Slashdot Mirror
AOL Making a Linux Box?
bearded.duane writes "America Online is
considering the Linux operating system as one option for running an
inexpensive Internet access device, according to sources familiar with the project.
"
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I tried using a Java bean for a refrigerator, but it couldn't keep the orange juice cold.
I dont understand why every one is so scared of big companies writing GPL'd software.. Any of you read the licence? It open, its free, and if you dont like what AOL contributes to the gnu/linux project then dont compile it in..
The idea of an ISP offering an internet appliance is pretty much a no-brainer, and it's been done (WebTV, anyone?). And many people have pointed out that a low cost internet appliance, using an existing television for output, could be given away for free, just like cell phones are, in return for committing to a fix period of service.
I suspect that AOL is not the only company investigating this business model. They are merely the first to announce it.
True, but set-top boxes lie somewhere between traditional embedded systems and a desktop computer. You can easily and cheaply put a 32 MB 72 pin SIMM on many SBCs.
I think that Netscape's huge memory consumption in Linux is due to the statically linked Motif.
Daniel
LRP, Linux Router Project is a stripped debian system that easily fits on a floppy.
If "Linux" were only the kernel, then the term
"Linux kernel" would be redundant.
We use the term "Linux kernel" because "Linux"
alone refers to the whole operating system.
if aol does make this, it will most likely use REDHAT since they own a portion of the company. Cant wait for the AOL/REDHAT machines
Ok wise guy, GNU/Linux OS. Happy now? (I assume that was the thrust of your post?)
(only using Anonymous Coward because I'm to lazy to get a login)
Well, sure you could easily and cheaply put a 32mb SIMM in a set-top box, but if you used only 4mb you would make ~$30 more per unit... if you sold a million units you would make maybe 1.5-2x as much... and all you would have to do is not use Linux. Maybe they should use QNX.
Or will it *require* root access to run, thus defeating all of the security gained from Linux?
Ericsson is already using Linux for its "e-box" system, which seems capabable of functioning as a a set-top box, but has more capabilities than just that.
Didn't Netscape already try this, and give up 'cause it was god-awful slow? It should be easy enough for AOL to revive this project. Perhaps by using HotSpot and coding all the GIF/JPEG decoding in native assembly, they could make it work.
Sure, I'd buy a low cost internet only box -- but not if I have to connect it only to AOL!
I have a linux box on my desk right now with 220M hard drive. No devel libs, but a full LaTeX distribution and netscape and X (and a T1, btw.) It works really great and it gets a serious workout, too. It must be a perfect browser box.
My machine at home is a pentium and it's faster and has a larger monitor, but I really prefer the slower machine at work because the internet connection is faster. It's probably like a 10$ computer.
*sigh* This whole debate seems rather silly to me.
The function of a language is communication, the mechanics include certain sounds or symbols that, when intrepreted, have a meaning that is the same, or nearly the same, from the point of view of both the communicator and his audience. If a word or phraze is known to have a certain secondary or figurative meaning by all parties within the communication medium, thoes secondary meanings have just as much validy as the primary definitions of the word or phraze in question. (Eventualy the secondary, slang and/or figurative meaning may become officail, for example "cool"now has the official meanings of fashionable, calm and collected, and intresting, all in addition to its origianal definiton of partial absence of heat.) There is thus no rational reason to argue semantics for the sake of arguing semantics. If all parties understand the meaning intended then the specificies of origional meaning are irrellevant. If you fault the assumption that meaning is the requisite for proper communication, make sure to stop everyone from using the slang "Win95" "Windoze" "Micro$oft" (it is officialy the S not a dollar sign or single character wildcard) instead of "Microsoft Windows 95" Also make sure not to refer to Microsoft Windows 95/98's folders as directories, that isn't their official name anymore, don't confuse batch files with shell scripts (if you do, I usualy don't but used to) and never, ever, refer to the World Wide Web as the internet.
(NOTE: Yes I know some of these are at times ligitimate rules to follow, but it is still acceptiable to use different words (internet World Wide Web for example) when conversing in some crowds)
"A rose by another name would smell as sweet"
-William Shakesphere, Romeo and Juliet
And a quick question, if you don't consider Linux an OS, is "Redhat Linux" an operating system?
