Slashdot Mirror
TRON: The Unknown Open-Source?
jordandeamattson writes "Over on CNN there is a very interesting article about Tron, an open-source real-time operating system from Japan first developed and distributed in the early 1980s. The claim is that it is more widely distributed than Windows (in some 3 billion devices world-wide), that the developer (Ken Sakamura, a University professor) would be worth mucho if he had just charged for it, and that Microsoft/U.S. goverment used trade rules (Super 301) to block it adoption by schools in Japan. Check it out for an interesting read and a 'what might have been ...'" (Here's a previous mention of Tron from March about MontaVista's work to combine it with Linux.)
TRON is an "embedded" operating system running inside microprocessors, which control electronic devices ranging from mobile phones to fax machines and even kitchen appliances.
Micro$oft Windows doesn't control electronic devices ranging from mobile phones to fax machines and even kitchen appliances, as far as I know, right??? (I hope it doesn't anyways)
How can you compare the two?
This is a pretty unfounded claim. The truth is that this is a relatively simple system we are talking baout here. If Sakamura had been charging for TRON it seems relatively likely that either hundreds of competitors would have sprung up to grab a slice of the pie or that someone else would simply have released a similar open source product. In either case, although Sakamura would probably have made some money, assuming $43 billion is just silly.
lysergically yours
"Had Sakamura decided to charge even one cent to each user of TRON, he would easily be a dollar billionaire by now, possibly even rivalling Gates, reputed to be the world's richest man with a fortune estimated at $43 billion by Forbes magazine."
/. I'd be rich! No one can say what would have happened in terms of adoption if there was a financial barrier.
This assumes that he could charge one penny, or one dollar, or 100 yen, or whatever. This kind of speculation is vacuous. It is like saying, If I had a nickel for every time I read
How to Download YouTube Videos
It is more likely that the trade barrier being described would be for sale of hardware rather than for software. I can't see the US Govt getting up in a lather about the MSDOS license fee.
The other issue the story ignores is that there would not be as many copies of the O/S if there was a charge of a cent a copy.
The most widely used O/S is embedded on some smartcard or other...
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Yes we may be a heartless, monopolistic company
Tell me about it.
but we're not that other heartless monopolistic company who doesn't like open source.
Microsoft uses open-source software in its Services For UNIX product. Many of its userland network programs (ping, ftp, etc) are based on those from BSD. But then again, Microsoft put a provision into the license for its C library banning linking with copylefted code, even where the copylefted code's license would otherwise allow it (e.g. "operating system" exception in the GNU GPL), so I guess you're right.
We at Disney love open source.
Then why hasn't Disney released Mickey Mouse as open source? Nine out of ten copyright scholars agree that it's time for the company to move on to a new cash cow.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Fromt the article:
"It's not good to charge people for using something which is like a social infrastructure. It also inhibits the development of the computer industry. The very basic infrastructure should be free," he said.
"But Mr Gates is free to do whatever he wants, as we live in a world of capitalism."
A man who's got it right.
Why can't we (in the western world) get this type of soft-spoken wisdom to be the face of OSS, and not the curmudgeonly off-putting geekazoidness of RMS?
Since no one RTFA (but me :) here's 2 really good quotes:
"It's not good to charge people for using something which is like a social infrastructure. It also inhibits the development of the computer industry. The very basic infrastructure should be free," he said.
Should? I don't know. But it certainly would be a great help to the advancement of the software industry.
Asked about the operating system inside his own computer, Sakamura smiles broadly. "TRON, of course. I don't use Windows."
That's obligatory, but still amusing.
Developers: We can use your help.
Thanks for the additional links!
:) Off the tron.org English page, the closest I come is the link to the T-Engine site, that points to developers kits that cost over US$1K.
Unfortunately, I still don't see any place to just download some code
Sure, I know Open Source doesn't always mean free, but there ought to be an engine emulator you can get for free or more cheaply, right?
Get off my launchpad!
So...let me get this straight: The USA blocked it's [ TRON ] adoption in JAPANESE SCHOOLS, because it was unfair trade practice?
