Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Linux Foundation Launches IoT-focused Open Source EdgeX Foundry (betanews.com)

Posted by msmash on from the going-forward dept.

Reader BrianFagioli writes: Today, The Linux Foundation launches the open source EdgeX Foundry -- an attempt to unify and simplify the Internet of Things. The Linux Foundation says, "EdgeX Foundry is unifying the marketplace around a common open framework and building an ecosystem of companies offering interoperable plug-and-play components. Designed to run on any hardware or operating system and with any combination of application environments, EdgeX can quickly and easily deliver interoperability between connected devices, applications, and services, across a wide range of use cases. Interoperability between community-developed software will be maintained through a certification program."

33 comments

  1. I just make my own by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

    I love the concept of IoT, but I hate how its implemented in most things. I don't need accounts, cloud services, statistics, blahblahblah.

    So I just roll my own. It's fun and educational. About to start hacking horizontal blinds with motors now ;)

    --
    I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    1. Re:I just make my own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I once worked with a guy who made his own OAuth library because he didn't like how Google had done it.

      I also once worked with a guy who made his own XSS filter library because he didn't like those recommended by OWASP.

      I even once worked with two guys who wrote their own encryption library because they thought it would be fun and educational.

      I don't work with any of them anymore.

    2. Re:I just make my own by i_ate_god · · Score: 1

      so?

      --
      I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
    3. Re:I just make my own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "About to start hacking horizontal blinds with motors now ;)" ...hacking ain't what it used to be...

    4. Re:I just make my own by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

    5. Re:I just make my own by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      About to start hacking horizontal blinds with motors now

      What brand/model?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    6. Re:I just make my own by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I love the concept of IoT, but I hate how its implemented in most things. I don't need accounts, cloud services, statistics, blahblahblah.

      So I just roll my own. It's fun and educational. About to start hacking horizontal blinds with motors now ;)

      This is a good point. There is no reason IoT shouldn't be private. Manage them from your iPhone or Android or Lumia by all means, but there is no need to have a gmail or outlook.com or icloud account. Maybe have a private server at home, which manages all the IoT devices, and have a way of remote logging into that from outside - maybe from an iPad. That is all that's needed.

      There is no reason for the world (read: businesses) to know that you're out of butter, or prefer Corbett Canyon to Robert Mondavi

  2. Found the LUDDITES! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ONLY apps can app apps, which is why modern app appers have apped the Appernet of Apps! These LUDDITE Linux users are too stupid to app the Appernet of Apps, so they're going to try making LUDDITE software that only LUDDITES can use!

    Apps!

  3. I feel like it's already been done. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    EdgeX Foundry is unifying the marketplace around a common open framework

    Isn't that what POSIX is for? If you write your code for POSIX, it'll run on almost anything.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:I feel like it's already been done. by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Nobody writing code on Linux cares about POSIX. Try and compile something on a different architecture or platform and see how far you get.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    2. Re:I feel like it's already been done. by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      Everyone not a complete beginner knows about POSIX, and that complying with it from the start is not hard and will save you portability pains in the future. You'd need to be some node.js bozo or a systemd coder to ignore that (yes, Lennart WONTFIXes header inclusion patches).

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    3. Re:I feel like it's already been done. by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      And still the majority of open source software on Linux compiles just fine under both Solaris and BSD (I cross compile for those all the time).

    4. Re:I feel like it's already been done. by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      The fact that Lennart refuses to make his code anywhere near POSIX complaint is perhaps his one redeeming factor. It just means his projects will be easier to kill. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    5. Re:I feel like it's already been done. by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Well nothing compiles on AIX 7.1 for me. Maybe IBM's own compiler would work better but I don't have access to it.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    6. Re:I feel like it's already been done. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      POSIX never did much for portability, despite its name. There is a reason software written for Solaris didn't seamlessly recompile for other Unix platforms, and it wasn't until Linux (and BSD) arrived as a common cross-platform OS that this was possible. Or else, other Unix vendors would have been pretty competitive w/ Sun on marketshare

    7. Re:I feel like it's already been done. by F.Ultra · · Score: 1

      Sorry, no experience with AIX what so ever.

  4. BetaNews crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, look at the former BetaNews mod promoting his former employer. BetaNews is a trash publication known for rewording press releases and stealing content from real news sites.

    1. Re: BetaNews crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they have no external links for the whole article.

