp

    It's mostly about the dev. version of zaurus, but I think it applies to others. enjoy

    "Take revenge, shit on a bird"
    -bumper sticker

  6. Read this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Its a really good read!

    1. Re:Read this! by corps_inc · · Score: 0

      I guess you haven't read the answers

    2. Re:Read this! by asobala · · Score: 1

      That's quite funny, actually

    3. Re:Read this! by gTsiros · · Score: 1

      those answers being...?
      you really don't contribute to the discussion...

      (that m$ document sucks ass. half of what it says are lies. if i knew more i'd say that all of it is lies)

      --
      Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
    4. Re:Read this! by zulux · · Score: 2

      From MS:

      Windows XP Embedded is the most reliable version of Windows ever.

      So, tell me - where's Windows on Netcraft's uptime chart? http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html

      Oh, that's right - WINDOWS ISEN'T EVEN ON THE LIST

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    5. Re:Read this! by Aanallein · · Score: 1

      I hate to say this, but that Windows isn't on the list doesn't mean quite that much. From the FAQ about uptimes there:

      Operating systems that do not provide uptime information include;
      <snip>
      * NT3/Windows 95
      * NT4/Windows 98

      The only Windows for which netcraft can track uptime is Windows 2000. Now if only windows 2000 had already existed for long enough to be able to appear in the list...

      Oh well... Go linux! ;) Er.. no, wait... can't say that either... Uhm, *hesitates* go BSD? *winces* ;)

    6. Re:Read this! by seann · · Score: 1

      operating systems not including uptime?
      whats this $ticks command in mIRC that all the script kiddys use?
      and the ticks api?
      I'm confused, really confused.

      Is it possible for you to clear this up for me?
      I've read the faq and it seams it's netcrafts problem.

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    7. Re:Read this! by T-Punkt · · Score: 1

      > I've read the faq and it seams it's netcrafts problem.

      Well, to some degree. Netcraft doesn't have the code to automatically crack the webserver and execute "uptime" or something equivalent on the remote host. Shame on them!

      Instead Netcraft uses a method that analyses the IP packets send back - but that only works for the few OSes with TCP/IP stacks which provide enough information that can be used to calculate the systems uptime - e.g. for those stacks which use a function of the uptime to generate the initial TCP sequence number.

    8. Re:Read this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Netcraft list only pertains to trivial light duty tasks like serving up HTML. There are mainframe systems that make any flouncy little box shared publicly on the Internet look like the junk it is.

    9. Re:Read this! by seann · · Score: 1

      Very nicely coordinated response. Thank you

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
    10. Re:Read this! by squidinkcalligraphy · · Score: 1

      well.... neither is linux...

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea" Gandhi, on Western Civilisation
    11. Re:Read this! by Arlet · · Score: 1

      neither is linux...

      According to the netcraft FAQ:

      Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle back to zero after 497 days, exactly as if the machine had been rebooted at that precise point. Thus it is not possible to see a HP-UX, Linux or Solaris system with an uptime measurement above 497 days.

  7. Advice by mnordstr · · Score: 1

    I'm working on a project and I would need to make a Linux distro that loads up a simple, locked, X screen with a custom made web browser. How would this be most easily done? This is in many ways like an embedded Linux environment...

    1. Re:Advice by clasher · · Score: 2, Informative
      I would take a look at using uClibc a C library for embedded Linux systems. (they are currently working on pthread support in the cvs which is supposedly what is keeping it from being used to compile mozilla/galeon)
      BusyBox for basic embedded versions of common linux apps (e.g. init, cp, sed, etc.)
      KDrive a tiny X server from XFree86
      Galeon for a fairly small browser (there are some other smaller ones in development (for example Skipstone and Dillo)

      What I would do is compile a stripped down kernel, use busybox for most system apps, and have your init scripts call the tinyX server and then instead of using a window manager have the startx script start galeon in full screen mode using tabs instead of separate windows for popups. The only difficult part may be getting mozilla or galeon compiled because of the gtk requirements) You could try the Xlib mozilla port perhaps.