Am I missing something?
And while I'm at it: Bussinesses don't innovate. They sell. Scientists innovate, and are hampered and held back by bussinessmen. That is how it has always worked, and how it always will work. When we finally get our collective heads out of our asses, maybe we can actually start working on our future.
In actual fact, TRON is one of the standards of the embedded world and most students should hear about it in any embedded/microprocessor course they do.
No you cannot. While Nucleus itself may be free, the toolchain and the derivations tuned to specific platforms cost an arm, a leg and a prostetic.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
That's physical infrastructure, mostly. A different matter alltogether.
True, but perhaps he's just thinking in different terms than the Free Software community.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Ummmmm... WTF?
The article made no mention that Microsoft did anything whatsoever to block TRON using trade rules or anything else for that matter. There are only three mentions of Microsoft in the article.
I'm not sure of how much dominance Microsoft had in 1984!! These were the days of the Commodore 64 and Apple ][. The IBM compatible wasn't a market leader at the time -- let alone Microsoft. Microsoft didn't have the money nor the clout to block anything.
The
Good idea. I want my free phone, my free internet, and my free electricity as well.
Seriously though, it seems that he's not making a distinction between "free as in speech" and "free as in beer"...
Those are goods and services that cost the provider of the goods and services a lot of money to reproduce. Actually, you can run a power station, ISP and Telephone system all on your own if you wish. The cost of doing so, relative to reproducing a software package, is astronomical. IOW, with digital content, supply == demand at almost $0 per copy.
Besides, he said "social infrastructure", which implies it's a basic societal building block, like the free exchange of ideas. Sounds to me like he has the free speach/free beer thing straight.
Soko
"Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
that the developer (Ken Sakamura, a University professor) would be worth mucho if he had just charged for it
Think about it, if he had only charged a billion dollars per copy, at 3 billion units sold, he'd have more money than all the countries of the world put together! Woah, what if he charged a TRILLION dollars per copy. He could buy the solar system!
Yeah, that's not how it works.. Probably the reason why it IS so wide spead is because it was free...
I like this line, and IMHO it illustrates much of what is wrong with the USA, today.
...but that's not the end of the story...
Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate any sort of move to Communism or Socialism, or anything like that.
But Capitalism is good as a motivator. Greed is a powerful motivator. But it doesn't belong in the same basket as 'air', 'water', 'food', and such. Maybe in the short term, it can sit in the same basket as 'sex'.
But in the USA, it appears that we've turned Capitalism (perhaps more precisely, greed) into a religion. IMHO this particular shuffling of priorities causes an unstable situation.
Simple demonstration:
Want to increase profits?
Move jobs overseas, paying 'local' wages.
Profit!!!
Everybody does it, too many jobs move overseas.
Nobody at home can afford your prices, because they're unemployed.
Overseas they can't afford your prices, because you never paid them enough.
Is the profit sustainable, or have you simply ransacked the commons? (one-time)
Again, not proposing Communism, but to say that Capitalism can exist without a Commons is myopic.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
I can: a) see if Microsoft Windows CE supports it, and if not either give up and use the CPU they want me to use or pay thousands for them to support my xxx_yyy CPU, or b) port Linux to it myself freely in a couple of days.
Or c) you could port WinCE to your hardware in about the same amount of time as you would Linux. There would be money involved in becoming a WinCE licencee, of course- but if you're a hardware manufacturer, that amount of money is relatively trivial. MS doesn't hand out the source for CE to everyone (well, it does now with the "shared source" release, but let's pretend here), but if you're going to be shipping CE on your devices, the full source is part of the license deal.
You can't have really thought that all those machines that run CE are all just some standard hardware platform, same instruction set, same line of CPUs, same bus, same misc hardware, same hardware bootloader, same BIOS or BIOS equivalent... If a manufacturer wants to create a device that runs CE or Linux, it usually involves a bit or porting and adaptation, unless it's standard PC hardware.
And, FYI, you've got TRON running in your home, somewhere, if you're an average American consumer with credit cards that you use. Every American uses TRON, somehow, at least 2 or 3 times a day.
