Slashdot Mirror
On Microsoft's Embedded DevCon Keynote
An anonymous reader writes "WindowsForDevices reports on the keynote talk at Microsoft's Windows Embedded DevCon (developer conference) taking place this week in San Diego. The story includes some interesting comments and highlights from the talk. Don't miss the cool bit about the ARM7-based 'SPOT' development platform that runs a tiny version of the .NET Compact Framework -- Microsoft is demoing a robot that's run by SPOT. There's also a pointer to an online video demo of a project to create a digital picture frame using Win CE."
M$ is demoing a robot that's run by SPOT. See SPOT run. Run SPOT, run!
I don't know if you mean Cannon or Canon. If you do mean the EFI based RIPs for Canon ColorPASS controllers, you can run McAfee VirusScan 7.0 on their XPe based controllers.
;)
As for security updates, EFI has just started a program for keeping more up to date with Hotfixes and Service Packs. Just today I got an update from Canon with information on a forthcoming CD bundle with the latest patches for their entire Windows based product line. Granted, they will be a little behind because they have to do a full test suite to make sure their software functions with the patch or a modified version thereof. Your printers should be bedhind a firewall with all external access blocked to protect from the majority of these baddies, if possible.
Contact your local servicing Canon dealer for additional information on the anti-virus and security update issues.
Yes, I do work as an analyst for a Canon dealer
I don't have any WinCE experience(VXworks, custom schedulers, and Integrity mostly), but one of my coworkers, whose opinion I generally respect uses CE for all his moonlighting contract jobs and he calls it rocksolid, easy to use, etc. etc. He's got lots of embedded experience, mostly safety critical, and he considers it a truly useful tool.
I can't ignore it outright, because he really does know what he's doing, he's written his own schedulers and memory managers for projects for 8051s and whatnot, so he's not just saying "oh, this looks easy I'll use this". But I'm also hesitant to believe that M$ has made something reliable enough to run embedded hard real-time.
Anyone want to enlighten me further?
refactor the law, its bloated, confusing and unmaintainable.
1) Term for a bug report is now "you missed a spot" report.
2) Name was inspired by Microsoft's spotty security record.
3) Virus writers are now hard at work at viruses that hit the SPOT.
4) Geeks everywhere will deny the spot even exists.
5) Locomotives will adapt this embedded technology through the TrainSPOTting initiative.
6) The MONO folks will be creating a GNOME-based port. No word yet on what they'll call it but rumor has it that it'll start with a "G"
You had better have a good firewall in your garage for those times when your car says to you we're home, would you like me to go online and fetch your calendar updates?
It's one thing for an unfirewalled windoze 98 box to be hacked and compromised by a remote attacker. It's quite another to have your vehicle compromised unbeknownst to you--
I don't think I want my car "crashing" its OS while I'm at the wheel, unrelated to any driving choices/mistakes I may have made. I can see it now--
"Honest Officer! I think my car must have caught the Download.Ject virus this morning!" I didn't drive into that bridge abutment on my own! Honest!!" The officer replies--
"Sir, didn't you listen to the latest Microsoft warning? You should never use your steering wheel / joystick to surf to 'unsafe' websites with IE! Now I have to write you a Stupid-Ticket."
But seriously...
How concerned are other developers about MS style code being let loose in a critical system like an automobile? I mean, running a PDA or a desktop printer is one thing. When they crash, people aren't so likely to DIE! A malfunctioning four ton Ford Excursion, on the other hand, is something I'd really rather not encounter.
My company was looking some embedded hardware with some specific capabilities. It took a while, but last year the hardware arrived. Since I was the first user, I was offered the choice of WinCE or Linux. I personally prefer to develop under Linux, but in this case I thought it was best to go with whichever one the hardware manufacturer was most comfortable with, and that was CE.
They supplied prototype hardware. This was just the CPU manufacturers reference design, which they laid up and hand soldered. A contractor recommended by Microsoft then produced a "basic" CE image, and we were away. So far so good. The next step was design and delivery of produce production boards. These were just the reference design with unwanted bits removed, and the form factor adjusted accordingly. Again, they put a "basic" CE image on it, and it all worked.
The final step was to put the "real" CE image on the device. The major differences between this and the basic seemed to me to be be little details, like persisting the registry to flash, making the CF card work, making the buttons work, making USB work with 2.0 devices, making power off work and so on. The job went to the same Microsoft contractor, who promised delivery in a week or so.
That was in January. Lots of phone calls later, and me finally threating to cancel the deal forced them (the manufacturer) to take drastic steps: they made the contractor's staff work in their offices, so they could monitor the work being done and the progress being made.
That was two months ago. Meanwhile the situation was explained to Microsoft, but they insisted the if their nominated contractor couldn't get CE going nobody could.
More threats from me, and the manufacturer contacted another manufacturer in Germany who was using CE with the same reference design. They found who did their CE image, and ask them to do the same job. That was a month ago. Nobody has delivered. Nobody has raised any queries over the hardware design. And I, an embedded programmer by trade, and sitting here mystified by how hard it appears to be to get CE to go.
At the same time I have written my own apps to run on this thing. It is written in C# (which is what Microsoft recommended). I prefer Java as it runs well under Linux - but Microsoft does not supply a Java VM for CE - surprise, surprise! The back end of these apps (the server part) runs on Linux. So I had to make C# run under Linux. I choose PNet (as opposed to Mono) for reasons I won't discuss here.
The contrast between the two efforts could not be more stark. Microsoft CE.Net mostly worked from the start, although it wasn't obvious how to do some things and it did have one of two bugs. Moving beyond that point - figuring out how things work, and fixing the bugs ranged from very hard to impossible - for all the usual reasons. Microsoft's documentation was good, but when it fell short there is no backup - no source, no helpful online community, and no one willing to fix bugs. Granted I didn't go looking for someone looking to do these things for money.
PNet, in contrast, didn't work well when I first got it. It took me a day just to figure out how to make the thing go. But progress after that was rapid. I found bugs, I fixed them and posted the patches. Not a lot of doco other than the source, but if I got stuck I asked what seems to be a thriving and friendly online community.
It goes without saying that the PNet stuff is now rock solid for me. The Microsoft stuff is about where it was when we first started - very close but no cigar, and it seems no one has any idea how to make it progress beyond that.
I now wonder if this experience is atypical, or if I just made the wrong choice at the beginning. I am sure I would of have got Linux going by now - at the cost of a lot more effort on my part. But a little voice inside my head keeps saying - if it is this hard to make CE go, why does everybody keep using it?