      At the very least, they should link to the foundry:

      https://www.edgexfoundry.org/

  5. Wait ... I've heard this speech before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone else attend the JavaOne Conference in 1996?

  6. Complete the phrase: Internet of things ... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 1

    ... that should not be on the internet.

    1. Re:Complete the phrase: Internet of things ... by zlives · · Score: 1

      hey no fair, you can't pick the best answer for yourself when asking the question.

    2. Re:Complete the phrase: Internet of things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...is for LUDDITES ! Modern app appers app the Appernet of Apps!

      Apps!

    3. Re: Complete the phrase: Internet of things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... will enable development of numerous new surveillance devices for the CIA.

    4. Re: Complete the phrase: Internet of things ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... will enable development of numerous new surveillance devices for the CIA.

      You're clearly a paranoid tinfoil-hat-wearing nutter, thinking that the CIA would do such a thing.

      That's clearly the NSA's job.

  7. No big names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see any names that matter on that list of members. Maybe it will catch on during the year of the Linux Desktop.

  8. Words have meaning, this doesn't by MonteCarloMethod · · Score: 1

    So, exactly which part of this thing is a "foundry"? Also, obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/927/

  9. My wishlist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about a framework, that is secure, can be updatable, device keeps working without internet, is not crippled without internet, does not need internet to install or setup (such that it can outlive any manufactury server)
    Ask permission when it want to collect info and to whom its being distributed. (since this your home data we're talking about)
    Can be locally read out such that you are not locked in by some vendor,

    That spun around in my head when seeing the title...

    I was hopefull...

    But then reading the article and googling, i feel its more about the money from your family data then anything else... not unifying the iot...

    marketplace, revenue... but o well its open source

  10. soooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you must be one of those idiots that pastes together tons of other peoples' code, without fully understanding it, and produces buggy crap he cannot fix or maintain and which becomes infinitely hackable and unstrustworthy because it is vulnerable to every exploit anybody discovers in any of the included borrowed code.

    - and you seem to think that makes you superior -

    Yes, if you use other the same code everybody else is using you get the benefits... BUT you also inherit all the limitations and all the flaws and all the security problems, AND you become a potential victim to any code that's written to exploit those flaws as they are discovered.

    Tell me: what's more likely? [a] that some hacker will target your custom code, find a weakness, write an exploit and unleash it, or [b] that some hacker will target a widely-used library, find a weakness, write and explot,and unleash it?

    1. Re:soooo... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A hacker is going to look for something that uses a buffer object defined on the stack (eg. char inputbuf[512]; ) and then see where a call to "read()" is used. Jackpot is when the program reads a custom header with the length of the data block sent throught TCP/IP, then reads the actual data into that buffer using that length.

    2. Re:soooo... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Exactly, if I roll my own I'm more protected from script kiddies, and more exposed to serious attackers. It all depends on the threat profile and needs of the project. If it is a personal project of no import, I might prefer some custom blahblah that won't need to be updated when the library has a published exploit.

      In a product, I would always want to hope that my product would be popular and sell a lot, so then it would be under more serious attack. So products for sale should probably not roll their own security. Unless they're designed not to be updated, then it is just a crap shoot either way.

  11. iot = no new tech needed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair iot can be made with early 1980 tech: rs-232, 8051 microcontroller, basic analog sensor.
    nothing special here.

  12. POSIX? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    EdgeX Foundry is unifying the marketplace around a common open framework

    Isn't that what POSIX is for? If you write your code for POSIX, it'll run on almost anything.

    What is the status of POSIX these days? It's been decades since the IEEE defined it, and we had 2 or 3 generations of UNIX wars (AT&T vs UCB, Sun vs OSF and Linux vs BSD). We also have Open Group define whether any OS is Unix certified or not, and the only living ones that I know of that are so certified are OS X, Solaris, AIX and HP/UX. Of these, only the first is still healthy and developing, while the others are as legacy as Mainframe OSs, like OS/400.

    The other thing about IoT: doesn't it automatically have to be IPv6 enabled? So that one could have them run in a peer to peer network, using Link Local addresses (fe80::/10), have them in a VPN using Unique Local addresses (fd00::/6) or on the open internet using their normal routable addresses, without going through NAT (but definitely having the firewall). I'm assuming that people won't be stupid enough to try IoT w/ IPv4, since that would cause any number of NAT layers, and pretty much reduce it to what Netware was - layer 2 networking