We had the unfortunate incident of having Windows CE and Advandtec runtime on one of our systems. The project manager was new, he wanted a "turn-key" system from the vendor, blah, blah, blah. At the time, it sounded like a good idea, and my boss relented. But now both he and I reget it terribly.
I will agree, the vendor had a really fast development time. I was happy about all the high level changes they could make in such a short time. It would have taken us longer to code something from the ground up. BUT, we ran into serious problems with the Advantec drivers, and runtime and then certain issues with Windows CE, memory leaks, and so on. The time it took for us to track down the problems and to deal with the vendor and Advantec costed us too much in man hours and late project schedules. The entire process was too painful and the worst of all, we had absolutely no control over the lower level software involved.
Bottom line: at our company, we like to have control over our software, down to the source code. Linux gives us that control and flexibility. That's why we will choose embedded Linux over WinCE any day.
Suffice it to say, we won't be using a WinCE solution any time soon, unless we are proved wrong later on.
Hmm... I see where you are coming from. I'm just trying to get a handle on why folks on either side of the debate say what they say, because I believe there are defintely deeper issues than all the prepackaged rhetoric.
As for a cure, I'm all for it. Gene therapy is awesome and exciting. But in the mean time, I believe this: don't play with fire, 'cuz sooner or later, you'll be burned. Kinda mean sounding, but you get my drift.
When a good solution happens to be "religious", why does it all of a sudden have to be completely disregarded?
I still don't get it. Maybe I don't see the deeper issue, but 0% chance of being infected is still better than 2% chance of being infected.
Slashdot Mirror
We had the unfortunate incident of having Windows CE and Advandtec runtime on one of our systems. The project manager was new, he wanted a "turn-key" system from the vendor, blah, blah, blah. At the time, it sounded like a good idea, and my boss relented. But now both he and I reget it terribly.
I will agree, the vendor had a really fast development time. I was happy about all the high level changes they could make in such a short time. It would have taken us longer to code something from the ground up. BUT, we ran into serious problems with the Advantec drivers, and runtime and then certain issues with Windows CE, memory leaks, and so on. The time it took for us to track down the problems and to deal with the vendor and Advantec costed us too much in man hours and late project schedules. The entire process was too painful and the worst of all, we had absolutely no control over the lower level software involved.
Bottom line: at our company, we like to have control over our software, down to the source code. Linux gives us that control and flexibility. That's why we will choose embedded Linux over WinCE any day.
Suffice it to say, we won't be using a WinCE solution any time soon, unless we are proved wrong later on.
But I thought they said the thing was a carnivore because of the teeth... this is a job for CSI...
Hmm... I see where you are coming from. I'm just trying to get a handle on why folks on either side of the debate say what they say, because I believe there are defintely deeper issues than all the prepackaged rhetoric. As for a cure, I'm all for it. Gene therapy is awesome and exciting. But in the mean time, I believe this: don't play with fire, 'cuz sooner or later, you'll be burned. Kinda mean sounding, but you get my drift.
When a good solution happens to be "religious", why does it all of a sudden have to be completely disregarded? I still don't get it. Maybe I don't see the deeper issue, but 0% chance of being infected is still better than 2% chance of being infected.