Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Linux Software

Alliance for Linux Set Top Boxes 89

Posted by CmdrTaco from the lets-get-it-on dept.
An anonymous reader noted this article running over at Linux Devices talking about an alliance of companies working together to standardize Linux Set Top Boxes. Bigger names include ATI and Tivo. There are also a bunch of more or less irrelevant companies on the list too so the hype about 24 companies isn't really worth noting. But in the end, I'll believe it when I see products actually taken to market.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Alliance for Linux Set Top Boxes More

Alliance for Linux Set Top Boxes

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Nokia-Intel-Linux box? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Nokia is moving forward "full speed ahead". This article [linuxdevices.com] at linuxdevices.com describes the Nokia system, the "Media Terminal". You may recall that back when they announced their set-top box, they also announced their collaboratino with the open set-top box initiative connected with tvlinux.org [tvlinux.org]. Well, the company behind tvlinux.org was subsequently acquired by lineo [linuxdevices.com]. You'll note the presence of lineo in this new initiative, and the similarity of the name of the alliance to tvlinux.org.

    So, this initiative is certainly *not* unrelated to the earlier Nokia activities. Odd, though, that Nokia's not one of the founders of this alliance. In fact, Nokia recently launched their own open project [linuxdevices.com].

    hmmm....

    • gcc 2.96 is actually more standards compliant than any other version of gcc so far, not counting CVS snapshots of 2.97. It may not be "standards compliant" as in "what most others are shipping", but 2.96 is almost fully ISO C99 and ISO C++ 98 compliant, unlike any previous version of gcc.
    • gcc 2.96 has more complete support for C++. Older versions of gcc could handle only a very limited subset of C++. Earlier versions of g++ often had problems with templates and other valid C++ constructs.
    • gcc 2.96 generates better, more optimized code.
    • gcc 2.96 supports all architectures Red Hat is currently supporting, including ia64. No other compiler can do this. Having to maintain different compilers for every different architecture is a development (find a bug, then fix it 4 times), QA and support nightmare.
    • The binary incompatibility issues are not as bad as some people and companies make you believe. First of all, they affect dynamically linked C++ code only. If you don't use C++, you aren't affected. If you use C++ and link statically, you aren't affected. If you don't mind depending on a current glibc, you might also want to link statically to c++ libraries while linking dynamically to glibc and other C libraries you're using: g++ -o test test.cc -Wl,-Bstatic -lstdc++ -Wl,-Bdynamic (Thanks to Pavel Roskin [mailto] for pointing this out) Second, the same issues appear with every major release of gcc so far. gcc 2.7.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.8.x. gcc 2.8.x C++ is not binary compatible with egcs 1.0.x. egcs 1.0.x C++ is not binary compatible with egcs 1.1.x. egcs 1.1.x C++ is not binary compatible with gcc 2.95. gcc 2.95 C++ will not be binary compatible with gcc 3.0. Besides, it can easily be circumvented. Either link statically, or simply distribute libstdc++ with your program and install it if necessary. Since it has a different soname, it can coexist with other libstdc++ versions without causing any problems. Red Hat Linux 7 also happens to be the first Linux distributions using the current version of glibc, 2.2.x. This update is not binary compatible with older distributions either (unless you update glibc - there's nothing that prevents you from updating libstdc++ at the same time), so complaining about gcc's new C++ ABI breaking binary compatibility is pointless. If you want to distribute something binary-only, link it statically and it will run everywhere. Someone has to be the first to take a step like this. If nobody dared to make a change because nobody else is doing it, we'd all still be using gcc 1.0, COBOL or ALGOL. No wait, all of those were new at some point...
    • Most of gcc 2.96's perceived "bugs" are actually broken code that older gccs accepted because they were not standards compliant - or, using an alternative term to express the same thing, buggy. A C or C++ compiler that doesn't speak the standardized C language is a bug, not a feature. In the initial version of gcc 2.96, there were a couple of other bugs. All known ones have been fixed in the version from updates - and the version that is in the current beta version of Red Hat Linux. The bugs in the initial version don't make the whole compiler broken, though. There has never been a 100% bug free compiler, or any other 100% bug free non-trivial program. The current version can be downloaded here [linux-easy.com].
    Trolling for GCC 2.96

  • TiVo doing well? LOL! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Strange, then, that TiVo appear to be doing quite well for themselves with their Linux based set-top box.