Anybody out there in Linuxland working on an
an open source configurable TV guide for set-top
boxes? I found a JAVA TV guide listed at
www.gamelan.com. A "Linux-for-the-masses"
Is there anyone out there in Linux-land working on
an Open Source "TV Guide" for Set-Top Boxes or for
that matter, PCs? Let's get a jump-start on the
proprietary developers! I found a Java-based TV
guide at www.gamelan.com that hijacked programs
from another WWW site.
Red Hat Linux 5.0 running fine on my ancient
Drives: Think they could cram a non-development Linux setup into 340M? Use the IBM microdrives. Add a 1394 port, and attach any other drives you need. No need for a floppy (blech!), or even a CD-ROM, but the 1394 could support backup devices, DVD, whatever.
I disagree on this one, because for the kind of settop devices discussed here, the goal is typically to avoid such things as mechanical mass devices. They can simply fail when joe user doesn't treat the settop box right (remember, if the settop box looks like a brick, then it can be treated like a brick).
In the case of the IBM "microdrives" (remember Sir Sinclair's microdrives? shiver) the price will be simply too high for a mass market product. Remember, this isn't a product for geeks (would a real geek buy an AOL product at all...?), so the customer won't get its kick out of using the slimmest harddisk drive on earth (or the like).
1394 might be more interesting, especially as chip sets integrating it are slowly appearing here and there for only a few bucks. As said, this looks more like an interface for external mass storage the user can add if she/he needs to.
In my personal oppinion, it is much more desirable to put the OS (whatever this is) into flash roms which can be upgraded remotely on the fly (AOL and others are very keen on this). And for the amount of persistent storage needed for personal information (credit card numbers, license plate number ... just joking): there's no need for big memory. Maybe even 64k or less of a dual DRAM/E2PROM will be sufficient (there are chips which will save on powerdown their DRAM's contents to their E2PROM part with the electric energy remaining). Remember that you don't need to store the browser cache, and emails are not downloaded but stored only on the provider's system, etc.
Bottom line: the footprint of the OS and the applications is important as far as flash roms are concerned. They are still more expensive than plain old DRAM in terms of microbucks/bit. So if Linux is modular enough to be stripped down to what is needed for a particular application, then Linux is a viable option/solution.
Harald Albrecht /etc/laplaced at startup.
If you believe in computers being deterministic, run
A lot of people recently have talked about how "untested" the GPL is, as if this is a bad thing. To be sure, winning a court case would be nice, but it the words of a friend of mine who was studying contract law "If you get to court, you already failed." The purpose of a contract is not to hold up in court, but to be well enough written to not get taken to court.
Besides. AOL challenging the GPL would be a PR nightmare for AOL.
America Online is considering the Linux operating system...
What is this? I've heard of a Linux kernel, but I don't know anything about a Linux operating system.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Posted by FascDot Killed My Previous Use:
Linux is an operating system. Java is a programming language. They serve totally different purposes.
am i the only one who noticed that a remarkable similar article was posted here BEFORE?
a quote from the article:
However, Sean Kaldor, also of IDC, was more
cautious about using Linux in smaller devices.
"The advantage is zero cost per unit. The
disadvantage is that it's big and will require
some engineering" to fit into small devices.
It's not hard to make a distribution that is
small, right? Didn't I hear somewhere that Linux was
ported to PalmPilot? Maybe when they think that
Linux is big, they're thinking of RedHat? Am I way
off base?
ANSI/IEEE Std 729-1983 Software Engineering Terminology, IEEE
Software Engineering Standards, ISBN 1-55937-008-4
States in part (pp 25);
" Operating system. Software that controls the execution of
programs. An operating system may provide services such as
resource allocation, scheduling, input/output control, and
data management. Although operating systems are predominately
software, partial or complete hardware implementations are
possible. (ISO) An operating system provides support in a
single spot rather than forcing each program to be concerned
with controlling hardware. See also system software. "
pp 35
" System software. Software designed for a specific computer
system or family of computer systems to facilitate the
operation and maintenance of the computer system and associated
programs, for example, operating systems, compilers, utilities.
Contrast with application software ".
Clearly GNU makes system software.
It cannot be the "GNU/Linux operating system"
It is:
"GNU system software and Linux operating system"
I agree wholeheartedly.
