Linux Hits the Road

An anonymous reader writes "Vicroads does regular surveys of the roads in Victoria, Australia, to determine where they need to be patched or otherwise repaired. It used to be done in a vehicle travelling at 20 kph: slow, tedious, and hazardous to the traffic around it. Now, thanks to Linux, it's being done at speeds of 80 to 100 kph. The Melbourne Age has the details. Short version: the cost has fallen from $1.2 million Australian to $850,000. Not bad..."

Comments

sweet advert for OSS...

[cubal]

And, surprisingly honest. I'm quite impressed with how honest they were about the problems they faced.

And that's where OSS evangelism has to happen... showing that OS is better even with its problems, not that proprietary is worse and OS is perfect. Good for them :)

I use linux...

[seanadams.com]

... but this artice is pretty ridiculous:

"My experience with Windows is limited. I have been a Linux user since 1993 and I have considerable experience in programming in that environment," Ferguson said. "In any case, I don't think that I would have undertaken a task like this, where a computer is on the road, using anything but a robust operating system."

I mean, is it *really* that much harder to grab some video in Windows vs Linux? Having never programmed in Windows, perhaps someone can enlighten me, but I would expect that software like this is 99% image processing, and the choice of OS makes little or no difference. I can understand, all thing being equal, using the OS you're more comfortable with... but jesus they make it sound like Linux saved the day here, when that's their only argument.

We always make fun of the retarded M$-funded cost-of-ownership studies. How about posting some stories that show the REAL benefit of OSS in everyday applications?

Re:I use linux...

[OzJimbob]

That's not their only argument. As was highlighted further along in the article, putting this system together on Windows would have meant purchasing expensive proprietary softare. In Linux: this wasn't necessary. Hence, the $400,000 saving. Cost savings are potentially more important than any "advantage" either OS might have had in terms of performance or stability.

Re:I use linux...

[tftp]

Generally speaking, *anything* in Windows costs you 10x more LOCs. For example, in Linux a simple concat() call does the job. In Windows you have to use CreateFile() with about 10 parameters, and some of those parameters are mind-boggling structures (like SECURITY_ATTRIBUTES) that must be created and initialized using separate API calls.

So indeed, in Windows you pay for layer upon layer upon layer of cruft. Once you are done, it works - but it takes a rocket scientist to get there.

With regard to video capture, in Linux you can do this:
$ cat videodata.raw
and it will give you some sort of raw video frames that you can easily process later. In Windows you first need to learn about 10 layers of software, each totally different, that allow you (in theory) to access the device. DirectX would be your first stop.

Re:Go figure

[DerekLyons]

Yeah, who would have thought that you could do something like this faster and cheaper with Linux. Perhaps NASA should take a lesson from Linux (e.g. it can be done faster, cheaper, and more reliably). ;)

Except that... It's faster, better, and cheaper because of improved video processing software. The operating system is incidental at best if not irelevant.

Re:Go figure

[Zemran]

Except that... It's faster, better, and cheaper because of improved video processing software. The operating system is incidental at best if not irelevant.

Are you saying that the OS has no effect on the cost at all?