Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Programming Software Linux Hardware Technology

Linux Now Top Choice Of Embedded Developers 42

Posted by timothy from the sneaky-feelings dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to an article at LinuxDevices.com, the latest market research data from Venture Development Corp. shows that Linux is now firmly in first place as the OS of choice for smart gadgets and embedded systems. VDC's latest data indicates that Linux now accounts for 15.5% of embedded projects, beating out Microsoft's WinCE (6%) and XPe (5%), and Wind River's VxWorks (10.3%)."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Now Top Choice Of Embedded Developers More

Linux Now Top Choice Of Embedded Developers

Comments Filter:

  • An Important and Often Overlooked Front (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dominatus ( 796241 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @11:16PM (#10125168)
    Linux success is almost always measured in the desktop and/or server markets, and very rarely in the embedded market. It's refreshing to see an article showing the strength on Linux in a market that has a lot of potential but little of the glamour.

    • little of the glamour.

      It's so hard to know, but one of those embedded devices could turn out to grow phenomenally.

      That would (i) assure the long term viability of Linux (not that too many doubt that); (ii) push kernel development more strongly into the real-time, small-memory footprint direction as more developers and patches flow in that direction.

  • Makes a lot of sense to me (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JavaRob ( 28971 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @11:23PM (#10125196) Homepage Journal
    Putting an OS on a small device is a task that tends to require a lot of tweaking... when you're making it small, you tend to make a lot of compromises, and small devices tend to be much more diverse than personal computers and servers (well, duh).

    So -- what OS is better suited to this kind of application? The open source one with plenty of developers out there, tweaking it as we speak, where the developers of your hardware can be shaping the embedded OS as they build the prototype? ...Or the one written and managed by a single company who, yes, has talented developers, but none of whom are on-site working with you?

    Not that I'm the only one saying this, of course, but this is a great chance for the Linux model to shine.
    • It's time for linux to be remarketed with a baby penguin. Seriously when you take linux and turn it outside down and rip the guts out... is it still linux anymore? No. Embedded Linux now needs one of those "Linux inside" stickers on all windows CE boxes... oh wait....

      • Why not a school or herd or flock or gaggle?

        Linux is represented by Tux, but all of us using and embracing Linux and OSS are Tux's babies or compatriots.

        I suggest Tux has several baby penguins, maybe one for each continent.

        OTOH, why not one penguin for each government, military, and commercial sale, like pilots, sailors and submariners placed skulls or bombs on their fuselages, superstructures, and sails/conning towers.

        THAT would irk the hell out of ms, if a bullet, a hyperlink and the basic particulars
    • Or the one written and managed by a single company who, yes, has talented developers, but none of whom are on-site working with you?

      I can see you've never had a customer responsible for 50% of your revenue before :) Pay enough money and you get a developer on site.
      • I can see you've never had a customer responsible for 50% of your revenue before :) Pay enough money and you get a developer on site.

        You're right in those cases -- but I'm thinking of the people without that kind of pull (i.e., most of them). From what I understand, embedded Linux has all kinds of shortcomings... but because it drastically lowers the barrier to entry, and because it's open (for you to work on the shortcomings as needed for your product), it's starting to get a lot of use.

        More use means

    • So -- what OS is better suited to this kind of application?

      Hate to play the role of the troll here [better say goodbye to those Karma points], but Linux has pretty lousy numbers for an embedded OS. Heck - "pretty lousy" is being generous - I've never seen Linux come in anywhere but dead last in an RTOS review.

      In fact, the dirty little secret of the embedded OS marketplace is that WinCE is a rather solid, stable, and flexible platform:

      • Embedded doesn't imply real-time. No one claims Embedded Linux is an RTOS (Though you can get things like RTLinux for real-time performance).
      • Realtime is an OS in a USAF jet, flying at Mach 3, reacting to a gazillion interrupts per second, trying to keep the pilot from both killing himself and from being killed by that SAM missile on his tail.

        Ahhhh, VxWorks, where interrupts are guaranteed* to ge serviced within so many clock cycles!!!

        * Note: Interrupt service time not actually guaranteed.

        I'm pretty sure that 'RTOS' must be a marketing thing. How can you guarantee an interrupt will be serviced within x clock cycles, when another interrup

  • With any luck (Score:4, Funny)

    by shfted! ( 600189 ) on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @11:24PM (#10125204) Journal
    With any luck, Linux will soon be ported to run on full fledged x86 desktop computers!