An ARM chip is the way to go: cheap, powerful. The new StrongARM chips coming out later this year run at 600MHz and dissipate even less power than the current ones, and power is an important issue when it comes to STBs. Would you want a fan whirring away whilst you were watching TV etc?
A cut down linux, maybe using a custom GUI interface as opposed to X11 (to save memory purely). 32Mb RAM or more.
The microdrives might prove expensive, use cheap 3.5 inch HDs, there must be plenty of the smaller sizes out there in warehouses, unsold because they were overtaken. 1-2Gb would be fine, allowing for a huge cache for Netscape (or whatever) and a mail download folder.
In Britain, Sky are now giving away their digital TV STBs, even though they must cost £300-400 to make. They are quite cool.
I reckon £150 on the market would be easy, for a 200MHz StrongARM based STB.
(Why not customize EPOC though? That runs on the ARM, a colour version is coming out, and it includes a lot of stuff)...
Graham (waiting for password to arrive... snore)
Depends on your uses. For many purposes, 4 MB most certainly does not qualify as a "low memory footprint." DR-DOS has a memory footprint of around 50-75KB, and can run useful programs with a total of 640KB installed RAM. Can Linux handle that?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I believe the Linux distribution is Trinux if I am not mistaken. It works quite well.
-= NJV =-
Posted by kenmcneil:
Apparently you haven't been exposed to Sun's propaganda. Otherwise you would know that the Java object would be running your refrigerator, so that your juice would be colder! Java Juice or just JJuice.
Posted by NJViking:
AOL could shut off all services except perhaps SSH with which they could tunnel into your system to see what you are downloading.
No way would I give up that much power to AOL.
It has to be a very dumb idea.
-= NJV =-
Posted by Mike@ABC:
You might be right, Ren. But I wonder if you're overestimating what people want to use computers for.
Sure, there are still people out there who are quite proficient in television production, but they are few and far between. While computer literacy will certainly grow, I doubt that the vast majority of people will want to program their own apps.
People who are literate, after all, don't go writing their own books, or even read a double-digit percentage of all the books out there. Pre-packaged, dumbed-down solutions, like AOL, are popular for a reason. Corporations aren't impeding our natural growth -- we do it all by ourselves.
Interesting commentary, though. I actually do hope you're right.
>Drives: Think they could cram a non-development Linux setup into 340M?
My first Linux box had a 220Mb drive, and I had X, and full development with C and C++ and X development libraries. Mind you, this was SLS 1.03 with kernel 0.99pl14e
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
The memory issues are with the GUI and browser -- but would a windows box require any less?
Who knows, but it does. I've wondered that myself, but been too lazy to look into it. While Netscape has never been noted as being small, it doesn't take up the 25MB RAM or whatever it is on Linux.
As for the GUI itself, it's hard to say for sure. When I ran NT 4.0, I would check the memory usage immediately after boot without any programs running, and it would be at 15MB or 20MB usage. With the normal services running and my trusty XF86_Mach64 under Linux, maybe 10MB. So I don't know, either way Netscape is not RAM's friend.
Many good points in this posting, yet I take contention with the final paragraph. As with every time I hear it, this argument stinks of over-simplification. The infrastructure of computers will never be taken for granted as the structure for television is, for the simple reason that watching the boob toob is a passive activity, while using a computer is an interactive experience, where the user is required for anything to happen.
This assersion about the plumbing becoming transparent has the same flavor of the arguments that Mac people make. "Computers don't need to be hard, they should be as easy to use as a toaster." I love the arguments that computers are just like cars, you just want to use them, you don't care how they work. The fallacy there is that one forgets what a computer does: whatever you want it to do. However efficent or complex it gets, car still does one function: get you from point A to point B. The functionality of a computer is only limited by your imagination and ability to impliment your idea, whether it's coding it yourself, finding the tools and reassembling them in a neat fashion, or getting a buddy to write the code (That's how the spreadsheet was first written, thanks for the effort Bob Frankton). This sort of infinite potential creates a high level of irreducable complexity. This complexity necessitates some knowledge of the plumbing beyond that of one's TV set.
