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."
My D-Link DSL604t is Linux based too, and so is my PDA..
--
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)
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.
Linux won't take over the embedded world, mainly becuase embedded is a commercial market. 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.
Before you flame me, I did make a good portion of the code used in my embedded device available to the BSD community. I won, they won. Nobody twisted my arm.
I'm posting AC, STOP KARMA WHORING!!!
TDT
Nothing is going to change the fact it is a Sony.
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.
Perhaps this is just a wake up call to companies who support embedded Linux to perhaps spend more on advertising and marketing (i.e. "hello world, we support Linux embedded because we made a pile of decent kernel patches so we can be trusted.")
Compatibility testing, and wedging in those RTOS kernel patches and supporting those where appropriate can't be a bad thing either.
READY.
PRINT ""+-0
My feeling is the latter. My Netgear ADSL modem / firewall uses embedded Linux. If not for a "debug mode" hidden in the advanced settings which enables you to SSH into a busybox shell, I wouldn't know nor care. The thing just works and it works very well. I expect millions of people are running Linux in their homes in their modems, TVs, audio / DVD players, washing machines or elsewhere and simply don't know it.
Issue 1 is not a big problem. The programming model is well-understood, so at the application level there really isn't a lack. However, there is little support for specific stuff that hardware vendors may want to do (like say a CDMA RIL) and the implementation of those features is pretty difficult.
The second issue is a real concern. User experience is significantly degraded when the interrupt latency is longer than the expected reaction time. There are ways to reduce the interrupt latency in Linux, but the side effects are undefined.
Support is only an issue because it is so expensive. Likewise, there are only a few top-tier Linux vendors who can offer good support. Montavista, for example, is one of the premier (if not the premier) embedded Linux vendors, but they can't support everyone who wants to build a Linux-based embedded solution. They pick and choose their support contracts, and anyone not selected needs to find someone else with the relevant support capabilities.
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 ----
...without knowing it. as i've pointed out before you can download sources for Sony devices from here: http://www.sony.net/Products/Linux/Download/search .html
anyone got anything on the list? [hint: try under the 'game' section]
This, sadly, is very much an pointy-headed-boss driven decision. From the perspective of the HW/SW teams its just plain stupid. The problems are probably pretty representative why those 66% aren't looking into Linux.
Its gross overkill. Linux architecture is for general-purpose multi-user information processing loads. It does a whole bunch of things that are simply ballast for an O.S. that is there simply to control some special-purpose hardware and run a simple on-screen-display. Bigger micro, larger flash footprint, more on-chip RAM gobbled. This really really hurts in a genuinely cost-competitive marketplace. If you're building an Net appliance type of thing of course Linux is almost a turn-key solution. For embedded control... its the wrong kind of OS.
Licensing is a pain if you have non-trivial know-how you don't what to gift your competitors realised in your Firmware. You end up doing really vile hacks like doing stuff in user space via 'dummy drivers'. Debugging becomes fun fun fun....
The abstract machine doesn't fit. In the embedded control space sometimes the cleanest solution really is to do direct HW access. However, the hard kernel/userland divide of Unix O.S. makes doing this in a systematic, safe, way rather clumsy. You end up writing around a bazillion special-purpose HW-dependent ioctl's where what you really wanted was some selective access to the I/O bus. Then you need a HW workaround with hard real-time requirements and the 'fun' really starts.
In short Linux is a fine information processing
Don't know if any /.ers are familiar with the mixing console industry, but Midas are doing some pretty neat things with Embedded Linux on their new digital console (XL8).
Could not open
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
QNX on the other hand, will practically send an engineer on site to hold your hand while you get your BSP running. Support is cheap and the runtime licenses are down in the noise threshold.
Sure, QNX has a few issues. So does VxWorks. But Linux is a real lose, and I've tried.
Frankly, if I was starting from scratch and rolling my own BSP, I'd choose NetBSD. Embedded friendly license, code purity, and it probably already has your processor arch.
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
This is interesting stuff, as Linux, although behind Windows embedded in certain device types like smartphonse, is constantly gaining market share, and clearly leads in devices like firewall, router and wifi appliances.
-FreakGeek
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...
Related to that principle, to avoid licensing fees for WinCE, you'll be willing to write your own drivers for a large-scale product, especially since it's one you designed and manufactured yourself. Microsoft doesn't write drivers for Sony televisions, after all.
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.
17% of embedded market is absolutely amazing imho. Unlike PCs, there are many choices for an embedded operating system. Most commercial embedded OS vendors could not even dream about reaching such high audience. I've read somewhere (and I agree) that if you need a filesystem and/or a TCP/IP stack you should consider Linux for an embedded system.Maybe I would expand this to include a USB host. If you don't need TCP/IP stack/Filesystem/USBhost then my personal favorite is Labrosse's microC/OS-II (amazing collection of CPUs that will run this, starting with 4K-ROM 8-bit processors to PowerPC type processors, not many OSes can claim such diversity).
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.
However, what's NOT being reported by the EE Times is what's significant here.
If you look at the linuxdevices.com survery, the number of systems using linux is about 20-25% IIRC. Say it's 20%. This is in line with the survey.
But the REAL interesting thing here is that Linux has come from virtually nowhere in the past 5 years, to now actually become one of THE dominant Embedded OS's in the marketplace, if not the single most dominant one.
Contrast this to VxWorks. About 5-6 years ago, WindRiver was crowing that they had the dominant OS, with about a 33% marketshare. According to the linuxdevices.com survery, that has now dropped to about 12% IIRC, and is fading. Witness, in fact, WindRiver's huge adoption of Linux recently (and their large hiring of Linux developers).
Microsoft's OS's are each well behind Linux; and even combined, still add up to slightly less marketshare (or at best, comparable) than Linux.
So, the bottom line is that Linux has come from absolutely nowhere in the past 5 years to become one of the key players in the embedded space. Completely contrary to the EE Times article. Shame on them for their attempt to completely distort the truth here.
Linux in the embedded space is only going to keep on growing; the advantages with it over the closed-source solutions are just too huge.
The best way to predict the future is to create it. - Peter Drucker.