  • And what about Tron? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ag0ny ( 59629 ) <javi@nOSpAM.lavandeira.net> on Tuesday August 31, 2004 @11:40PM (#10125299) Homepage
    Last time I checked, TRON [slashdot.org] was the most used embedded OS. Am I missing something?
    • Rather TRON is the blueprint/design/guide/specs for an OS. Perhaps it is like the OS Unix. No such thing and if you are intrested in nothing showing Unix as having a huge market share then you split it up.

      Tron is probably the "other" and "no formal os".

      Of course tron is also mostly used in japan, if they didn't count japan then that would also explain it.

  • And yet, if I went out to try and buy a mobile phone which runs Linux for the geek value, I wouldn't be able to find one. Maybe it's in the wrong embedded markets...

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • Java programmability is almost as good, as long as the support is up to scratch. Some recent phones are pretty good, and have everything right up to the Bluetooth API. Some other phones barely handle MIDP 1.0. The worst thing is, this could even occur on the same OS. On Symbian 7.0, there are Java implementations at both ends of the scale. :-/

    • Re:Grr... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Spoing ( 152917 )
      1. And yet, if I went out to try and buy a mobile phone which runs Linux for the geek value, I wouldn't be able to find one. Maybe it's in the wrong embedded markets...

      OTOH most of the mini routers for wireless/cable/DSL use are Linux based.

      I'd expect that depending on what category of device you look at, there could be an entirely different embeded OS that is most popular if not just more popular than Linux.

      • Re:Grr... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Trejkaz ( 615352 )

        Personally, I wanted a Linux phone, as it would have meant some semblance of power, without the niggling thought in the back of my mind that it was going to crash the next time I got an incoming call. I own a Linux router, which has already had its warranty broken via third-party firmware. I had to sacrifice the Linux PDA for something better supported, but I think I might repair that in a couple of years if things improve.

        We're seeing a nice insurgence in the set-top box arena, too. I bet that by the t

  • the GPL is a mine field. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Roman_(ajvvs) ( 722885 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:21AM (#10125502) Journal
    I work at a manufacturing company, and by chance we spent half of last week researching development issues under different OS's. Currently we use a variety of Microsoft OS's in our systems and we want to keep our options as open as possible.

    There are as yet unresolved issues [kerneltrap.org] with the use of binary software with GPL software in general and linux specifically, despite linus' assurances that userspace code doesn't require GPL license compatibility and that he won't enforce that section of the GPL. Linus is using the GPL license as written by the FSF, albeit fixed to V.2 and with some specific modifications. They (linus and the FSF) disagree on on the details of whether or not using GPL-licensed header files forces the software using them to be be under a GPL-compatible license. Even linus admits there are grey areas and his interpretation has been debated. Until this matter is resolved definitively (probably in court), I don't want to place my company at risk of being forced to release code that we do not want to release, simply because we compiled our software for linux.

    What we found, is that the GPL, LGPL and other FSF licenses are very problematic when dealing with the control of code [topology.org](proprietry or otherwise). The GPL licensing terms are very strict and dangerous in terms of source code-ownership vs binary code-distribution and legal obligations.
    The FSF cannot of course, enforce the GPL for software they don't own the copyright for. However, the licensing conditions and restrictions of the GPL automatically come into effect without much influence from the actual copyright holders. We're left to the whims of copyright owners and their good word to decide what is considered a breach and what is 'tolerated'. As we see more GPL software being used by companies with proprietry code, I think we'll see a nasty side of the GPL rear its head as enforcement starts to kick in from different areas. Boundaries of legality are constantly tested, when they are wide and filled with grey.
    Just because you don't get charged with doing something illegally as you do it, that doesn't mean that you can't get prosecuted afterwards, if someone feels like going after you.

    • Re:the GPL is a mine field. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by swillden ( 191260 ) * <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:32AM (#10125798) Journal

      Just because you don't get charged with doing something illegally as you do it, that doesn't mean that you can't get prosecuted afterwards, if someone feels like going after you.

      IANAL, but as I understand it this isn't true if the someone in question told you that they wouldn't ever go after you. It's called "promissory estoppel".