In the end, I think my argument will be proven true as more and more people become far more computer literate than the masses are at this time. I'm not talking about in the next five or ten years, even, I'm talking in a generation or three. Just think about it, two-thousand years ago, the idea of a 95%+ literacy rate was laughable. Who else needed to read besides scholars? As society progressed, and technology became available (the Gutenberg press, faster modes of communication, etc) reading became a necessity. It is my view that computer literacy will follow the same path. Just look at how fast the children today (>10yrs old) are learning computers and getting proficient. As the childrens' exposure to computers in schools and at home increases, we'll see a massive boom in compter literacy in the next twenty to fifty years.
How about we don't impede that natural growth by saying, "You don't need to know that."?
If there's any truth in AOL supporting Linux by using it in dedicated internet boxes this should mean AOL will be giving the Mozilla project some extra support which will mean the people who were worried about AOL dropping the Mozilla project will now have nothing to be worried about.
Mozilla will be the idea browser to embed into their boxes once it is complete as it is going to support the most important standards and is less bloated than the current Netscape browser (and IE which doesn't run on Linux anyway). Browsers such as kwm although quite good do not offer the standards support that Mozilla will.
--
Some months ago, there was an announcement that AOL was going to do their next version in Java (I can see the ads now: "Go directly to JAOL")
Let's not forget, though, that AOL (through Netscape) now has an equity stake in Red Hat.
Christopher A. Bohn
cb
Oooh! What does this button do!?
I think you missed the [SARCASM MODE ON] section :) I'm just trying to point out why something glaringly obvious hasn't been tried yet.
The only parts that AOL would have to release source code for are those that are GPL licensed such as the kernel. The actual AOL client is not GPL, and they would not have to release the source just because it is ported to Linux. After all, many Linux distributions include commercial software in binary format only. (Most obvious example, Netscape Navigator)
I didn't realize there was already a push for a small X server. Having a flexible graphical interface in an embedded system pushes Linux into a whole new market. This could probably work well with one of the wearable computer projects.
æeee!
This is more of a general question, but how does anyone know if a piece of "closed source" software is using GPL'ed code? Certainly, if you can see the code, GPL can be enforced, but what is to keep anyone from using GPL code and not showing the source? Sure it would be illegal but who could know?
Say someone took apache or samba, modified the language and format of configuration files a bit, compiled it, and put it on a shelf for $600. Who would know? Say they add or even remove some features--that would make it even harder to recognize.
I am certainly not suggesting such practices, but how can such violations of GPL be spotted?
They won't challenge GPL. Why would they? It's easy to avoid these problems. If they really want their own proprietary changes to the code they would use a non-GPLed free Unix.
But actually I think their talk about Linux is PR in itself. ("Look how cool we are; we're considering to use the coolest OS on earth.")
--B
this ain't the place for it.. but ask E*trade, Travelocity, Lucent, AT&T, BellSouth, Bell Atlantic, Sapient, when.com, GE, Ford, National Discount Brokers, etc., weather NAS sucks. NAS sucks only in that it's a bitch to run, but it's the most scalable, reliable solution available. The Eddie project is neato, but nothing like NAS.
For all of you who think that Sun might be 'upset' about AOL going Linux, think again. Sun entered into the relationship with Netscape for the SERVER, BIG BIZ, ECOMMERCE market. Netscape's got the best app server, the best directory server, an awesome mail server, EDI servers, and a host of other kick butt products. (Does it seem like I drank NSCP coolaide?)
Anyway, AOL using Linux for any kind of CLIENT machine doesn't hurt Sun, it hurts M$. It's a lot easier to NFS mount, or NIS+ or whatever to a Linux box than a WinCE.
Food for thought? Understand the market we're going after.
I don't see what the big deal is though. RAM is pretty cheap, 32 megs should cover it.
As I see it, if you're going to use Linux why waste time and $$ on another x86? Heck, with a little investment into a custom kernel Compaq/AOL could investigate the bleedging edge of the price/performance curve.
As for storage/memory concerns make sure you pick a high performance model. Lots of cache on the drive (512k+) and with a more efficient swap drive you'll be hard pressed to notice the difference between 32 and 64 megs.
...a java system could never beat native code.
An Object Oriented system could never beat pure C (C could never beat native assembly). Why do I get the feeling that this criticism has been voiced before?
Java is special not because of its speed, but because of its incredibly dynamic functionallity. Why not use Java as an integral part of the logic? Quite a few great systems with lots of OO code and a little bit of assembly to drive graphics and such.
Don't call for Java's demise. With the content/service driven paradigm that AOL seems to be focusing on the added functionallity that Java can bring to their system will serve them well.
