Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mike Hall on Choosing Embedded Linux over Windows

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the does-and-doesn'ts dept.

prostoalex writes "Mike Hall from Microsoft asks the audience why they would choose Linux over Microsoft for embedded projects. He provides a point-by-point description of benefits of Microsoft's products (Windows CE and Windows XP Embedded) and points out that starting out on Windows-based embedded platform might save development and testing time."

6 of 75 comments (clear)

  1. Even if it saves development time ... by Basje · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... you still have to pay the windows licenses over the 250000 units you shipped last month. Linux can be shipped without having to pay those license costs.

    --
    the pun is mightier than the sword
  2. It is not that simple by curne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A friend of mine works for a company that makes embedded systems and they chose a Linux kernel to drive it since they have to make hundreds of tweaks in the kernel code to compensate for custom hardware (that they build in-house).

    IMO, choosing your software is not just a matter of point-by-point feature comparison. Some times you need the ability to modify the behavior, especially because embedded hardware is typically somewhat eccentric.

    --
    All interpreted languages are abstractions over Lisp
    1. Re:It is not that simple by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think it's redundant to say an embedded system with custom hardware. What other kind is there?

      It's not generally necessary to modify an OS just to support custom hardware. Historically, most embedded OS's were proprietary and not being able to modify the OS has never been a great limitation.

      Perhaps the problem is that since general purpose OS's like Linux weren't designed for embedded systems, more tweaking is required.

  3. Re:Plain old FUD by 91degrees · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, It is FUD isn't it. For certain applications it can be an issue, but all you need is to have a company web site with the Linux source code (including any modifications you made), freely available for download.

    Also, he fails consider that Windows CE has licencing issues, and the SDK has its own licence. And you need a licence per developer for the OS that these run on.

  4. Re:Plain old FUD by jrumney · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Having to worry about licensing issues is a fixed cost for any development. Whether its the GPL or Microsoft's redistributable code license, the company lawyer needs to go through all the third party licenses and make sure that all terms are being complied with and it is not going to expose the company to unforseen risk.

  5. Re:Plain old FUD by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's true, but lets face facts - most business people are FAR more comfortable with ye olde "give me money" licensing model (I'm not familiar with CE licensing specifically most Windows licensing is of this type) than they are with anything else. There are people who would rather pay money and be on stable mental ground than even use a BSD license, much less the GPL.