      That doesn't totally clear up all of the questions around Linux, though, since Linus' promises not to sue only apply to the code that is his, which is a small percentage of a modern Linux kernel. However, I've read lawyers argue on Groklaw that the facts that (a) others in the community of kernel developers publicly agree with Linus' stance and (b) no kernel developers publicly disagree with Linus' stance, together provide a good argument for promissory estoppel against suits by any kernel developers, since when those developers decided to contribute, they implicitly agreed to the community consensus as to the meaning of the GPL.

      Obviously, you don't want to bet your business without advice from a competent and knowledgeable attorney, but I think there is hope that you can writer userspace Linux apps without fear that you're infringing on the header file copyrights.

      It's also worth considering the fact that if you did end up getting sued, you'd be in very good company, since *lots* of companies are doing it (which is the point of the article). That doesn't make a suit less painful, but it probably makes it cheaper, since you can join forces with other defendants to share the costs.

    • Re:the GPL is a mine field. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ADRA ( 37398 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @03:44AM (#10126158)
      If you've read ANYTHING about the SCO case, its that you can't hand out API's (erm LSB) and then turn around and sue anyone for using that interface (regardless of the distribution license). Imagine the anti-trust lawsuits of MS sueing a competitor xyz for implementing private API function xyz which makes the program twice as fast while implementing it themselves.

      There is also discussion that it may be impossible to enforce copyright's for API's at all. Under fair-use laws, I believe that anyone can have the right to implement the API as long as its been released to the public in one form or the other. I can't remember all the details, but it was something along those lines.

      The only cases that I've really seen developers going after vendors is when they take GPL copyrighted code lock stock and barrel and put it in their own systems without credit, source, or some other blatently obvious GPL violation (Netfilter, etc..).

    • Not nearly that bad (Score:3, Insightful)

      by r6144 ( 544027 )
      It seems to me that the topology.org article is so opinionated that it is mostly flamebait.

      As for the parent itself, I think the real problem is not nearly as serious as the parent makes it out to be (IANAL). Of course, you may have legal difficulties if you want to make binary-only kernel modifications or kernel modules, but user-space programs should be completely unaffected since they only access the kernel via system calls, thus covered by the exception in the kernel license (since it is in the licen

      • The GPL talks not just about derivative works but also combined works, which is far more easily done. Linking two pieces of code together in such a way that removing one would break the other basically makes it a combined work.
    • I work at a manufacturing company...

      Okay, that's an interesting starting point.

      There are as yet unresolved issues [kerneltrap.org] with the use of binary software with GPL software in general and linux specifically, despite linus' assurances that userspace code doesn't require GPL license compatibility and that he won't enforce that section of the GPL.

      What was the link supposed to show again? Modules aren't userland programs. Modules (at least with 2.6.x) have to compile against the kernel source, and that's *clearl

      • Re:the GPL is a mine field. (Score:4, Informative)

        by bhima ( 46039 ) <(Bhima.Pandava) (at) (gmail.com)> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @09:25AM (#10127396) Journal
        I work for a big pharma company, and we reviewed the GPL & BSD licenses, along with many of the points the parent brings up and concluded that software of both licenses is useful to us, the license is compatible with our business model, and it's very easy to not only stay in compliance with GPL & BSD but in most cases cheaper. Of course this is only for Embedded or Machine control projects we still us windows on the desktop.

        Anyway I had labeled the parent at best a Microsoft fan or at worst a troll and wasn't going to put the effort you did in refuting him. Bottom line both the GPL and BSD licenses have their use's and places and you can make money using both (and still comply with them), actually I think only the truly stupid or arrogant run afoul of either license.

    • We're left to the whims of copyright owners and their good word to decide what is considered a breach and what is 'tolerated'.

      This is so simple. Don't do proprietary. Simple. There is a whole awful lot you can do without trying to "intermix". Choose the right hardware. Go with free software.

    • I've had to struggle with this also, but after all is said and done, I'm moving our whole embedded platform to linux.

      This has had a few repercussion; namely, we're also doing away with the whole Windows client side of the application and replacing it with a web-app. It turns out that when you have a highly evolved embedded web server, scripting language, and database, an active client becomes unnecessary and can be replaced with a web browser.

      By the way, just in case anyone else is doing this, in the emb

    • My legal opinion.... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )
      ...is that IBMs lawyers probably knows a lot more about the GPL than your lawyers, and they seem to think it is okay. That leads me to believe that both your post and your link are to people that desperately try to create ambigiuity where there really is none, at least none of significance.