...after all who says that these AOL boxes will have to be full fleged *nix machines? Why not just kill remote access totally (or *only* through a special service port, perhaps using a big 4096b RSA key)?
AOL users are notoriously vulnerable to social hacking (remember how "Melissa virus" was distributed?) so why not use smart/id cards or perhaps a pin & card combination? (but this increases the production cost)... so perhaps an "at home only" lock, fingerprint, voiceprint or more limited acces abroad (ie no online transactions)? Any number of beefed up security features can easily be built into the new boxes...
>It is more likely that AOL will develop set-top >boxes using Java. I say this for two reasons, 1: >Java was originally designed for this sort of >thing, 2: AOL and Sun have formed an alliance >and Sun will be pressuring them to use their >technology.
I think it's almost certain that if they do one, they'll do the other as well. I know several people who only turn on their machines to get on AOL (which boggles my mind). You think microsoft is bad...imagine a world in which AOL has taken over with Java, Linux, and whatever else they can get their grubby little hands on. AOL software-only boxes...pay by the use java word processors...it's not a world I'd want to live in. Even the idiots deserve better.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
Look at all the portable Linux projects right now, like Linux for the Palm platform, etc. It can be run in a small memory footprint, if memory srves me correct (2.0.x could run in 4MB or so). I believe WinCE needs at least 8MB (or possibly more) to run.
And if you're looking at set top boxes, you're looking at things like playing multimedia files, heavy web browsing, heavy graphics, java, etc.
With all that, you need a lot of RAM to just get a usable system. It is clear that for anything that doesn't run off a battery, the difference between 2 and 4 megs ram (or even 8 megs) is not all that significant.
But will AOL run under regular non-priv userid?
Or will it *require* root access to run, thus defeating all of the security gained from Linux?
Somehow, I doubt security would be a big issue. IMHO, for most of the people who would be using this, a simple password to logon would be enough; balls to the rest.
Hell... looking at how many people don't even bother supplying a logon password to their windows boxen (yes, I know it's easy to bypass, but still...), I doubt even a password would be much of a concern.
I figger that it would most likely run under any userid, but even if not, no biggie.
--
- Sean
It's a fine line between trolling and karma-whoring... and I think I just crossed it.
- Sean
from what I know of security, Linux can be made VERY secure if you turn off services - which undoubtedly AOL would do. Turning off sendmail, apache, telnet, and everything else and in essence only have "outgoing" connections available would make them a lot more secure. Plus, since they all dial-in to AOL, AOL could easily proxy and firewall 'em into security.
Who am I? Subscribe and find out
I am not clear on all the technogy issues here, but wouldn't even java need an underlying OS of some sort to run its VM?
Who am I? Subscribe and find out
yeah i always hear analyst types talking about supporting java on these new platforms but shit, java is like the last thing you should use for embedded, settops and the like. epoc, linux, windriver, yadda yadda even ce are better than a jvm!
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
such sweet irony
such sweet irony
-- your knees hurt, don't they?
Everyone I've ever talked to says Netscape's app server is really bad....
check out philip greenspun's new book for a real mean thrashing.
I have a friend that has a computer the size of a watch battery (no kidding). It runs native java and has built in strong encryption. He had to sign something saying he wasn't a terrorist before they would ship it to him.
It is very very very cool. It is also quite useless in my opinion. You could use it as a secure way of authenticating people. A more secure replacement for security cards.
Solution: Make everyone use Lynx and pine.
They could use 386s!
Linux which never crashes or NT which does...?
It seems too many morons out there are choosing NT anyway.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
X-windows may be too large for a small device,
but now that Caldera is making GEM open source,
that would be an interesting base for small
system graphics. But making GEM rich enough to
support Netscape might take a lot of work.
It might be too early for Linux to kill Windoze
on the desktop, but it should massacre CE.
Would the MediaGX chips from National Semiconductor help out in this box?
I haven't checked the prices on the StrongARM but I know these chips can be had wholesale for around $10-20
SP
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
Who needs a monitor anyway? If there's one thing that WebTV has proven, it's that people who just want a set-top box to browse the web don't care about high-res displays. Let them use a television set, they've all got them.
Some of the ARM chips have integrated I/O, audio and video. Not as powerful as StrongArm (in its current generation) but fast enough to run a basic Linux box.