    What are you smoking? Look how well [akamai.net] they're doing! They lost $49 mil this quarter, up from only losing $23 mil this quarter last year. That's doing well?

  • Build your own? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It would be cool to be able to build your own set top box. What would you need?

  • Already standardized (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Linux set-top boxes have already been classified into two categories: "vapor," and "discontinued." They've innovated on the previous business models by skipping the "product" phase and going right into "discontinued [indrema.com]."
  • Linux set-top boxes have already been classified into two categories: "vapor," and "discontinued."

    Strange, then, that TiVo [tivo.com] appear to be doing quite well for themselves with their Linux based set-top box.

  • And Slackware wasn't the first one either... it replaced SLS as the leader earlier.

    Pah. SLS may have been an early market leader, but the first distribution was MCC. My first distribution was MCC because I didn't have the bandwidth to download the (huge by the standards of the day) 65MB SLS distribution, nor the disk space to install it. MCC fitted onto 3 high density 5.25" disks, and installed nicely onto a 20MB hard drive. Before MCC, we just used a root and boot disk that came straight from Linus...

  • This may be slightly off topic, but it seems to me as if the idea of set top boxes could eventually cause the end of a seperate box/monitor for a computer. The only thing I see holding this back would be the capabilities of your average TV.. My question is can HDTV do sufficient resolution to be a serviceable monitor? I know that a regular TV is 640x480, which for a computer sucks, but if a HDTV is something larger, then what would stop someone from doing a whole computer set top box? Perhaps it would have to be a bit larger than your cable box, but still it seems interesting.
  • What happened with the oh-so-great plans of a Nokia-Intel-Linux box with DVB and MHP plus more that everybody talked about 'round 99?
  • Most of the articles I've read are dated mid-October '99.
    But I have now received responses about it from several ACs so I feel pretty enligted!

  • Only two interesting companies? (Score:4)

    by shaka ( 13165 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @05:59AM (#157923)
    The page loaded, and what did I see?
    OpenTV is the biggest platform in use in Europe, Liberate are real big in Europe (where, I think, digital-TV usage is biggest - UK, France and Germany have come a long way).
    Pace builds loads of boxen, and who said Motorola and Sun (who also owns OpenTV) are insignificant!?

    I've worked with developing digital-TV applications, and the current platforms suck so bad it aint even fun. MHP (http://www.mhp.org/) seems more interesting though, than OpenTV and Canal+'s platforms.

    What's more, OpenTV development is based off of GNU stuff (libc, gcc et al) and they won't give away the source. After getting my story about this rejected on Slashdot a couple of times last fall, I went to RMS and had a conversation with one of their lawyers about it. Haven't heard anything since.

  • I'm not sure this is what you are talking about, but Nokia is producing a "Media Terminal", based on Linux, Mozilla, etc.! You can buy it now in Sweden and it will be available later in the rest of the world...

    They have teamed up with Loki to produce games for it!

    They have a Developers Network [ostdev.net]

    The imho coolest part is that it's totally open - both software and hardware! They have said that they are more interested in a small part of a large marked, than a huge part of a small marked!

    Take a look here: Nokia's Media Terminal Site [nokia.com]

    From what I've heard from people that has tried it - IT IS REALLY COOL! - Among other things, they, of course, played a bit Quake3...


    Greetings Pointwood
  • I seriously doubt that we will ever see a TV STB from Sun, so in this context relatively irrelevant :-)
  • Yeah, and let's also not forget:
    • Liberate -- Oracle/Netscape-backed STB + thin client developer
    • Excite@Home -- 'nuff said
    • Lineo/Montavista -- two of the biggest embedded Linux development companies (it is handy to have some folks who actually know a little about Linux when you're doing this sort of project)
    • Broadcom -- Multi-billion-dollar maker of networking chips (including home DSL stuff) and STBs


    Sounds fairly substantial, when you get down to it...

  • Agreed - the mention of licencing does seem rather odd, although if it results in the existence of cheap hardware with Linux driver support than that'd be a good thing (presumably GPL's software would soon follow - no need to use the software licensed by this consortium).