      For a little bit of info on how I have done a similar project take a look at my linux on a floppy page.

    2. Re:Advice by fizbin · · Score: 2

      You mean you want to build a linux-based kiosk?

  8. Re:One disadvantage of Embedded Linux -- Hackabili by corps_inc · · Score: 0

    My gouess is that's the reason why 90% of Mac and Win users is using pirate software, that's not legally bought

  9. You fucking bastards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $ rm -R /
    $ wince.exe

    $ /.mod --1 Anonymous Coward

    1. Re:You fucking bastards! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      C:\windows\command\fdisk /mbr

      (hack that into the \autoexec.bat file on your windows partition. If you're leet, you can do it using the vi editor.)

  10. Re:that would suck if i got first post by sh_mmer · · Score: 1


    no it's reverse psychology. i just wanted to get a first post without wasting precious karma. moderators, just like toddlers are extremely susceptible to this kind of manipulation.

    witness the following:

    karma whore: "i know i'm wasting my karma on this post, but i just have to say:"

    moderator: "wow, what a guy, standing up for what you believe despite personal sacrifice. i think i'll mod you up to +5 insightful."

    the point is, slashdot moderators are dumb. that's all i wanted to say.

    --
    Interested in learning Chinese or Japanese? check out Chinese/Japanese-English Dictiona
  11. New realms for you software monkeys... by JoeLinux · · Score: 1

    Here is where the beauty of us Electrical/Computer engineers come out. When you get into funky/new hardware, you need us guys.

    What I propose that there should be a standardized set of low-level functions, with charts telling which platforms take how many cycles for each function. In this way, with just one layer, you could make truly portable code. Like a . In this way, the EEs could figure out how to make a set of hardware conform to a universal interface.

    For instance, Motorola and Intel have two different Opcodes to ASCII Adjusted Addition. Motorola has AAA, Intel has something else (I forget right now). If you could make something at the very end change it, you could have code go from one device to another without much of a tweak. I realize that that is sorta the role of a compiler, but it needs to be ramped up. Linux on ANY device. Then we could focus on making it perdy.

    Just my $.02.

    Joe

    1. Re:New realms for you software monkeys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking of monkeys!
      MonkeyTongue.com!

    2. Re:New realms for you software monkeys... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Computer Engineers'? That's a new one. Were you admitted to that school through a matchbook cover?

      There are Electrical Engineers. They attend college at sanctioned engineering schools. There are Computer Scientists. They study from books like Knuth and Tannenbaum and get degrees in Computer Science, at colleges with formal Computer Science programs. All of the above are the type of folks who then can join the IEEE and other professional organisations.

      Then there are those people who went to Junior College, and answered an ad on TV to become 'Computer Engineers.'

      Granted, there are actual colleges where they have 'Computer Engineer' degree programs. Hell, there are 'Hyphenated-American Studies' at a lot of those schools too.

  12. Truth will set you free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truth is here.

    Important Stuff:
    Please try to keep posts on topic.
    Try to reply to other people comments instead of starting new threads.
    Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply
    duplicating what has already been said.
    Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
    Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be
    moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your
    threshold on the User Preferences Page)

  13. Get a clue by bug1 · · Score: 1

    You would have to be really, _REALLY_ stupid to consider embedded windows.
    It has lots of disadvantages and no advatanges of any merit.

    Where you trying to be funny ?

  14. Re:One disadvantage of Embedded Linux -- Hackabili by NumberSyx · · Score: 2

    I think TiVo sees the hackability of its systems to be a selling point. Maybe if the company who made the iOpener (anyone remember thier name ?) had embraced the those who wanted to extend the usabilty of thier machines, they might still be around.

    --

    "Our products just aren't engineered for security,"
    -Brian Valentine,VP in charge of MS Windows Development

  15. I am so sick of this troll by __aanonl8035 · · Score: 1

    This stupid rant comes up every time
    someone mentions embedded linux.

