Red Hat should take notice, but still it's importatn that Red Hat is just as Linux as this tiny system is. And, there is a point in Linux being able to downsize into less than 2MB. Although Desktop Linux is not and does not allow for the same applications as embedded linux, there is a real virtue in sharing the codebase between these two. (Or desktop and webserver, cluster or grid server for that matter.) Although developers may not always agree on the direction the developments should take, together they provide for an open environment that is scaleble, and in escense is very lean. This is something Microsoft can never touch upon with Windows CE/PocketPC/whatever.
That's why I think this one-die embedded linux system is indeed a a-good-thing (tm).
It appears in the USA an employer can fire employees at will, while in Europe firing people to avoid direct bankrubsy is impossible. THis is - of course - an exchageration, but it would make sense to specify a topograpic region...
It's probably a crazy idea, but at 27x27mm you could fit over 50 of these on an atx PCB. And that's still 2D, stacked you could easily fit a hundred in a litre (though heat may be a problem even with embedded harware like this one).
Of course, compared to desktop computers these tinies have far from impressive specs (see: rants by others), but power isn't necessesarily measured in terms of Mhz/GBs. Power can come in numbers as well. And in that case, price per piece is more important, as well as Watt/instruction and physical size.
Now let's see about bulk prices...
--- The prospects for high-end PCs are far overrated
I've identified 3 needs of my application: a front-end user interface, a database w/ search function (of about 10 megabytes of data), and integration of both of these into a (currently existing) commercial mapping application.
Obviously, your descriptions lacks details to make even a vague estimate of costs. So here are some general guidelines and things to consider.
If the 3 needs you specify are filled in independently, your project is bound to fail. That is: if front-end and database are built independently, the integration need is bound to be the most expensive. Only way to reduce integration costs is having a damn good specification of what you're looking for and some damn good project manager with a damn good team of coders, that can cooperate. (That, or a one-man-team that's proven to be up to the job.)
Porting efforts tend to depend on the size of the code base, and the ability to find a skilled porter. To a lesser extent it also depends on quality of the code and documentation. But I'd say size is the major issue here, keep things small.
Well, anyway. My advice would be: get someone that can give a good estimate, 'judged on past projects.' If that's not possible or not satisfactory, just determine market value, based on offers of different (sub-)contractors.
Oh. And there is no such thing as a scientific formal analysis that yields code size/cost/time based on a problem description. Nothing in software engineering (or elsewhere) has an accuracy that's within a factor 5, so consider these techniques useless. If you don't have the expertise, go look for people that have.
-- The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in: we're computer professionals, we cause accidents -- Nathaniel Borenstein
It seems you got it, but you didn't get it. Ie., You're completely right and have sound arguments to support your opinion. My banner was intended ironically, but in a sense, it shows that the SETI is based on belief, rather than science just as well as any religion.
Personally, I belief it's far more likely SETI will yield proof of ETI than worshipping any divine being, but it's good to realize that my belief is just belief, not science.
Checked that. Europe uses 900, 1800 and 1900Mhz (a triband phone can use all of them).
Slightly off topic; the 900 Mhz appears to use more energy, so you're probably best off with higher frequencies. This may be a reason some telcos have already decided to ditch the older 900Mhz frequency in favour of the others.
Moreover, it's actually NOT looking very cool. I'd say it's looking just as horrible as Windows 95: a lame corporate Holywood-style copy of something that might have been remotely original. Boeing probably stole the few good ideas in there from Apple as well...
...But on the bright side...With the damn plane, at least we might have heard Britney Spears' infamous line:
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada"
blown up like:
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada,... in only twice the time"
Eh. I'm not an expert, but isn't 900MHz the base frequency of (older) GSM phones? ' Guess telcos won't be very enthousiastic about the idea of sharing it...
Is there a database, or method of recording this data, in electronic form, that will stand up in court? Or rather: Is there a reliable web service (a "trusted authority") that provides unique time stamps?
