Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Developing 'Brillo' OS For Internet of Things

Posted by Soulskill on from the won't-run-on-your-brilloPad dept.

An anonymous reader writes: A new report from The Information (paywalled) says Google is working on an operating system called "Brillo" that would be a platform for Internet-of-things devices. It's supposedly a lightweight version of Android, capable of running on devices with extremely limited hardware — as little as 32 MB of RAM, for example. The company is expected to launch the code for Brillo at its I/O event next week. This is particularly relevant now that Google has acquired Nest, Dropcam, and Revolv — a trio of "smart home" companies whose devices could potentially by unified by Brillo.

11 of 227 comments (clear)

  1. 32MB? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    32MB? Bah. I remember the days when you could fit a whole OS in a hundred K! And 640K was enough for anyone!

    On a more serious note: The 'internet of things' hype is supposed to be about putting sensors in just about everything. 32MB is a lot of data for a sensor.

    1. Re:32MB? by Sebby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      32MB is a lot of data for a sensor.

      Not if you're a spy agency.

      --

      AC comments get piped to /dev/null
    2. Re:32MB? by NotInHere · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the sensors are already there. The 'internet of things' hype is about giving control over machines and private information from sensors to large companies.

    3. Re:32MB? by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For comparison, here is a typical microcontroller with a few kilobytes of RAM. No wonder the Nest is so expensive.....it's vastly overpowered for what it does.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:32MB? by bug1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not if you're a spy agency.

      Such an old fashioned term, they called advertising corporations now.

    5. Re:32MB? by NotInHere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes it doesn't mean, but when it says "google", your data land at their servers. And from a security standpoint, they have control.

  2. Sigh by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "as little as 32 MB of RAM, for example"

    I'm getting old.

    My first full PC had 2MB of RAM.

    My first computer had only 48Kb of RAM.

    Hell, I have an "computer" next me to capable of connecting to the Internet (even to act as HTTP server, DHCP client, NTP client, etc.), controlling relays, performing some computations, etc. It has 32Kb of Flash, 2Kb of SRAM and 1Kb of EEPROM. It's called an Arduino UNO.

    By comparison, then, 32Mb is over 1000 times more than needed for IoT crap.

  3. Re:32MB vs 10KB by ArcadeMan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    U.S.A.: 32MB
    China: 10KB

    Guess who's more efficient and guess who's trying to cram spyware into everything.

    --
    Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
  4. I'll get that right away by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Google is definitely the company I want making the OS that will be in every fucking electronic device in my house, because they're so serious about my privacy.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  5. Correctly named? by chrism238 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Shouldn't we call this Brillio Beta, so that we can all invest heavily in it for 2 years before Google changes their mind and withdraws it?

  6. 32*M*B? by Mirar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I regularly work with devices having 32*K*B or RAM. That talks TCP/IP. (And much smaller than that, but they do very limited amount of networking, like CAN.)

    And I remember running Linux on devices with a lot less than 32MB...

    What's the challenge with 32MB? And how is that extreme in any way?