Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Starts To Release Its Cars' Open-Source Linux Software Code (zdnet.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Tesla cars are powered not only by batteries but by open-source software. Until recently, though, Tesla hasn't lived up to its obligations under open-source licenses, but now Tesla is finally releasing some of its Linux source code for the Model S and X cars. The Tesla GitHub repository contains the code for the Model S/X 2018.12 software release. Specifically, it holds the system image on the Tesla Autopilot platform, the kernel sources for its underlying hardware, and the code for its Nvidia Tegra-based infotainment system.
Tesla will release additional open-source code for other systems in their cars soon. According to Tesla, "Work is underway on preparing sources in other areas as well, together with a more coordinated information page. We wanted to let you know about this material as it is available now while work continues on the other parts." The electric car thought-leader will also update its code as updated software releases are made.
Tesla will release additional open-source code for other systems in their cars soon. According to Tesla, "Work is underway on preparing sources in other areas as well, together with a more coordinated information page. We wanted to let you know about this material as it is available now while work continues on the other parts." The electric car thought-leader will also update its code as updated software releases are made.
Regardless of your position on Open Source, this kind of openness helps Tesla look more like a thought leader and less like a pyramid scheme.
This seems like a thread where I can expect the usual Tesla haters to use this topic to illustrate how corrupt, lawless, out-of-control, stupid or just plain evil (probably all) Tesla is.
So I thought I would just get ahead of all that and leave this here:
While our preference is that companies provide adequate CCS immediately, we realize that this can be a challenging process and recognize that Tesla has struggled for years with upstreams to yield proper CCS. We believe Tesla's new approach also has merit, because it allows the entire community to discuss and contribute in public and collaboratively assist Tesla in complying with the GPL.
I have struggled with this myself in the past. What do you do when your source code reveals an API to some licensed module which is not itself open source and you are under NDA not to reveal its details? I am sure Telsa's work involves a lot of that.
This story only got 24 comments when it was posted last week.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Someone is gonna get Snes9X running on there, and use car controls to run Mario Kart. Autopilot, go!
https://github.com/teslamotors...
https://github.com/teslamotors...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Maybe they'll release they're Stopping Distance Control Software source code. Seems like it could use some peer review.
Even you know thats stupid hence the AC posting. Go away dumbass isint their a MAGA rally you can attend.
The tired "Trump supporters are idiots" refrain. Well done.
So now that MS might buy Github, which hosts Tesla OSS code, we can expect MS code to run cars ? {{shudder}}
The GPL is quite simple. Figuring out all the dependencies in a complex system, and what to do about all the oddball packages with their own non-standard licenses is the more difficult part. But most companies don't do the due diligence properly. The legal department isn't technically capable of figuring out what the dependencies are, and the software department considers it an unwelcome distraction from their main job, so it does have a tendency to be superficially signed off with many things missed out. Even popular base distros for embedded work like Yocto have GPL dependencies several layers deep in widely used libraries lurking there to trap the unwary.
As someone whose vehicle currently runs the specified version, I now happily await the hacking that my car is sure to get.
If you are blaming this on the disclosure requirement of GPL I think you are off base. One of the benefits of open source is that potential or actual exploits are discovered and fixed more quickly. So if getting your car hacked is your concerned you should be in favor of Tesla publishing all of it, not just the GPL portion.
Under most open source licenses, Tesla could keep its modifications secret from everyone, even the people it shipped the binary software to. For GPL licenses, which are free softwae licenses, they _must_ make the modificatons available. The Linux kernel is published with a GPL license. Enormous amounts of other software, such as Xen and Nagios, are _not_ and keep their modifications secret.
Tesla as a company is valued similar to the world's largest car companies, who sell millions of cars every year, and have for a long time. Tesla sells thousands - and loses money on every one. In order for the price people are paying for Tesla stock to be justified by the business, Tesla would need to:
Grow over a thousand times bigger
Be making money rather than losing money
Do so consistently, predictably
Nobody has made money on Tesla as a business, Tesla loses money. Lots of people have made money on Tesla, though - how? By getting the next sucker down the line to pay even more for the nearly worthless stock. That's a pyramid scheme.
This is where the Tesla fanbois jump in and say "Tesla is going to be the biggest car company in the world!". Maybe so. Maybe 50 years from now Tesla will be as big, and as profitable, as BMW or Honda. Heck, there's even a tiny chance they could be as big as Nissan and Toyota put together. IF and when that happens, the company will be worth $300 / share. Right now, the company is worth about as much than the guys who make seatbelts for Toyota. The business is worth about 5-10 cents / share, people are paying nearly $300. The difference between it's value as a business and what people are paying, in hopes that they can sell it to another sucker for more before it comes crashing down, is the pyramid scheme.
Come on. Tesla sold and delivered not âzthousands of carsâoe but 100000 cars last year. And Tesla isnâ(TM)t making profits only because it is heavily investing into factories for cars and batteries. They definitely are making profits with the cars they sell.
This does not mean that Tesla is guaranteed to succeed, but it certainly isnâ(TM)t exactly failing yet either.
While Nissan sold a 100 MILLION.
They've sold more Nissan Leafs than Tesla has sold total cars, and the Leaf is just a footnote for Nissan.
In any recent period, if Tesla sold X thousand, Nissan sold X million. Nissan isn't one of the top most valuable car companies. Why is Tesla?
Oh btw Nissan (and BMW and Chrysler and all the others) make money when they sell cars.
> believe Tesla has a chance to become a dominating car brand
There is certainly a chance. Currently their stock is valued the same as the company that ALREADY IS the biggest car company in the world. The current stock price assumes Tesla will beat all the big companies, with 100% certainty, and soon. In fact Tesla isn't even in the top 5, probably not the top ten.
> It's a gamble, as buying stock always is. I'm planning to buy some
At the current stock price, it's not really a gamble. Long term, you can either lose your money or get really, really lucky and they grow a thousand times as large so you break even. (Except you'd still actually lose money due to opportunity cost). It's virtually impossible for an investor to make money on Tesla in the long term - they'll have to be amazingly successful, one of the most successful companies in history, in order for you to just break even.
> Nissan, Renault, and Mitsubishi are three, independently traded, separate companies
Not exactly. If you were able to post a link that worked, you could have clicked on your link, and without even scrolling down past the first screen, seen that Renault controls Nissan, owning more 40% of it, and Nissan controls with Mitsubishi, with majority ownership. The Renault board therefore controls all three companies, and buying Renault stock ("traded") means you are also buying Nissan and Mitsubishi. Additionally Nissan owns a significant percentage of Renault, meaning Renault is part Nissan, which is again part Renault again, further cementing the companies together.
Next time you're about to post a link, you may wish to read it first.