Is there a database that once a record is entered with an accompanying time and date stamp, cannot be altered? And don't forget: Is there a way to prevent records being inserted in between older journals, at a later time?
Or...Maybe some of that infamous write only memory would solve your problems?
-- The human brain is a wonderful thing: It starts working the moment you are born, and never stops until you stand up to speak in public -- Sir George Jessel
This is just the last push they needed to justify creating another crime busting agency: This is why we need A STRATEGIC MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD... Can't you see? Any domestic problem can be solved by pointing weapons at foreign enemies.
Eh? We live in strange times, don't we?
-- The only difference between a lunatic and me is that I'm not crazy - Salvador Dali
I mean, the winner of the original contest's question is already decided anyway: I'm sure nobody's as good as Microsoft in writing obfuscated code that runs only on their own platforms!
Microsoft's experience in embedded (WinCE, PocketPC, XBox?) keeps me confident that this device is thin enough to fit in a tiny parking lot and produce less noise than a minor jet engine.
Sorry for bashing. I guess I should say: "Welcome to the embedded market, Microsoft. (Again)"
> As various promising architectures die off (Alpha, PA-RISC, who's next? POWER?), in the end, was the computing community better served by the dominance of one architecture designed for the lowest common denominator?
Isn't there a rule in history that says it takes something like 50-100 years after some break through invention, before the market is ready for more than a single monopolist?
> It's perfect for embedded, but what are you smoking that you even include it in the list?
I quit smoking. Maybe that caused me to mention StrongARM.
Indeed, I included StrongARM in the list of better-designs looking at other aspects than the raw speed. ARMs are very cost effective (MIPS/dollars, MIPS/Watt, MIPS/MHz). ARMs have low latency (short pipeline, fast context switch). ARMs have small die size (how many would fit on a P4 die?). ARM has very elegant assembly (not a very impressive selling point, these days, I must admit).
And though Advance RISC Machines never meant to create a number cruncher, StrongARM's predecessors (ARM, ARM2, ARM3) were doing 32 bit math when intel was designing 80286. StrongARM, XScale, or some future derivative may well become the heart of future systems, once we find out about other computer application than 3D gaming.
> Performance matters, abstract concepts of IPC or "cleaner architecture" are for the obscurists.
If only performance matters, then how come we limit ourselves to an architecture that clearly wasn't designed to cope with requirements we might have had after 1985? Being able to decode 8 bit instructions for backward compatibility is hardly a feature that benefits performance.
In fact, the ARM is a clear demonstration of how easy performance can be improved through a clear design: the initial processor - which was built by a hand full of unexperienced guys at Acorn - easily outperformed contemporary x86 and and 68k processors. If only, VLSI, Digital and later Intel would have allocated a few of their resources to reving it up...
Sure. Speed matters. But if you look at the number of transistors in a P4 at some moment in time, that are actually doing something meaningful. Maaan, from that perspective, P4's hardly perform at all;-)
> So, pure idealism, but life is so much easier when you're swimming with the big swarm...
Personally, I think life is so much more fun when you know you're doing the right thing.
Over the years, I didn't experience a lot of problems with Alpha Linux that I wasn't experiencing with x86. I don't play 3D games. I understand Unix shells, so I don't need a browser. I prefer Gnome look-and-feel over Windows. I'm happy. As a programmer I'm not confortable with dead-meat commercial binaries I can't look into - no matter whether they're free or hacked.
...But, I must agree, that with DEC/Compaq/HP(/Samsung?) sinking off the Alpha, I'm not sure how long I can convince myself that using Alpha hardware is the right thing.
Tru64 is a good product, but it never really took off, probably due to lack of applications and marketing disadvantage compared to Sun, SGI, IBM and HP. IMHO, DEC was more than happy to ditch Tru64 in favour of Linux. Same for VMS: their investments never returned profits. Neither of these are aimed at the desktop market; with low volumes come high prices.
Linux could have been Alpha's saviour, but Alpha was overtaken by Intel/AMD's success on the x86 market.
