Slashdot Mirror
Linux In Robots, Windows in Handhelds
savuporo writes "Robots.net is reporting that Linux-based robots are far more common than Windows-based robotics. Especially various Asian robot builders are increasingly selecting Linux and other open-source software as a basis for robot products and research. Linux is also gaining ground in other embedded applications like PDAs and mobile phones." That said, prostoalex writes "50% of all the PDAs sold in 2003 had Palm OS, while Windows family accounted for 37.7% of PDA market. In 2004 Microsoft is the leader of handheld OS market with 43% market share, followed by Palm OS with 36.3%."
I'm not sure which OS I should use for my handheld robot.
It seems to me that the robotics market is a growing one - more and more robots are going to be produced in the future. Linux has this growing market.
Windows has the shrinking market. Handhelds are on the way out, being pushed aside by smarter phones (running Linux or Symbian). Why have a phone and a handheld, when the phone will do both? So, the handheld market is shrinking, and that's the one Windows has.
Linux 1, Microsoft 0
This post will enter the public domain 70 years after my death, unless Disney buys another extension.
over CP/M.
By the way, has Commodore released the C=64 CP/M cartridge yet? All my valuable early 80s software is orphaned!
This might be a viewpoint that isn't shared by many, especially considering that it does everything that a PDA needs to do - then again a 5 year old Palm also did - but it has fallen behind, limited by the old architecture of PalmOS.
They really need to get version 6 out, the version that should be fully native on ARM hardware, using BeOS functionality and so on. They should concentrate on providing a wide range of easy to use software that looks good and performs well. Beat PocketPC where it is good.
The sad thing is that Palm Desktop is a good application for what it does, worth running even if you don't have a Palm!
Since years we've been reading the PDA is dying, and unlike all the "BSD is dying" crap this actually means the market is shrinking. As long as Windows isn't a big player in the mobile phone market, that's nothing to boast about. And their mobile phone products suck - they've even crashed. That is something mobile users aren't to accept, because other key players seem to have it worked out better.
Linux gets slowly but steadily adopted into more and more mobiles, same with carrier grade Linux with the telcos.
Add this to robotics, which is associated with the biggest increases in productivity, there seems to be a bright future for embedded Linux, which is really contending with stuff like vxWorks or Symbian, not so much Windows.
Creators of robots use Linux to control them because robots would be far too dangerous when infected with spyware.
Imagine you forget to patch your mobile, appendage-laden Windows-running robot, connect it to the Internet and suddenly it wakes you up in the middle of the night with a mischievous look on its face.
I'm a big tall mofo.
Maybe it's because of the MLoR:
First Law:
A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm, unless it interferes with making a profit.
Second Law:
A robot must obey orders given it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law, or interferes with making a profit.
Third Law:
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law, or interferes with making a profit.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Linux and free / Open Source software are used more heavily than commercial software for research and development projects.
Who would have thunk it?
This is the same as saying "Users choose Windows, Hackers choose GNU". It's not something specific to the handheld or the robotics market. It's the same that happends in the Servers Vs. Desktops dept. In areas where there is a Hacker in charge, for example, sysadmins, developers, etc. a Unix like OS will most certainly be choosen, and GNU is in most cases the best choice, because of many reasons, including ethical and comercial ones.
It's not easy to reach the end user. Specially because it's expensive. Some companys spend more on publicity than in development, why?, because that's the way to reach the end-user market.
ALMAFUERTE
WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
Because we all know how great of a memory and process manager Windows is.
If Windows managed the memory of a robot, then the robot would truly have shit for brains.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
We need mission critical OS when we need to run mission critical robots like that that disarms bombs and get people from infected areas, imagine the people telling that the OS give us a BSOD and can't disarm the bomb.
http://www.michel.eti.br
The iPod feature a sync functionality which makes it a read only handheld.
Aren't there more iPod than CE handhelds ?
This'd make the iPodOS the 1st handheld OS.
Has someone the figures ?
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The Maslab Robotics Contest evaluated both Linux and Windows for our robots, and working with Windows was a real pain. Windows Embedded lacked the configurability and features we wanted, and full-blown XP was way too bloated and GUI-dependent.
We stuck with Linux even though it meant passing up potentially lucrative sponsorship.
"The danger is not that a particular class is unfit to govern. Every class is unfit to govern." - Lord Acton
Lindows, of course.
Linux for vital production use, Windows for useless toys.
Obviously. But the differences explain the trends.