      For one, you should sack your lawyers if they ever claimed you under any circumstances would be forced to release any source code. In a court of law, you might be liable for damages if you violated the licence, but you w
      • Kjella, check the original posters other posts.. he is an MS centralized advocate, which in itself may be ok - but by buying into the MS perspective he warps the world outside that protected, warm place and *thinks* that the GPL will create a problem with his other non-GPLed software...

        That said, he did post a couple of good posts about MS (or at least he got moderated "insightful"...)

    • I don't want to place my company at risk of being forced to release code that we do not want to release

      Good news: this can never happen.

      The GPL licensing terms are very strict and dangerous in terms of source code-ownership

      It is an oft-repeated misconception, but there is zero risk of losing ownership of your code or the IP inside; you can only risk your right to distribute a module for Linux. If as you suggest, using a Linux kernel to run your module were a "derivitive" use, you would be obliged

  • The reason is simple,... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Maljin Jolt ( 746064 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:01AM (#10125664) Journal
    ...it is by invisible hand of the market. Development costs for embedded on Linux are lower, no matter what FUD about GPL are Microsoft vassals posting on Slashdot. Because embedded incarnations of Linux are very consistent with desktop ones.

    An example from real life:

    My girlfriend wrote some custom app (database client frontend +some .net stuff) for PocketPC using WinCE emulator in Windows XP. With a real pain, because running emulator took 98% of desktop CPU doing nothing. It was worth a new computer, two months of her work and many grey hairs to complete the task.

    I replicated her effort on the identical hardware (HP iPaq, but with Linux flashed in) in three days. The trick I used was a http server running inside iPaq (sic!), calling local python scripts to query remote database and generate html content to local browser.

    Guess, from these two implementations, which one is easier and/or cheaper to support?

    Can you, Microsoft drones, stuff IIS or any existing COM/DCOM components you already payed for on Win32 into some WinCE device?

    • Re:The reason is simple,... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by crisco ( 4669 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:47PM (#10129911) Homepage
      I think the obvious conclusion is that you are a better Python / Web developer than your girlfriend is a PocketPC.NET developer.
    • Maybe you should compare similar technologies, say embedded Linux and Windows XP Embedded. You'll find that every argument you've given why Linux is superior also applies to Windows XP embedded. You can run exactly the same apps on it as you can your desktop. IIS, D?COM, Apache, whatever you want, can all be stuck on XP Embedded without modification.

      Anyway, with the 98% emulator, you can always put its priority to "below normal", and you won't even notice it :)

  • Nokia and others ship millions of Symbian OS smartphones, yet somehow they are not showing up on the graphs..
    • "Linux now accounts for 15.5 percent of embedded projects"

      In other words, more development projects are using Linux over other embedded OS's. So, Symbian may be running on 50% of all embedded devices in the world, but if only a select few comanies are using it, they're just regurgiting the same old thing. There may be 50 seperate symbian projects stemming from Nokia alone, but that wouldn't begin to dent the market share that Linux is forming.

      This doesn't surprise me in the least. Symbian was designed for

  • 15% of what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @05:02AM (#10126329)
    Just to clarify the statistic so we are talking about the right thing, since the actual posting and the LinuxDevices articles seemed pretty vague to me. ("Linux is 15%! Windows is 6%. Yay!")

    About 27,000 developers on their mailing list (which targetted embedded developers) were given web-based questionnaires to answer. This figure is for "what OS are you using for your current project" and the statistic is counted by percentage of answers.

    Chart here [linuxdevices.com].

    More info at VDC's website [vdc-corp.com].

    Ok, now back to the regularly scheduled programming...
  • Okay, one of the least expensive embedded systems that I know about is the LinkSys WiFi router. You can get that device for 70 USD (or less). You can get all of the Linux source code for the device and do whatever you want with it.
    Does anyone know of a comparable platform that is readily available that has more traditional I/O (as opposed to having lots of network ports). I would like to use the LinkSys box for some hobby projects, but I need some I/O pins.
  • Linux is good on the embeded system. It is a pain to get started but once you got it, it really makes a difference. Now then the BSD folk are like why isn't BDS on the embeded system why linux. I really don't know when, when we were designing the system I work on, we all said we will use Linux on it. Management said ok and 3 years later we are getting it ready to ship. Is linux good, sure it does the job. Is there anytihng out there that is better? I really don't care cause no matter what I do choose linux,

Slashdot Top Deals

8 Catfish = 1 Octo-puss

Close