(This is just my opinion, I don't mean to flame at Tru64 or VMS.)
> I rate software on cost, reliability and useability. MS's current stuff doesn't rate too highly on any of the above.
The average Joe doesn't understand reliability and useability, so besides the no-choice-it's-all-in-one-package argument, his primary criterium is cost. Judging on Microsoft's high profit margin on Windows & Office, costs for these products are definitely too high. That is, if Microsoft dumps all their other non-profitable departments, they could sell their Palladium versions for half the price they ask(ed) for non-Palladium versions. And, it's easy to create momentum with $40 billion ready for marketing.
Since, Palladium will not really limmit a user initially it will not scare the average Joe, right away. (Technically, MS/Intel/AMD will never get their act together first shot. License-wise Microsoft/RIAA will lay low; they won't extort large amounts of money, initially.)
Palladium is not a revolutionary means to grab and sit on top of a monopoly, rather it's going to be just another small step on the road to gradually assuring the monopoly stays with MS. Palladium scares OSS geeks, not average Joe.
> Often the utility or quality of something is proportional to the number of people using it.
When Betamax and V2000 were beaten by VHS, users had no option but to buy a VHS player. Still, technically speaking, VHS was inferior to the other two. VHS won because it was the only system with pr0n contents available, not because it was better. So, VHS being the de facto standard (some years) back is not simply a matter of utility/quality.
Wrt Windows: Yes, people tend to communicate through propriatry file formats that are produced by Microsoft Office products, which are (arguably) of good quality. Yes, people tend to use Windows, since the choice is a no-brainer to the average Joe. But the current de facto software and hardware standards are not necessarily superior in technical innovativeness, not in the business models that produce them, and only in price/value ratio when corporations aren't too greedy.
The only thing that's for sure is that the current de facto is superior only in quantity - simply because it is.
So, why do they favour Itanium over proven hardware like PA-RISC and Alpha? Simple: software. Alpha's epitaph was written the day Microsoft decided to stop NT development for Alpha's. Without commercial software, what's good hardware worth?
My answer would be: A LOT! A few years ago I bought a (once expensive) 266MHz Alpha for about $300, without any software. It took a while to get Red Hat 6 running, but the machine really rocks! As most of us know, Linux per se does *not* require x86 hardware. I guess you could even go through the trouble of getting Wine to run Win32 binaries under Bochs, if performance is not your primary issue. However, in my daily usage I hardly ever need anything outside Linux. In those cases - when someone sends me a Word document - I use and old Toshiba laptop, running Mandrake.
So why is x86 hardware the de facto standard Linux hardware? Good: price/performance ratio. Why is x86 relatively cheap? Large sales volumes. Why so? Windows won't run on anything else. Why do people buy Windows? Because everyone does.
It's just the everlasting circle that won't be broken anytime soon. Not by better hardware (Alpha, PowerPC, MIPS, StrongARM) and not by better software (Linux, BSDs other Unices). It's so depressing...
-- Programming is like sex... make one mistake, and support it the rest of your life
> Because both the embedded software and FPGA hardware algorithms are released as open source technologies, developers can readily customize the Model 313's operation to meet specialized requirements.
Great. I'll start reconfiguring it to capture 5 Megapixels right away!
-- Drug, Noun: A substance that, injected into a rat, produces a scientific paper
Slashdot Mirror
Right so. 2MB should be enough for anybody! ;-)
Red Hat should take notice, but still it's importatn that Red Hat is just as Linux as this tiny system is. And, there is a point in Linux being able to downsize into less than 2MB. Although Desktop Linux is not and does not allow for the same applications as embedded linux, there is a real virtue in sharing the codebase between these two. (Or desktop and webserver, cluster or grid server for that matter.) Although developers may not always agree on the direction the developments should take, together they provide for an open environment that is scaleble, and in escense is very lean. This is something Microsoft can never touch upon with Windows CE/PocketPC/whatever.
