MontaVista porting Linux to "tiny" computers

redmist writes " MontaVista Software will write a version of Linux called Hard Hat for use on Force Computers "tiny" computers with embedded processors. The project will begin with Intel-based machines and later will include PowerPC machines. MontaVista will focus on "the need for small memory footprint, guaranteed response, high availability, and other key issues that desktop Linux does not provide," the company said. Get the whole story here. "

Comments

Re:What's the point?

[ocelot]

>Embedded devices don't need processes, security,
>kernel/user paradigm, a file system, device
>nodes, yadda yadda yadda. For instance, running

Hrm. Elevator controllers again? Perhaps embeded devices do not need such things, and the again perhaps they do. I'm still puzzled as to why toasters need chips, for example. But if they moderate the tempuature providing even toast, then I can at least see why you might want them to have chips.

Basicaly, what I'm trying to say is that the usefulness would be dependant upon the device's intended use. But I could at least think that development might be easier for an embeded Linux. Then again, purrhaps not.

> Even Microsoft didn't reuse code

I'm rather wary of using Microsoft as a positive example, since it's hard to tell when they do things for a technical gain or a market gain.

> Linux is not an embedded OS, even if you try to add hard real time threads to it.

It can't hurt to try and see, can it?

Nice

[clump]

It us really nice to see Linux being ported to tiny objects and PCs. The article was somewhat fluffy, and didn't really give too much useful info. However, it did link me to the picture of the tiny web server. I have never seen that before.

Its just kind of funny... Other than WinCE, you are not seeing tiny devices that run Win32. I want an NT-controlled car Mp3 player. Think about it... I could get a tiny motherboard and CPU and add 64M of RAM. Then I could add a large hard drive so I could fit all the millions of lines of code onto it. Then I could have my friend reboot the system every few miles. I could also attach a trailer with a mini-power plant to my car so I could power my system.

Yea Slashdot... you watch out for me. As soon as NT5 comes out, I will buy another huge hard drive and have more people rebooting my system. Watch out...
-Clump

Re:Display?

[remande]

If you're using embedded computing, you probably have a very stripped down flavor of Linux--to the point of having Bourne shell as the only shell (if that). You would pull out a lot of the standard "unixisms" such as getty(). You basically wouldn't have a console.

Embedded devices are supposed to be zero-maintenance, so you couldn't interact with it in the field except by interacting with the device it is connected to. A simple parallel port may provide all the required I/O between Linux and the physical device.

In the shop, the device may well be PROM-programmed. The only time one would need to really interact with it is initial setup and programming. Again, use a serial port and Kermit (who needs a steenking TCP stack?), and connect to it from a real computer.

Such a machine would really never need a console, or a display. It would always do I/O to another machine (whether an embedded device or a programmer's computer) and the display load would be on the other device.

What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm? What is the supposed benefit of running
the Liunx kernel on these small devices as
opposed to an embedded or real-time OS.
Besides the open-source issue? If you were
going to do an open-source embedded os, it would be better to write one from scratch.

Embedded devices don't need processes, security,
kernel/user paradigm, a file system, device
nodes, yadda yadda yadda. For instance, running
an OS like Linux, even a scaled down version,
on something like a Palm would be *stupid* It
would drain the batteries like a mofo and not
deliver any gain to the enduser.

When will people realize that there is no universal hammer? That your microwave oven is better off running with a small bit of logic in an PROM or a state machine than Unix?

Even Microsoft didn't reuse code, WinCE was rewritten because it is stupid to try and "port" to the embedded world. The only thing that was
kept the same was the subset of the Win32 API used to make it easier for developers to code applications.

Linux is not an embedded OS, even if you try to add hard real time threads to it.

Next thing you know, it will be "Linux for smart cards with 8k of RAM"

Have any of you actually looked at this?

[Doug Loss]

I get the impression that none of the commenters have actually gone to Force's website and looked at their press release. They're going to offer Linux on their CPCI-730 single-board computer initially, and eventually across their product line.

Force makes Compact PCI and VME bus single-board computers in 3U and 2U form factors. I know this because we have a rackmount system based on their Centellis 4000 chassis with the CPCI Sparc card in it. These "tiny" systems aren't the wearable or PDA systems you seem to think they are. In general, industrial systems aren't designed for extreme miniaturization, but for high availability and environmental robustness.

Doug Loss

Hard Hat Linux

[mauriceh]

We at Hard Data Ltd. have just emailed the following to MontaVista Software:

"We wish to inform you that Hard Data Ltd. has made application for trademark for the brand "Hard Hat Linux" and has used that particular name for over a year for the version of Linux we produce for workstations and servers.

Therefore we have to ask you to choose another name for your project, and to distribute a press release acknowledging the fact that this brand name is already in use.

We do not wish to be difficult, or enter into an antagonistic situation in this matter, but we need to protect our trademark.

If you would like to discuss the details we invite you to call, email, or write us."

In addition, we were also approached by Red Hat in December of 1997 who initally objected to our use of the words "Hat and Linux" in this brand, and we replied to them that as our company is called "Hard Data", and as it IS a Linux distribution, we fell that our use of this brand is quite appropriate.
Since that exchange we have received no further comment from Red Hat.


We thank you for your attention in this matter.
Hard Data Ltd.
11060 - 166 Avenue
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
T5X 1Y3