    I'd also note that Linux already has the V4L/V4L2 video/TV API's, and that other stuff such simultaneous record/play via buffering was just patented by Tivo (hopefully it'll be overturned, but who knows), and the most obvious channel x timeslot TV guide format is patented by TVGuide / Gemstar... I've got to wonder what exactly they're looking to licence...
  • I can't believe that some of the other companies are irrelevant. Irrelevant companies like Motorola, who could produce chips and chipsets, Gateway, who could bring this to market all over the place, Sun who can help develop Java apps for it, Excite@home, who could sell the box to its customers. Does anyone know who Nokia is not involved ?
    Really, this could actually be quite interesting or am I just Indreaming ?

  • Re:This worries me (Score:5)

    by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @06:04AM (#157929) Journal
    Yeah, the only thing worse would be if one company [sun.com] were able to set the standard for a programming language [sun.com] that many of us use.

    BTW, QNX [qnx.com] is not a linux clone. Unix clone, kinda-sorta-maybe, but not linux.

  • I write code all day for the Motorola StreamMaster (tm) (r) (whatever) line of set top boxes, and I consider this FAR from irrelevant. Getting access to all the nice linux development tools would make me one happy camper. Motorola has a heavy involvement in the actual production of STB's, which suprise suprise run PPC chips :).

    Sun makes servers.. but all the backend billing code for those STB's runs on - you guessed it - great big honkin' servers like Sun makes. So if they sign on, you get backend compatibility too, which is important - RPC et al.

    ATI makes a LOT of video chips, and they do so cheaply. Their support matters from a driver perspective, and if companies like TiVo and other software producers for STBs (like the company I work for) don't sign on to develop for Linux, then your standard base won't mean much. More company support is always a good thing!

    Notice Microsoft wasn't listed.. heh, this game is going to be Microsoft vs. Everybody else :).

  • So tell me who made your digital cable box? General Instrument perhaps?

    Who owns General Instrument? Yes its Motorola isn't it.

    So one of the largest set top box companies in the USA won't stand to gain from this at all? ie new cable boxes that don't use Windows CE

    You can slap yourself, I can't reach from here
  • I like the part where it says they will 'license' the api. It's neato that they want to use Linux, but it is just a kernel to them, they are unlikely to open any of their software up. Probably will have to join their organization to get access to the code, and, at minimum, buy a license to get access to the full api to develop your apps for it.

    -Adam

    You've got to admit,
    the RIAA has balls.
    Specifically, yours...

    This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.

  • Linux irrelevant... (Score:3)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @06:01AM (#157933) Homepage

    The real issue is what the development enviroment will be. Linux would make a great basic box, but the key is what software enviroment is running and what standards it adopts. The biggest people in this area are Europe's DVB (adopted even by OpenCable in the US) and their platform http://www.mhp.org is based around Java. The box underneath is interesting, but at the end of the day the application enviroment is key.
  • Hey Shaka,

    if you can prove that, OpenTV might have a problem.



    swann [mailto]

  • at least for the DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting) standard.

    Linux DVB API [linuxtv.org]

    By the way: this is the API the Nokia Mediaterminal uses. They are going to opensource their software on the OST website [ostdev.net].

  • Well, not exactly. The Linux DVB API can be found at linuxtv.org [linuxtv.org].

    Convergence [convergence.de], the company behind linuxtv.org, was finally not taken over by Lineo but is still looking for investors.

    Convergence is a founding member of the TV Linux Alliance and will continue to fight for Open Source software in our future TV sets because we don't want big brother in our living rooms.

    greetings

    swann

  • The problem with standards is that they will be designed to support the lowest common denominator, limiting features. This is what I fear, not corruption of linux. The changes to linux will be small, and will probably be GPLd.

    Cable boxes are also closed by nature, and always will be. Communication happens between the headend and the box, and noone else is involved. Even if it provides internet access, that access will be using 1483 bridging so that no packets can be sent to the box from your home network.

    All linux will be providing is the OS. All the driver's and Applications will be written by a dev company ,sold to the cable provider, and designed so that you cannot access them. And these drivers/apps do not fall under the GPL.

    Also keep in mind that these are embedded systems, meaning that most features like audio/video are not handled in software at all, but in a chip from ccube, ibm, vmlabs, etc.

    For example your encoder question. It's not a question of what encoder they use for video. They won't even use software encoders. Somewhere there will be a farm of specialized video encoder hardware from Minerva or Pixstream/Cisco converting video into Mpeg2 streams which then gets shipped out over the cable network.


    Sig:
  • I think microsoft paid nokia alot of money recently. After they announced the linux product.

    I dont think we'll be seeing the nokia box any time soon.