That's why I think this one-die embedded linux system is indeed a a-good-thing (tm).
It appears in the USA an employer can fire employees at will, while in Europe firing people to avoid direct bankrubsy is impossible. THis is - of course - an exchageration, but it would make sense to specify a topograpic region...
Ever heard of anything but Red Hat? Check out: mini linux distros
It's probably a crazy idea, but at 27x27mm you could fit over 50 of these on an atx PCB. And that's still 2D, stacked you could easily fit a hundred in a litre (though heat may be a problem even with embedded harware like this one).
Of course, compared to desktop computers these tinies have far from impressive specs (see: rants by others), but power isn't necessesarily measured in terms of Mhz/GBs. Power can come in numbers as well. And in that case, price per piece is more important, as well as Watt/instruction and physical size.
Now let's see about bulk prices...
---
The prospects for high-end PCs are far overrated
I've identified 3 needs of my application: a front-end user interface, a database w/ search function (of about 10 megabytes of data), and integration of both of these into a (currently existing) commercial mapping application.
Obviously, your descriptions lacks details to make even a vague estimate of costs. So here are some general guidelines and things to consider.
If the 3 needs you specify are filled in independently, your project is bound to fail. That is: if front-end and database are built independently, the integration need is bound to be the most expensive. Only way to reduce integration costs is having a damn good specification of what you're looking for and some damn good project manager with a damn good team of coders, that can cooperate. (That, or a one-man-team that's proven to be up to the job.)
Porting efforts tend to depend on the size of the code base, and the ability to find a skilled porter. To a lesser extent it also depends on quality of the code and documentation. But I'd say size is the major issue here, keep things small.
Well, anyway. My advice would be: get someone that can give a good estimate, 'judged on past projects.' If that's not possible or not satisfactory, just determine market value, based on offers of different (sub-)contractors.
Oh. And there is no such thing as a scientific formal analysis that yields code size/cost/time based on a problem description. Nothing in software engineering (or elsewhere) has an accuracy that's within a factor 5, so consider these techniques useless. If you don't have the expertise, go look for people that have.
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed, most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we come in: we're computer professionals, we cause accidents -- Nathaniel Borenstein
First Borland, then Rational and now MacroMedia.
...Better check who I've been sold to...
What's next? SUN, CNN-TimeWarner-AOL, W3C, OSDN, GNU, Linus?
--
The world is run by idiots because they're more efficient than hamsters
It seems you got it, but you didn't get it. Ie., You're completely right and have sound arguments to support your opinion. My banner was intended ironically, but in a sense, it shows that the SETI is based on belief, rather than science just as well as any religion.
Personally, I belief it's far more likely SETI will yield proof of ETI than worshipping any divine being, but it's good to realize that my belief is just belief, not science.
You discovered my little terra-forming experiment...
...'Guess I'll have to make it even tinier, next time...
--
God is the only form of extraterrestrial life that we could ever possibly communicate with -- SETI is a joke, people
Checked that. Europe uses 900, 1800 and 1900Mhz (a triband phone can use all of them).
Slightly off topic; the 900 Mhz appears to use more energy, so you're probably best off with higher frequencies. This may be a reason some telcos have already decided to ditch the older 900Mhz frequency in favour of the others.
Moreover, it's actually NOT looking very cool. I'd say it's looking just as horrible as Windows 95: a lame corporate Holywood-style copy of something that might have been remotely original. Boeing probably stole the few good ideas in there from Apple as well...
...But on the bright side...With the damn plane, at least we might have heard Britney Spears' infamous line:
... in only twice the time"
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada"
blown up like:
"I get to go to lots of overseas places, like Canada,
Ah, well...
Eh. I'm not an expert, but isn't 900MHz the base frequency of (older) GSM phones? ' Guess telcos won't be very enthousiastic about the idea of sharing it...
The main guy got fired, so we're left with his trainee. Things are going steady but very slow. Don't ask him about stress.
