Slashdot Mirror
Interest in Embedded Linux Remains Low
burnin1965 writes "According to EE Times interest in embedded linux remains low. I was surprised to see their headline considering I just purchased a Sony TV which runs linux and I assisted my brother in setting up an Actiontec DSL modem which runs linux. A few years back I had only heard of devices that ran embedded linux and now that they are starting show up everywhere interest is low? The survey did bring up three issues which should be addressed by the embedded linux community, whether those issues are misconceptions or actual problems. 1) Incompatibility with software, applications, and drivers. 2) Performance or real time capability. And 3) support."
I would have said that 17% of designers using embedded Linux is quite respectable. I wonder what their target penetration was.
If I'm going to make a million of something, I'm willing to spend a lot of money on engineering to save fifty cents per unit. I'm willing to spend the extra effort required to use Linux.
On the other hand, if I'm making ten units of something, engineering time is my largest expense. In that case, I don't particularly care about license fees or the cost of the tools, I just want to get the job done as fast as possible.
So, consumer goods will use Linux but most developers don't design those. Most developers work on projects that won't be produced in large numbers. Therefore most developers will continue not to use Linux.
Only 17 percent of embedded systems designers are currently using embedded Linux, and 66 percent say they are either not interested in using it or do not expect to be using it anytime soon
So, reading this backwards, a third of embedded systems developers are interested in embedded Linux and/or expect to be using it soon.
Compared with where the market was five years ago this is huge. Of the other two thirds, a large percentage goes to TRON and probably VxWorks. And if you want vendor-provided qualified platforms and support, you can get that from the same folks who make VxWorks.
Surely a change in survey results from a year ago is something to be curious about but there's no indication it's a trend.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Yes; using ".." and "." is nothing Linux-specific at all. It has been the UNIX way of listing "Parent directory" and "Current directory" for ages (and probably in other OSes as well), so using their presence as an indication of Linux usage is quite worthless.
The problems come when a company doesn't comply with the GPL. The thing is, you can use your closed and proprietary stuff in your products which you don't have to release the source to should you distribute it. Many companies are doing it, and still complying with the GPL. I would venture to guess that companies that don't get it and fail to follow the license would find themselves in trouble. It's the same for any other licensing schema: You break the rules, you either comply and make it right or you don't have the right to use it.
But I see what you're saying. If a company doesn't want to comply, or doesn't understand the GPL enough to, they should move on and use something else more suited to their business model.
Which question were people answering? Are you intending to use an "embedded linux" or just "linux" in a small standalone device? We use a "standard" linux in several standalone devices. We have no need for, nor do we want to use a "specialist" distribution because we do want to be locked in. It is no coincidence that one of the more fertile areas of cpu support development in the kernel, at the moment, is for ARM devices.
Most embedded applications dont even need an OS.. thats overkill for them and would only serve to raise the end cost. You dont need linux in your Microwave for example.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Who wants to invest money in developing a product, only to have the open source community go after you? And you get bashed for trying to earn a living.
I don't think the GPL crowd is "going after people for trying to earn a living", they are simply protecting their work. If you use GPL'd code, you have to make it available it... those are the conditions of use. Pretty simple.
I developed an embedded device using NetBSD. I would love to use Linux, but the agressive stance of the GPL license (Linksys!!) keeps me away. I know many others that share the same view.
I think Linksys's choice to use Linux actually helped them. Their wireless AP(WRT54G) is quite popular due to its openness. The openness allows for mods&add-ons and this in turns promotes a community around the product. One could say it helps build "Brand Loyalty" and provides free positive PR(for the product at least).
How much custom code you adding? From the sounds of it(worried about GPL) you aren't adding much; maybe a driver or two. And in the end you gave back to NetBSD anyways, so I don't really understand your complaint.
Beside if someone is going to rip you off, wouldn't it be another manufacturer? In which case if you had use GPL'd code, you could at least force them to provide the GPL'd code used. Level the playing field? With a BSD license, you'd know they ripped you off but had no way of forcing them to release the code.
Yes, completely ignoring if the device under a patent.
If the govt becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law, it invites man to become his own law, it invites anarchy
Well, TFA tells us haow many are using Linux, 17%, and are thinking about it, etc. But how can we make any conclusions form this when it isn't even hinted at what the other 83% are using? Some version of Windows? QNX? DOS? Is Linux at 17% the largest or much smaller than the others? Maybe the EETimes readers have the context, but I don't.
The article talks about the number of designers who are working on Embedded Linux projects. It says nothing at all about Embedded Linux's market penetration.
If, for example, you have 1000 projects using an embedded OS of some kind. Let's say 900 of these are going to be either small-run, specialised devices, or flops. The remaining 100 are consumer items, mass-produced and sold around the world. If Linux's 17% happens to account for a large proportion of the top 100 projects, their market penetration is huge. If it's 17% accounts only for small-run projects, then it's not doing that great.
A better heuristic, IMO, would be how many units are being produced with embedded Linux, rather than how many designers are using Linux.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
Trying to create a trend or perception where there is none. Witness all those smarmy "the suit is back" articles.
In addition to accepting paid and free propaganda, trying to create public hysteria to influence political outcomes, the MSM survives on renting reader's eyeballs to advertisers. Whatever it takes to do that, they will do. Slashdot itself has fallen into that same cycle, with regular articles about "political" subjects sure to get 800 replies (and corresponding ad impressions) but with no valid technical content.
New SuperSig:
Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.
Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473, show your ID, and the poll worker will check with the FBI database to make sure that you're not prohibited from voting. If everything is working correctly, you will be allowed to vote in a few minutes.
If the GCA/Brady system doesn't violate the rights of gun owners, then what possible objection could there be to implementing the same system for voting?