    Check out this register article about recent Canoodling between MS and Nokia. [theregister.co.uk]
  • TiVO is alive and well, but oh yeah, you're just flame baiting.
  • Consensus Estimates, Revenue Estimates, Average.

    This Quarter(7/2001)Next Quarter(10/2001)This Year(1/2002)Next Year(1/2003) $4.0M_______________$5.7M________________$21M_____ _______$75M

    Link to yahoo financial research on TiVO [yahoo.com]

    I dont know where you got your numbers, but they aren't the facts reported on yahoo.com
  • Duh, revenues count more than earnings in for growth companies. :) heh, it worked for amazon (sorta).
  • Awesome. That's good news, mr 10Ghz :) I'm glad nokia has some balls. Maybe it's the brisk air up there. :)
  • ...Red Hat, who invented Linux...
    what? um, linus is gonna be a little disapointed when he finds that one out, since the rest of the world credits him with inventing Linux. surely you mean that Red Hat was the first distribution! oh, but wait, that's not true, either. the first commercial company to back it? nope. so what're you talking about?
    So, to think that companies like ATI and TiVo would go together in a venutre like this is rediculous.
    yet, there they are. along with a few other companies that are pretty improtant in the industry (despite the stupid editorial commentary in the intial /. posting).

    this isn't about them all uniting in peace and harmony. standars processes are often frought with political issues (both among countries and companies). but often what's in their best interests is in our best interests, too. sometimes.
  • uh, in what sense is QNX a Linux clone? i think maybe you're a little Linux-happy here. QNX is arguably a Unix clone, in the same some of the same ways that Linux is, but i've seen no evidence of QNX being a Linux clone. indeed, it's real-time, embeded nature targets very different things than Linux does, with very different priorities.

    oh, and many of the important standards for the Internet or modern computing were contributed largely to by major companies. it's not so much the who's involved that's often problematic (although it certainly can be), but more often the nature of the process that's broken, resulting in broken standards.

  • You're misinformed (Score:5)

    by teg ( 97890 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @06:21AM (#157945)

    Just thinking back to the wars between distributions, Red Hat, who invented Linux

    We didn't invent Linux, or even the concept of a Linux distribution. Red Hat Linux was the first distribution with a decent package system, and overtook the previous leader, Slackware. And Slackware wasn't the first one either... it replaced SLS as the leader earlier.

    and brought it to the marketplace, has their own proprietary code contained within the source

    That's not correct - our kernels don't contain proprietary code. The only proprietary code in Red Hat Linux is netscape 4.x, which we intend to replace with mozilla (already included, the question is when we can drop netscape 4.x without users complaining too much). Our kernels come with full source code - and if you look in the SRPM, you'll find all the patches nicely separated and categorized.

    Why do you think that they give pre-compiled kernels?

    So we can be sure that the kernels are working and tested, and compiled with a known good toolchain, to name two reasons.

  • No, revenues count more than earings for WELL CAPITALIZED growth companies. When you're down to less than a year of cash reserves, you'd better start worrying about earnings.

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.
  • Ha! Allow me to reprint for you all a couple numbers gleaned from their April quarterly report (which I also posted to a previous /. story a while back, but it's just too appropriate here not to repeat):

    Net loss last quarter: $49 million.
    Net loss a year ago last quarter: $23 million.

    Cash and equivalents last quarter: $72.7 million.
    Cash and equivalents a year ago last quarter: $124.5 million.

    So, even assuming that their burn rate does not increase (though, the current trend is doubling from last year to this), they'll be broke by next January. Hmm, right about the same time as Webvan.

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

  • You quoted future projections, as estimated by the (universally bullish) "experts" on Wall Street. Sometimes they're right, sometimes not. Also, those numbers are REVENUE numbers, not earnings numbers. So, subtract expenses and you get earnings.

    So, none of that contradicts the historical earnings data I pulled (from TiVo's investor relations site, from their quarterly report).

    Don't be so quick to call wild speculation "facts."

    The only "intuitive" interface is the nipple. After that, it's all learned.

  • QNX has been in reality BEFORE first Linux went out from LT hands... watch your facts - it helps...

  • Sort of like the god-and-nazis Usenet rule, as soon as the phrase "Set Top Box(es)" is uttered in a headline...

    (Well, some of the subsections [slashdot.org] already have the WiReD color-scheme-cum-retinal-damage thing going on.)