Local:
1 admin, 43 workers, 80 machines
Global:
8 admins, 245 workers, 300 machines
Is there a database, or method of recording this data, in electronic form, that will stand up in court?
...Maybe some of that infamous write only memory would solve your problems?
Or rather: Is there a reliable web service (a "trusted authority") that provides unique time stamps?
Is there a database that once a record is entered with an accompanying time and date stamp, cannot be altered?
And don't forget: Is there a way to prevent records being inserted in between older journals, at a later time?
Or
--
The human brain is a wonderful thing: It starts working the moment you are born, and never stops until you stand up to speak in public -- Sir George Jessel
This is just the last push they needed to justify creating another crime busting agency: This is why we need A STRATEGIC MISSILE DEFENSE SHIELD... Can't you see? Any domestic problem can be solved by pointing weapons at foreign enemies.
Eh? We live in strange times, don't we?
--
The only difference between a lunatic and me is that I'm not crazy - Salvador Dali
Great idea! Or invalid, but different.
I mean, the winner of the original contest's question is already decided anyway: I'm sure nobody's as good as Microsoft in writing obfuscated code that runs only on their own platforms!
Microsoft's experience in embedded (WinCE, PocketPC, XBox?) keeps me confident that this device is thin enough to fit in a tiny parking lot and produce less noise than a minor jet engine.
Sorry for bashing. I guess I should say: "Welcome to the embedded market, Microsoft. (Again)"
I thought age had to do with buying beer, not drinking it... or brewing, for that matter.
Hmm.
--
I Guess, in the US you need to be 21 to drink shitish beer while you're allowed to cause car accidents from early adolesence.
> As various promising architectures die off (Alpha, PA-RISC, who's next? POWER?), in the end, was the computing community better served by the dominance of one architecture designed for the lowest common denominator?
Isn't there a rule in history that says it takes something like 50-100 years after some break through invention, before the market is ready for more than a single monopolist?
(OK. sorry for my english)
> It's perfect for embedded, but what are you smoking that you even include it in the list?
;-)
I quit smoking. Maybe that caused me to mention StrongARM.
Indeed, I included StrongARM in the list of better-designs looking at other aspects than the raw speed. ARMs are very cost effective (MIPS/dollars, MIPS/Watt, MIPS/MHz). ARMs have low latency (short pipeline, fast context switch). ARMs have small die size (how many would fit on a P4 die?). ARM has very elegant assembly (not a very impressive selling point, these days, I must admit).
And though Advance RISC Machines never meant to create a number cruncher, StrongARM's predecessors (ARM, ARM2, ARM3) were doing 32 bit math when intel was designing 80286. StrongARM, XScale, or some future derivative may well become the heart of future systems, once we find out about other computer application than 3D gaming.
> Performance matters, abstract concepts of IPC or "cleaner architecture" are for the obscurists.
If only performance matters, then how come we limit ourselves to an architecture that clearly wasn't designed to cope with requirements we might have had after 1985? Being able to decode 8 bit instructions for backward compatibility is hardly a feature that benefits performance.
In fact, the ARM is a clear demonstration of how easy performance can be improved through a clear design: the initial processor - which was built by a hand full of unexperienced guys at Acorn - easily outperformed contemporary x86 and and 68k processors. If only, VLSI, Digital and later Intel would have allocated a few of their resources to reving it up...
Sure. Speed matters. But if you look at the number of transistors in a P4 at some moment in time, that are actually doing something meaningful. Maaan, from that perspective, P4's hardly perform at all
> So, pure idealism, but life is so much easier when you're swimming with the big swarm...
...But, I must agree, that with DEC/Compaq/HP(/Samsung?) sinking off the Alpha, I'm not sure how long I can convince myself that using Alpha hardware is the right thing.
Personally, I think life is so much more fun when you know you're doing the right thing.