I don't doubt that I've used TRON many times without knowing it- likewise, I've used QNX, vxWorks, OS/2, Linux, Windows CE and a bucketload of other OSes without being vaguely aware of it.
Do I have TRON running on my credit card? If not, how am I using TRON with my CC in my home? I don't have a CC reader or any POS hardware.
Anyway, my point wasn't "TRON sucks," but more so contending your statement about Linux being able to cleanly replace TRON. Linux could be used for most of what TRON could, provided time and money was spent adapting it to purposes for which TRON already works very well. Along the same lines, if one had the time and money to spend, Windows could be adapted to doing everything that Linux does now.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Nobody I know is even *considering* using CE in an embedded device: they are losing that Market, and losing it badly. ...and no one that I know is even considering using Linux for an embedded system, besides PDAs. That statement is 100% true; anyone could make a statement like this. However, it doesn't mean that no one is using Linux for embedded systems, plenty of folks are.
Umm... have a look inside your average eval board vendor catalog, and you'll see more than just a little hardware plagiarism.
That is true, but it doesn't negate what I said. Do you really think that for any given CPU, all of the sdk/eval boards are the same, save a couple of options? (ethernet or not, one or two serial ports, one-line LCD or a TFT, etc)
So anyway, has your PC running "MS AgitProp 4.5" blue screened again, yet?
I don't own a PC. I don't own any MS software, Windows and MS AgitProp (tm) included. It may come as a shock, but you don't have to be a MS proponent or even a user to attempt to speak the voice of reason. I may use Linux, but there is nothing in the EULA (yet!) that forces me into the position of being a blind cheerleader for Linux upon installation...
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
what's wrong with communism...it's only failed because of pressure from capitalist countries...it might have worked quite well without the tension caused by the juxtaposition of two competing ideologies...it's underlying principles are quite sound
What if US workers agreed to work for the same or lower rates as overseas workers? Cost is the employer's motivator. Just because you may live in the US does not mean you are guarenteed a higher quality of life than other people on this planet.
The problem is differences in cost of living. The dollar goes a lot further in India than it does in even the cheapest parts of the US.
For $X/a month, a worker in India would probably have a *higher* standard of living than a US worker being paid the same amount.
It isn't that US workers are demanding high pay to live a life of luxury; it's that the cost of living here requires them to. But I guess it's US workers' fault that they aren't willing to relocate their families to a foreign country to continue working.
"Microsoft bet big on the internet AFTER it was already popular. They were playing catch-up."
Wrong. The internet couldn't possibly have been popular without lots (i.e. millions) of people turning it into something interesting. The Win3.1, OS/2 (why'd you even mention that? heh), and Mac audience playing around on the net was not enough to do that. Sorry.
"Yes, Microsoft more or less obliterated the competition, through a mixture of legal and illegal means. It doesn't mean they started the boom of the 90s. They rode it."
Computers evolved from being tools to becoming a source of entertainment. Not only did the internet help with this, but the processors had become poweful enough to do things like play video. CD-ROMS stored enough information to make that viable. The missing piece was an OS to tie it all together, simple enough for anybody to use. Windows 95 was the choice. That's it. There's no arguing it. Yeah, it was unstable and buggy etc, but it still made a computer worth having.
PCs would have gone *nowhere* without Windows 95. Simple as that. OS2 was a perpetual source of disappointment, and nobody else was up to the task of making an OS+GUI that could compete with Apple.
MS couldn't possibly have ever attained a monopoly if the market hadn't decided that they were providing what it wanted. MS would have dominated even if they did it 100% legally. (Pity they didn't, really.)
I'm not what you'd call a pro-MS person. This isn't a "I love MS and you should too" defense. It's a rebuttal from somebody who sat around while it happened, and had to report on it for his programming class at the time.
MS did not invent the internet. MS did not invent Multimedia. It did, however, make for a computer that didn't scare people. That was vitally important for acceptance of PCs. Acceptance of PCs made for a rather large community to build the internet into what it is today.
"Derp de derp."