    :-) Kill your TV, and the box sitting on top of it.


    --
    News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org [geekaustin.org]

  • although if it results in the existence of cheap hardware with Linux driver support than that'd be a good thing

    That is, unless the application interface to those drivers is not V4L but instead a proprietary interface "protected" with DMCA-level (i.e. at least 8-bit XOR) encryption at the syscall level.

    I've got to wonder what exactly they're looking to licence...

    DMCA rights to the drivers may be part of it.

  • Yes, you're mistaken. Netscape 4.x source is not available -- what they released is Mozilla, or at least an early precursor of what we call Mozilla today.

  • I suspect... (Score:3)

    by TheWarlocke ( 142349 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @05:57AM (#157953) Homepage
    That nothing will ever come of it, because there are too many companies with too many of their own agendas. Do we need a standardized API of the sort their discussing? Not need, as such, but it would be a great thing to have. Will it get done by all these companies? I seriously doubt it. That's what happens when you get this many companies together... corportate politics comes into play, and everyone's trying to get "their standard" adopted so that they can sell more of their video chipsets, sound or modem chipsets, or cheese graters. Sad but true.
  • the companies listed as "irrelevant" are irrelevant only in terms of this particular venture...meaning, quite simply, that their roles in its implementation are very small compared to the other more involved companies.

    I'd disagree, particularly with Liberate. They go head to head with MS, having beaten them out in contracts for STB's as well as supplying STB's where MS WAS to be the supplier, only they couldn't deliver when they were suppossed to. They're large enough to make a standard 'stick' as well as become 'socially acceptable' to some of the skeptic corporate types.

  • You seem to be missing the point of the whole thing. With no current standard in place, one is bound to happen sooner or later. Keep in mind that a good number of these companies that are part of the alliance are already part of the ELC, creating proprietary standards is not anything the alliance wants to do. Your concerns about software development being kept closed source are also unwarranted. The few software companies that are part of the alliance have a large portion of their business structure centered around open source software development and interaction with the open source community. And on top of all this.. what does it really matter? They're free to come up with what "standards" they want. It isn't going to make a difference if no one utilizes the standard.
  • Oh, I wouldn't put it past Scotty Boy. One does get the sense that he'd love to see Sun move out of the market it's built for itself, into the consumer market -- how else do you explain Blade, which IMHO is a pretty blatant attempt to test the downmarket waters?

    I think Sun wants into the consumer market very badly but so far has had to take it slow. (Heck, for all I know that was their intent with the failed Apple merger in '97...) They do have an in with Linux (LI members for how long? A couple of years anyway...) and roughly the same interest in promoting it as Apple does Darwin (i.e. selling the hardware to people who don't care for the OS), so that's no shock there. Buying Cobalt gave them some expertise in condensed systems design as well; I doubt it's that much of a stretch to go from a Qube to a set-top box.

    So I think we'll be seeing Sun making noise about moving into the consumer market Real Soon Now. I doubt they'd go after the desktop, but the TV room or thin client (think SPARC-based iOpener)... hey. Could happen.

    /Brian
  • Actually, that's precisely how Mandrake and TurboLinux (and Yellow Dog, for that matter) started out; they were all RedHat clones in the beginning. They've all grown in different directions, though.

    I actually don't think there's anything wrong with this, though -- that's why the GPL exists. They didn't all copy RedHat, obviously, but a lot of them did.

    /Brian
  • I'd say and/or is more like it, but y'know...

    Still, like I said, look at Blade. Who is buying this? I'd bet it was at least intended as much for amateur techies as it is the target SPARC market. We know what Scott McNealy thinks of Microsoft, and I'm sure he'd take a piece of that pie if he could get it. I submit that it sure as hell looks like he's going to give it a try.

    /Brian
  • PII 350 (bargain price) 50$ (with mobo)
    Where can you get a P-II 350 +mobo for $50?
  • Lets be a little less pessimistic. Sure its a big IF that anything will come of this but it would be great if it dio work out.

    Oxygen depleted....

    Turning blue....

    CO2 levels over max...

    Must breathe....

    Uuughhh....

    ....User off line....

  • this really blows (Score:3)

    by zoftie ( 195518 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @08:36AM (#157961) Homepage
    Linux that is a vessel for JVM? Java? Linux in
    itself is very capable crossplatform OS. Sticking
    something that a corporation owns, into Linux
    standart is herecy. java is great tool, however
    making it part of specification begs for trouble.
    Having Notice how the only definitive software
    component of the whole thing is JVM. The rest
    exists already, like Nvidia drivers...