Yeah, but it could be an embedded special-purpose kernel based on BSD or Linux (or even WinCE, gag) and implemented in three or four ASICs. You see this kind of thing in "appliance" boxes all the time.
"Nothing was broken, and it's been fixed." -- Jon Carroll
AOL has to be looking at other options for set top boxes cause they and Microsoft are not on good terms thanks to testimony by AOL at the DOJ/MS trial. Linux is a natural choice for them. If you were in Steve Case's shoes, which would you choose from? A operating system that never crashes (Linux) or one that does crash (NT)?
I seem to remember a certain Linux build booting off a 1.44MByte floppy and running in 4MBytes of memory (as an embedded internet firewall). Seems to me Linux itself can be configured to have a very small footprint. X, however, is a ridiculous memory hog, as are the current versions of Netscape and Internet Explorer. In other words, their graphics/browser software is going to take up an order of magnitude more space than the Linux OS itself, so what are they whining about?
Guys (and Gals),
why not put in a small linux kernel,a tiny windowing system (NanoGUI),mozilla and the java libs compiled as native code for the machine,IIRC i think the java lib are compiled as java bytecode,i looked in the egcs source code,there was a compiler for java who compile native code,the vm could be hacked to use the platform native java lib instead of calling the bytecode lib,it could speed up the execution of java proggy and also lessen the use of memory,what do you all think about this ??
Canadian AC
Check out this ***INTEL*** job posting:
------------------
Job Title: Senior Software Engineer - Home Products Group
Division: Software Engineering
Location: PORTLAND, OR 97124, USA
Description: JOIN INTEL IN PORTLAND, OREGON!
Intel earned its reputation for excellence by challenging the status quo and embracing change. Values like these have led to technological leadership as well. We
currently have a challenging opportunity for an individual with the right mix of skill, dedication, and ingenuity. Here's your chance to apply your expertise for the
world leader in technology Intel. After work, discover the beauty of the Pacific Northwest, with ocean beaches, extensive forests, and the breathtaking peaks of
the Cascade Mountains, all within a couple hours drive.
SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
Intel's Home Products group is looking for software engineers to build state-of-the-art consumer products. Our developments are based on Linux. Our customers
are broadcasters worldwide. In this position you will be
a part of the team developing TV set top client software.
An MS/BS with 3-5 years of relevant experience is required along with prior experience with software architecture and design, working in multi-person projects.
C/C++ development experience on UNIX on Intel Architecture (Solaris, FreeBSD, Linux, Sequent, etc.) is also required. Experience developing BSD Socket based
components and device drivers for UNIX based systems and understanding of X Windows architecture, including X Server is essential. Knowledge of GTK+, GTK
Canvas, and GNOME is a great plus.
Email: jobs9@intel.com
will a large outfit like AOL *really* buy into open source if they use it in a major project like set-top boxes, and release the source code of it to everyone ?? Will people buy internet client appliances if 'every hacker/cracker on earth knows how it works'? Or will AOL court test the GPL license and build derivitive works on one and keep it private?? (So sue me!) It would be a public relations disaster to us, for sure, but to the clueless masses of aoler's? I guess the way they give out sign up disks, a free, easily clonable aol client is just what they want, to sell eye-balls to advertisers.
Just thought I'd ask....
I want to own a cultural icon!
Chuck
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
The big problem is X11. There are ways to shrink
X11 a lot, and the nano-gui project is now beginning to get workable code. See http://www.linuxhacker.org
In thinking of "small devices" think in terms of 256K or 512K of RAM, possibly that much ROM. That's what a *lot* of embedded devices have. Heck, some don't even have that much.
Then again, they don't need it. And, in this case, for something that needs a GUI and whatever, there will definitely be more than a few megs of RAM available (one would hope.)
But, as am embedded guy, when I hear "small footprint" I think in terms of K, not M, as that is what quite a few devices out there have. That is probably where that statement came from.
It is more likely that AOL will develop set-top boxes using Java. I say this for two reasons, 1: Java was originally designed for this sort of thing, 2: AOL and Sun have formed an alliance and Sun will be pressuring them to use their technology.
Java will most likely be used even if it is less than satisfactory from a technology standpoint since the business people will be making the decisions and not the technology people.