Over the years, I didn't experience a lot of problems with Alpha Linux that I wasn't experiencing with x86. I don't play 3D games. I understand Unix shells, so I don't need a browser. I prefer Gnome look-and-feel over Windows. I'm happy. As a programmer I'm not confortable with dead-meat commercial binaries I can't look into - no matter whether they're free or hacked.
Tru64 is a good product, but it never really took off, probably due to lack of applications and marketing disadvantage compared to Sun, SGI, IBM and HP. IMHO, DEC was more than happy to ditch Tru64 in favour of Linux. Same for VMS: their investments never returned profits. Neither of these are aimed at the desktop market; with low volumes come high prices.
Linux could have been Alpha's saviour, but Alpha was overtaken by Intel/AMD's success on the x86 market.
(This is just my opinion, I don't mean to flame at Tru64 or VMS.)
> I rate software on cost, reliability and useability. MS's current stuff doesn't rate too highly on any of the above.
The average Joe doesn't understand reliability and useability, so besides the no-choice-it's-all-in-one-package argument, his primary criterium is cost. Judging on Microsoft's high profit margin on Windows & Office, costs for these products are definitely too high. That is, if Microsoft dumps all their other non-profitable departments, they could sell their Palladium versions for half the price they ask(ed) for non-Palladium versions. And, it's easy to create momentum with $40 billion ready for marketing.
Since, Palladium will not really limmit a user initially it will not scare the average Joe, right away. (Technically, MS/Intel/AMD will never get their act together first shot. License-wise Microsoft/RIAA will lay low; they won't extort large amounts of money, initially.)
Palladium is not a revolutionary means to grab and sit on top of a monopoly, rather it's going to be just another small step on the road to gradually assuring the monopoly stays with MS. Palladium scares OSS geeks, not average Joe.
--
People respond to people who respond
> Often the utility or quality of something is proportional to the number of people using it.
When Betamax and V2000 were beaten by VHS, users had no option but to buy a VHS player. Still, technically speaking, VHS was inferior to the other two. VHS won because it was the only system with pr0n contents available, not because it was better. So, VHS being the de facto standard (some years) back is not simply a matter of utility/quality.
Wrt Windows: Yes, people tend to communicate through propriatry file formats that are produced by Microsoft Office products, which are (arguably) of good quality. Yes, people tend to use Windows, since the choice is a no-brainer to the average Joe. But the current de facto software and hardware standards are not necessarily superior in technical innovativeness, not in the business models that produce them, and only in price/value ratio when corporations aren't too greedy.
The only thing that's for sure is that the current de facto is superior only in quantity - simply because it is.
So, why do they favour Itanium over proven hardware like PA-RISC and Alpha? Simple: software. Alpha's epitaph was written the day Microsoft decided to stop NT development for Alpha's. Without commercial software, what's good hardware worth?
My answer would be: A LOT! A few years ago I bought a (once expensive) 266MHz Alpha for about $300, without any software. It took a while to get Red Hat 6 running, but the machine really rocks! As most of us know, Linux per se does *not* require x86 hardware. I guess you could even go through the trouble of getting Wine to run Win32 binaries under Bochs, if performance is not your primary issue. However, in my daily usage I hardly ever need anything outside Linux. In those cases - when someone sends me a Word document - I use and old Toshiba laptop, running Mandrake.
So why is x86 hardware the de facto standard Linux hardware? Good: price/performance ratio. Why is x86 relatively cheap? Large sales volumes. Why so? Windows won't run on anything else. Why do people buy Windows? Because everyone does.
It's just the everlasting circle that won't be broken anytime soon. Not by better hardware (Alpha, PowerPC, MIPS, StrongARM) and not by better software (Linux, BSDs other Unices). It's so depressing...
--
Programming is like sex... make one mistake, and support it the rest of your life
> Because both the embedded software and FPGA hardware algorithms are released as open source technologies, developers can readily customize the Model 313's operation to meet specialized requirements.
Great. I'll start reconfiguring it to capture 5 Megapixels right away!
--
Drug, Noun: A substance that, injected into a rat, produces a scientific paper