    Specification is statement of the obvious...
    Companies like Lokigames donating SDL and alike
    packages thus making their own standarts, being
    proactive, rather than formalizing stuff that already exists there.
    Such constrains will ultimately tie linux down,
    in the future, just like it did Windows.
    Windows could not been rewritten, because of the
    large set of applications was depending on API
    bugs went unfixed for years. Same is to come for
    Linux as corporatoids demand higher profits with
    less investment, that would be part of these
    nonsense political groups swaying enduser crowd.
    What made the linux are hackers, donations of
    software under GPL, or BSD licences, and clear
    documentation if code is not, same goes for *BSD.

    In the end these groups will lay things out how
    things are ought to be done, and thats bull, cuz
    if I do code for my enjoyment, I will not listen
    to *no* corporate head, part of the group of
    people who like sitting around and telling
    everyone what is the right thing to do. I will
    just write code.
  • Why do you think that they give pre-compiled kernels? Red Hat doesn't want to give its secrets to Debian, or SuSe, or anybody else.

    Ever take a look at the Red Hat source disc? The kernel code's all right there, troll.

  • Tivo is a great example of a company using Linux in a way that Grandma can understand. Linux as a desktop environment might be confusing for some, but Tivo puts a nice face on it - you never know the underlying system is running Linux, you just get a pretty GUI.

    My question is why can't that happen on the desktop? Clearly Tivo has shown it's possible to make it really easy, but to also retain the hackability underneath for the geeks to play with.

  • Damn... (Score:4)

    by CraigoFL ( 201165 ) <slashdot@kanook. n e t> on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @06:07AM (#157964)
    The one company I wanted to be on that list, Nokia, isn't there. Nokia's coming out with a very cool looking Linux set-top box called the Media Terminal [nokia.com].

    There's been no less than 5 Slashdot articles on this new box:
    Nokia and Intel to make Linux-based Set-Top Box [slashdot.org]
    Nokia and Loki Together on Linux Terminal [slashdot.org]
    Nokia Media Terminal [slashdot.org]
    Nokia's $400 Linux Terminal For The Masses [slashdot.org]
    Nokia's Linux Based Xbox Competitor [slashdot.org]

    It does lots of cool stuff: PVR (Personal Video Recorder, a la TiVo), MP3, web browsing, even games, and it'll probably be easily hackable too. It should be out sometime in the fall, and I'm really looking forward to it.

  • Just thinking back to the wars between distributions, Red Hat, who invented Linux and brought it to the marketplace, has their own proprietary code contained within the source, and they're not in any hurry to distribute it. Why do you think that they give pre-compiled kernels? Red Hat doesn't want to give its secrets to Debian, or SuSe, or anybody else.

    Where did this come from? With all the falsehoods in this statement, I am surprised it was mod'ed up. Red Hat did NOT invent linux. It was not even the first to market it, but it has done good job of marketing it in the U.S.A. I don't know of any "proprietary code" code in Red Hat Kernel. What a troll!

  • More or less irrelevant? (Score:4)

    by 91degrees ( 207121 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @05:55AM (#157966) Journal
    • Motorola - Major semiconductor corporation. Large range of CPU's
    • Pace Micro Technology - Major STB manufacturer.
    • STMicroelectronics - Huge semiconductor giant who make internals for many types of STB
    • Sun Microsystems - A corporation that has server operating systems as a primary focus.
    I wouldn't really say these companies were that irrelevant. They are certainly more important than TiVo and ATI.
  • I work in Interactive TV as an OpenTV developer. There's nothing to prove here. They openly state that their tools are based on GNU tools. For example, gcco is a gcc compiler that produces OpenTV 'o-code' bytecodes which are executed by the set-top-box (like java bytecodes). They have several other GNU-based tools like aso (o-code assembler etc.). They supply a copy of the GPL with these tools. But they won't provide the source when we ask them.

    If you want to ask for the source for their GNU-based sofware, or complain, then email support@opentv.com [mailto]

    HH
  • you can add OpenTV to the list - major STB middleware vendor with several million boxes deployed in Europe (BskyB, TPS...) and the US (Echostar...)
  • Net loss last quarter: $49 million.
    Net loss a year ago last quarter: $23 million.