Robots don't have any user interface candy. They are essential servers that control complex equipment. Open source, reliability, portability to random microprocessors... all these are top requirements. Windows never controlled any robots. Linux has taken market share from other proprietary operating systems.
PDAs are 100% user interface, and even those who dislike Microsoft's approach to software must admit that they produce nice user interfaces. Not as nice as Apples... but that's another story. PalmOS is simple but the benefit of a zero learning curve only applies when most users are newbies. People want more now. Windows delivers, PalmOS does not.
Mobile phones are more like robots. If you've used a new Symbian phone you'll realise just how far this goes from the walk-up-and-use interface of a classic GSM. Frankly I think 90% of phone sales will remain driven by simplicity, not functionality. Windows does not have a path here.
Lastly, I think the next big competitor in PDAs is not PalmOS nor Linux, but Apple. It's a natural progression from iPods and Apple are the only people who make nicer toys than Microsoft.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
With the sales markup that's over 10$ increase in sales price.
Of course it depends on the product, but if the product costs less than $200, this will hurt profits quite a bit.
in quantity.
Yes, in quantity. But who guarantees that you will sell the product in that quantity? No one. So with Windows, you are forced to take more risk. And don't forget all the paperwork associated with licensing.
Linux isn't free either. You will likely need a RTLinux commercial distro to get anything of signifigance working.
Acutally I work on a power analyzer that runs 100% on freely available software, we use PicoGUI. Anyway, it depends a lot on what you do, but most Linux-developers don't use anything that causes royalties. It's quite common to use commercial development tools, but those don't cause any royalties on a per-unit basis, they are usually a one-time cost. Commercial support is also available, again with no effect on your per-unit costs.
Palmsource has decided that the next version of Palm will be based on Linux. So soon the major OSes for PDAs will be Windows and Linux (plus symbian). Personally, I have the Zaurus c760, and think it is great. Having the ability to use the huge library of linux software for the device is great (i run pdaXrom, so X-ware can mostly be made to work). I just wish Sharp or others would get their fingers out and offer more selections and market it better. -TN
Microsoft didn't innovate with Office. Excel was an extension of Lotus 123 (which was an extension of VisiCalc; see www.bricklin.com). Word was an extension of MacWrite, coded with assistance from Apple. Microsoft bought PowerPoint. And Outlook? (or is that LookOut!) Lots of mail systems to copy.
Linux gets slowly but steadily adopted into more and more mobiles...
That's quite an assumption to how things will play out. I'm not so certain the first statement leads to the second.
While I understand that some companies (Nokia, due to its ownership stake in Symbian, being the most significant) have a vested interest in Microsoft not being the OS of choice in a phone or smart phone, I wasn't aware that the consumer had much choice in what ends up in the phone. My understanding is that the relationship between the software supplier and the phone maker (and the phone maker and the carrier) is more significant than what the user is interested in. The challenge is that the consumer criteria for purchasing a phone are the brand name of the phone, the design (straight vs. clam shell), the camera (or lack thereof), cost, ringtones, SMS capability, games, and other features; the OS is mostly (if not completely) transparent to those decision criteria [remember Marketing 102: people buy solutions to problems, needs & wants; they do not buy products]. If I got a new phone, I would ask what OS the phone is running; however, I bet most people don't care. As a side note, I don't actually know if Microsoft-based phones display a MS logo on boot; however, you should consider that people might associate failure (e.g. crashing) to the brand name of the phone as much as the OS it is running.
There may be long-term damage if the systems do not work properly, but it will take a long time to play out (The replacement time for phones is 18+ months in the US last I checked). This (along with the lack of major press on the issue) is probably enough of a reprieve that Microsoft can fix its problems. This is a much better place (from their point of view) for Microsoft to get itself entrenched - because it only needs to maintain the corporate relationships with the manufacturers (and to a lesser degree the carriers)... Then, with "good enough" products, they can survive.
The same goes for Microsoft's push into IPTV and its deals with SBC and others. There isn't a need for a consumer to make a choice - if you subscribe, you're using Microsoft's products; your only non-Microsoft choice is to not receive the service. While some staunch anti-Microsoft individuals may be willing to take that step, many others (I would argue most people) would just as well have the service, even if it means dealing with a Microsoft product. If Microsoft wins any cable companies, some consumers may have no choice at all if they want to have on-demand services.
It is, in truth, a brilliant play by Microsoft into areas where it is harder to make a consumer choice to remove a specific type of software. I highly doubt we will see the day where the software has to be independent of the phone or set top box, as was the case with mainframe computers when IBM got itself into anti-trust problems. So Microsoft is here to stay, even if they have to share the desktop.