Robert Racansky
The rules are simple : reciprocate or fuck off.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
But are they really? Linus has said in the past that binary kernel modules do not meet the requirements of the GPL and he's even pointed to Nvidia as an offending party even though they ship an open-source middleware layer between their driver and the kernel. In Linus's view all drivers that run on Linux should be open source. This makes it exceedingly difficult to develop proprietary hardware that you want to keep out of the hands of your competitors. These companies are being attacked from two angles at once... from one side people are beating them up over using patents to protect their intellectual property and from the software side they're getting beat up for using closed source software to hide the interfaces to that hardware.
I agree that the GPL is largely to blame.
It's not at all about not wanting to give back your changes. The main problem is the static linking clause (LGPL kindof solves that).. in most of the projects we made, there is some part (think decoders, etc) that's licensed from a third party and simply can't be shared.
So that rules linux right out, cause more often that not everything's linked together into one big image.
We've considered using open source libraries quite often.. it'd be great to be able to use a network stack or whatever, and publish the changes. But every single time, the GPL has made that impossible.
OK, I am a firm beleiver in embedded Linux, extreme SFF computers and/or "OS-on-a-chip". After review of the Article and posting it appears most ppl think of embedded devices as strictly "consumer" type products. Rightful so as the article did not address "who" (read end-user) target the embed was targeted for. Yet there are hundreds products on the market for Industrial control applications and thousands of consumer products. If the the designers surveyed where from the industrial controls sector then yes Linux embedded devices and their use is low. If from a consumer product stand point then the article is flawed. Multi embedded Linux systems in an automated industrial enviroment would be much better, far more reliable, much more expandable and more easier to manage then the "old" tech in use today, namely the PLC. Look at it. A famous named PLC offers 16k-32k of program storage, communicates via a modified 485 or Ethernet with a $1200.00 piece of hardware. Takes a $1000.00+ software bundle to program it (just One class). OH I forgot... Starting price NEW for an expandable controller is as much as its ID number. I have seen PLC rack add $15000.00 to a project (single piece of equipment) and that is not a very big rack at all. Don't forget the software - PLC, Scanner, HMI, Ethernet Interface and wares for a computer to talk to it.(another $5g) For that kind of cash you could put in embeds to control the whole process and be redunant. Bottom line . . . That is really what it is about. IMO PLCs are relics from the past that need to be trashed and embedded PCs is the now and future
"Who wants to invest money in developing a product, only to have the open source community go after you? And you get bashed for trying to earn a living."
3 562391
I know that Tivo and Cisco (Linksys) hate the GPL. I mean, if you look here http://www.tivo.com/linux/linux.asp you can see that Tivo thinks the way to stay in business is to hold the source code close. And of course, using open source, GPL'd software is a way to drive Linksys out of business http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/article.php/
If your business model depends on closed source, then you are increasingly a dinosaur. It's like the employee who thinks he has job security by keeping what he does a "secret" from his boss. It only works for a little while.
you'll find it clever when you're administrating a server and you are trying to look inside someone's home directory, and when you type 'ls' instead of listing the directory contents it actually runs a custom script in their directory which does something nasty with full privelages.
Although I remember coming across a distro where . was in the path by default for all users except root. I still think it's better off that . is not in the path at all.
being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
I have done embedded design for more than 20 years. I have been subjected to many goofy surveys than were written by marketing suits who were clueless about how to ask proper questions. The typical survey says "Will you be doing an embedded design in the next 6 months? Y/N" and then it gives some kernels to choose from. The category of "hand rolled" is always the winner (~50%). This is because most embedded designs are quite small (8 and 16 bit) and buying a canned kernel is too much bother. Linux is not an option on these little processors (gross overkill and no MMU protection anyway).
The survey should ask "Will you be doing a 32 bit embedded design and if so, what will you use as a kernel?" If the design does not require TCP/IP networking, I still would seriously consider hand rolled as an option. When you make the kernel yourself you are not dependant on the support of the kernel provider.
I've never done an embedded Linux design, but I sure would like to. My only concern would be the complexity of dealing with the GPL (I ain't no lawyer). I'm accustom to hiding the source to prevent knock-off designs. In government research designs I willingly release the full design, but in commercial design it sets off alarm bells in my mind. I'm not sure what the reaction of a customer/employer would be if I told them I was going to release their code to the internet. I'll have to figure that part out.
My Experience (and my current job) says that the post is wrong.
We're developing an embedded medical device with millisecond lantency needs.
We get to use a 192MHz arm chip which is more then enough to use a linux kernel and drive our application. It's not hard real-time like a rocket control but it's more then enough for us.
Kernel and framework support for the popular embedded boards and chips (arm) is growing extremely fast, so much so that its better (for us) to use the latest distributed kernel then attempt to get Montavista to support us. Performance is more then enough so why shouldn't people use linux in the embedded devices. It's makes a hell of a lot more sense then trying to hack around a properitary kernel and toolchain.
The big win for linux is the similarity between using desktop linux and the embedded device. Also all of the services (ftp, NFS, ethernet, ping) which are available on desktop linux are also available on embedded with just one recompile. Setting up the toolchain was the hardest thing to do (and gdb still doesn't work 100%) but after that, everything WORKs exactly as before....
And don't even get me started on Qte
Cheers,
Ben
PS. For the hardware complainers who don't know what ioperm is for, try looking it up.
You get direct access to registers.
I'd guess the numbers don't reflect reality -- developer reality. They probably reflect economic reality (where numbers are easier to track). There are three companies I know of, just off the top of my head, that use embedded Linux in their products (and have worked at two of them, myself). If you asked their PR department, "Do you use Linux in your products?" you'd probably either get a blank stare or a dismissive "No. Our products work with Windows." i.e. Only Engineering has a clue.