None of the opinions expressed here reflect those held by my employer or my school in any way.
I read the internet for the articles.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Linux could be a very smart move for AOL, which really doesn't care what OS is used, as long as it works and will allow access AOL content. And Linux, after all, is free...!
That won't make Sun Microsystems happy, but it's not like Sun has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Java technologies can work seamlessly on these smaller appliances.
Figure Linux on the set-top boxes, maybe a small Java OS on handhelds (and yeah, AOL wants in on handhelds, too). I don't even think AOL will mind the GPL on Linux -- the more people who have boxes, the better off AOL will be.
Gotta remember, AOL is all about reaching customers with content. They'd do it by carrier pigeon if they thought it would work.
Here's a scary thought for y'all. Back when TV was getting off the ground, everyone was psyched about the technology behind it. Today, we take the television infrastruture -- the satellite transmissions, TV cameras, etc. -- for granted. That will probably happen with computing, one day, and AOL knows it.
First off, memory footprint is a non-issue... it's almost the sort of FUD i've come to expect from IDC and other "analysts". Is 32M enough? That should comfortably run Linux, X, and Netscape - as it has done on PCs for a long time. How much would 32M cost at manufacturing time? $20? Less?
I've been toying with this very idea for a while now, and here are some of my thoughts on architecture...
CPU: StrongARM or PPC. Forget Pentium hogs or quasi-vaporware Java chips.
Ports: VGA, USB, IR, and maybe 1394 (for high-speed peripherals like disk drives). A cheap low-end chipset is enough to work at adequate resolution with any VGA monitor. Keyboard and mouse can work through IR or USB, no need for parallel, old serial, or PS/2. A really stripped-down box needs only USB and VGA.
Networking: Modem or ethernet, use PCMCIA.
OS: Linux, of course.
Drives: Think they could cram a non-development Linux setup into 340M? Use the IBM microdrives. Add a 1394 port, and attach any other drives you need. No need for a floppy (blech!), or even a CD-ROM, but the 1394 could support backup devices, DVD, whatever.
Power supply: Wall-wart. With a StrongARM and a microdrive, power requirements will be trivial.
Now, consider economies of scale on production. I'll bet this box could be built for under $100, sans monitor. At that price point, giving away PCs makes sense!
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
The memory issues are with the GUI and browser -- but would a windows box require any less?
I recently bought retail (but cheapie) a motherboard with on-board IDE/Floppy/Serial/USB/Parallel, Cyrix P-266, 32MB of RAM, a cheapie 2MB video card, and a 32x CD-ROM drive for $155 including tax. It runs Linux and X just fine.
Add a case/PS/keyboard/mouse for another $50 and a 1GB hard drive for $50 and you've got a full system ready to hook up to a TV for about $250 at retail prices. Cut that in half for wholesale (or less!) and you've got a very affordable set-top box.
Heck, you wouldn't even need that big a hard drive -- send out your AOL CD's and let them boot off of that. The user wouldn't need to worry about screwing up the config, and updates would just mean putting a new CD in the drive and rebooting. All the configuration work would be done by AOL so the user wouldn't have to know a compiler from a cappucino.
It wouldn't have to be AOL, though. Anyone could do it -- just set it up so the user puts in their logon info and dial up # and sell it for general use.
This could be a real market...
Stupid people will be persecuted to the fullest extent allowed by law.
I have to disagree with this point here:
:)
---
However, Sean Kaldor, also of IDC, was more cautious about using Linux in smaller devices. "The advantage is zero cost per unit. The disadvantage is that it's big and will require some engineering" to fit into small devices. The balance will be in choosing between paying for an operating system already designed for small devices and paying for the larger memory requirements of Linux, he said.
---
Look at all the portable Linux projects right now, like Linux for the Palm platform, etc. It can be run in a small memory footprint, if memory serves me correct (2.0.x could run in 4MB or so). I believe WinCE needs at least 8MB (or possibly more) to run.
It won't require engineering if you actually take a look at the low-memory Linux projects already available! I think that people have to realize that Linux isn't just a 500MB install... it's a highly configurable system that can run on nearly anything.
I'd say the biggest problem would be porting Linux to the portable platform, but most of the major platforms already have Linux support.
I wouldn't mind trying Linux for the Dragonball (PalmPilots), but I'd need a PP first
æeee!