    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/18/1924 20 1
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/05/172 424 3&mode=thread

    Please look at these two postings and
    you will find this exact same response...
    word for word.

    1. Re:I am so sick of this troll by bhsx · · Score: 1

      You are obviously and absolutely correct, moderators pay attention, please. I knew about ten words into it that it was a re-run.

      --
      put the what in the where?
  16. Embedded Linux in five easy steps... by andersen · · Score: 1

    Step one, configure and install the Linux kernel. Step two, configure and install uClibc, step three configure and install BusyBox. Step four, setup the bootloader (depends on architecture). Step five, reboot into a working system...

    --
    -Erik -- --This message was written using 73% post-consumer electrons--
    1. Re:Embedded Linux in five easy steps... by JKR · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yeah, right.

      I've just completed a 3 month development contract for an automotive company using embedded linux, and NO WAY is it that simple. Embedded Linux has a long way to go before it can compete with other systems, most notably in the areas of configuration management (the kernel configuration process for embedded targets is particularly poor) and device drivers (Linux in the embedded world badly needs a Hardware Abstraction Layer). On some popular embedded platforms (think Motorola, and telecoms), it took a major kernel revision (2.2 to 2.4) to fix problems with the UART driver.

      The fact that the two most successful embedded architectures have forked their own kernels suggests that Embedded Linux is still quite badly fragmented, and no-one designing a system from scratch wants to see that.

      Jon.

  17. OT: OMG i just saw a microsoft add on slashdot by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

    Can i trust slashdot for good quality MS bashing now? I dont know ...

  18. *linux is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why bother w/ Linux when RHAT has a perfectly
    fine GPL'ed real embedded OS???

  19. Windows XP Embedded? by cpeterso · · Score: 2, Funny



    Did your dev team look into using Windows CE.NET or Windows XP Embedded ?

    --
    cpeterso
    1. Re:Windows XP Embedded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should use NetBSD. They can write their code to be nearly processor independent that way, and after giving credit to the NetBSD folks in some form of documentation, they can screw down the lid on the product and ship.

  20. What about hardware? by seann · · Score: 1

    I'm looking to build a small embedded application (basicly a remote control car), I sure know there are better things to use, however I want to be able to use the parts for other projects.

    Where would the best place to look for such devices?

    --
    I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
  21. Sorry, it hasn't happened yet by owlmeat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "As Embedded Linux becomes established as a solid alternative to many proprietary OSes and RTOSes"

    If anything,the embedded Linux hysteria has died down quite a bit. Linux has it's share of problems in the embedded marketplace. Large memory footprint, filesystems that need time to shutdown, interrupt latency to name a few. I work in the single board computer industry and we've seen a sharp decline in the requests for embedded linux support over the last year.

    --
    They stab it with their steely knives,

    But they just can't kill the beast.

    1. Re:Sorry, it hasn't happened yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But don't your customers want a time-shared operating system? What happens when they want to hook up more than one teletype terminal at once?

      Linux is the answer. Questions where Linux is not the answer need to be rephrased.

    2. Re:Sorry, it hasn't happened yet by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      The EE Times has an article on the Embedded Linux Consortium. The tone of the article is discouraging, but it also says that embedded Linux will be number one by the end of 2002! Is the truth somewhere in-between?

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
  22. Food for thought... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "As Embedded Linux becomes established as a solid alternative to many proprietary OSes and RTOSes..." Thanks for that. I needed a good laugh.

  23. Embedded vs. "desktop" perspectives by apk · · Score: 5, Informative
    First off, it's an excellent article covering most of the issues that arise in embedded systems -- you should at least peruse it if you're going to comment in this thread. One of the biggest issues for non-embedded developers to understand is that each development task is somewhat unique -- different hardware, I/O requirements, cost targets, time to market, etc. It's not a [relatively] standard environment like that of a typical desktop computer. In fact, the vast majority of embedded devices are "headless" -- no keyboard or monitor, so support for video drivers and/or X only impacts a very small number of applications.

    My company recently went down the path of evaluating several embedded linux suppliers, including Hard Hat Linux, LynuxWorks, RTLinux, and others. This evaluation was for an embedded communications platform.

    There are many "real-world" issues that will arise when considering Linux instead of some of the more established embedded OS players (WindRiver/pSOS, Green Hills, Keil, QNX, et al -- see Embedded Systems Programming magazine for a pdf summary of embedded OS providers). These real-world issues, which will vary in importance among organizations for various reasons, include:

    • Existing non-linux OS usage (e.g., WindRiver)
    • Staff familiarity with Unix-like programming (most embedded developers know traditional RTOS-like architectures, not unix IPC methods or socket programming)
    • Ease/difficulty with which already-written application software can migrate to a new OS
    • OS support for preferred hardware devices (processor, communications peripherals, flash, etc. -- writing drivers from scratch isn't desirable)
    • Internal corporate or organizational resistance to change (don't underestimate this one, folks!)
    • Product life cycle phase
    • Existing customer experience(s) with any previous OS-related behavior that may change under linux (customers like seeing behaviors they've seen before, not something new)
    • Hard real-time versus soft real-time requirement(s)
    • Communications stack and protocol requirements

    In short, development in the embedded world tends to have many more complications associated with it. That's not necessarily bad -- in fact it often makes it more technically challenging and thus professionally satisfying -- it's just something that ought to be recognized, acknowledged, and taken into account when OS decisions are being made.


    Andy

  24. Re:This topic is indeed quite boring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank gods... all those posts about the GPL were driving me nuts. But next time I want lesbian bondage.

  25. Rather broad view of embedded systems by ClosedSource · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess the distinctions between embedded and non-embedded systems are disappearing.

    Traditionally, embedded systems have a minimal user interface (number pad and 7-segment displays come to mind), minimal ROM and RAM, no mass storage, and hard real-time requirements. For a system like this, Linux (or any desktop, mini, or mainframe OS) seems both inadequate and bloated.

    Today's definition of an embedded system seems to be "a portable general purpose computer system". Perhaps we should just call it that rather than use the term embedded system.

    1. Re:Rather broad view of embedded systems by certsoft · · Score: 1
      Traditionally, embedded systems have a minimal user interface (number pad and 7-segment displays come to mind), minimal ROM and RAM, no mass storage, and hard real-time requirements. For a system like this, Linux (or any desktop, mini, or mainframe OS) seems both inadequate and bloated.

      When I see inquiries about using Java in the comp.arch.embedded newsgroup I cringe*. It would seem that there needs to be some distinction made between traditional embedded systems and this new class of device that shares some characteristics with "PC's".

      *not affiliated with Bob Cringely or the Columbia Broadcasting System.

  26. Free embedded devices running linux... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Devices running embedded Linux are free as long as you tell everyone where you stole them...

  27. Embedded Linux Presentations by Bill+Kendrick · · Score: 4, Informative
    The last two Linux Users' Group of Davis meetings have dealt with embedded Linux.

    At our last meeting, a couple of cool folks from BlueMug in Berkeley came and talked about an embedded Linux prototype they built for a client (photos). Their presentation slide is also online here (2MB PDF).

    At the meeting before that, Rob Wehrli of Arizona Cooperative Power came to talk about Clinux (photos). His presentation is online, too.

    Enjoy!

  28. intellectual property and embedded linux by soldack · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is common issue in the embedded world and sometimes is the main reason linux isn't used. I have been in a situation where linux was considered and one of the reasons it lost out was that we felt the amount of real intellectual property we could put into it was limited. We make our systems from parts that other vendors could also buy and so our software really makes a big difference. In these cases, we felt that we had to use either a BSD based system or a proprietary one that allowed us rights to change the full source. We are currently with the proprietary model but the licensing charges are keeping us looking BSD again.

    --
    -- soldack
  29. This for example by Gladiator · · Score: 1

    "Note: Windows XP Embedded was not tested directly"

  30. I'm jealous! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey! _My_ keyboard doesn't have a 'mu' key!