    Hey, look at that year-over-year growth!

  • I don't think they started talking about it until '00. Regardless Nokia was demoing it at this years JavaOne...

  • Not surprising (Score:3)

    by ClosedSource ( 238333 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @07:58AM (#157971)
    It's not surprising that companies see the advantage of not having to pay license fees to Microsoft. But so what? If this initiative is successful, it will mean more profit for the companies involved. It won't mean that you'll pay any less for your cable box or cable services. I'm sure the companies will appreciate all the free work that Linux developers do for them. It sure beats hiring programmers.
  • I've worked with developing digital-TV applications, and the current platforms suck so bad it aint even fun.

    I agree, I also work on iDTV (www.kitv.co.uk), and this statement is so VERY TRUE, it's painful to think about. Quite frankly, our STB supplier suck's big time, they are the worst supplier I've ever had to deal with in 12+ years in IT.

    I fully characterised over a dozen bug's in the beta release of the standard software baseline, nearly two years latter ONE of them has been fixed.

    One of their Chief technical officers stood up in a meeting 2 weeks after the DVB standard and said "Java has no future on Set-top-boxes".

    They then offer JavaScript as a replacement, they where not kidding. :(

    Another senior technical office (a Dr of electronics no less) did not understand the concept of address space.

    So I say roll on an open standard platform for STB's.

  • Now crawl back in your little hole and take your pathetic attempts at starting a conflict with you.

    Wow... And you say he's flaming? you both have some good points, so go take a nap or drink some jolt, and come back when you both have your senses about you. I think companies like Motorola and STM have a HUGE amount to gain from this thing, as helping make sure Linux runs on their hardware as well or better than anyone else's could stand to bring them LOTs of money.
  • I haven't bothered to read the rest of these bits to see if these where mentioned, I'm sure the people who normally post them don't either.

    First)

    "Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!"
    Kind of bland.

    Second)
    "I wonder how long they're hacked to run linux!!!!11"

    (1's intentional)

    Ok, I'm done... yes, I am pointless, and so is this post.
  • Have you seen the WebTV? Hell, I haven't seen an ad for one in ages, and I've never once seen the product in someone's house. The two things are just too different to combine in one product. I have a few boxes, and now that I have a fat pipe, the number will go up (dedicated firewall, freenet, honeypot). I've got a few screens, and that number will hold steady; There wonn't be any convergence between my "computers" and my "TV," regardless of how many boxes or screens either has.

    Personal computers and TVs serve very different functions. I'm not arguing this for stereos, mind you (I'm dreaming of Wurlitzer design cues for one of the boxes), but music is a background thing- it doesn't take your attention the way a screen does. I've got a DVD drive in my box, but that was a waste of money. I don't watch movies on the computer- different functions. My TV is fed by a cable, not by my computer. I'll be happy to give my TV a dedicated processor and HD, but those will be TV components to me, a set top box. Even if I can control it from my desktop, it still will not be a part of my desktop.

  • Yeah, now nobody will think you're a troll.

    Looking back through your posts I'm having trouble figuring out what exactly you're trying toget across, aside from the fact that you're more than willing to just invent information to support your case (hint: when your forum is Slashdot, and the subject is Linux, inventing facts does NOT support your case).

    So what is your point, WW? That corporations try to serve their self-interest, and often use deceptive spin to make it seem like their only objective is to serve their customers? Geez, maybe you should be hitting up the NY Times with this breaking news instead of a podunk operation like Slashdot.

    No, I see from the more recent post that your real point is the vast conspiracy of lies that is America. Fake Spies! JFK! Waco! Digital Television Recorder Standards! Is there no end to the sneaky tactics of our alien overlords?!

    There are plenty of intelligent people who look at the evidence of what happened at Waco and conclude that the FBI and ATF bear some degree (how much is arguable, I don't feel qualified to argue an opinion) of the responsibility of the deaths of the Davidians. Plenty of reasonable souls believe that McVeigh was supported in his terroristic attack and chose to maintain the assertion that he acted alone because of his desires to protect accomplices and aggrandize himself. Shit goes on in this world, there is corruption all over the place. But to carry this assertion forward as you do and use it to justify unproven and unsupported claims about the corporate practices of particular companies is not valid reasoning. A blanket assumption of corruption and conspiracy about all things corporate or government is just as misleading as the blanket assumption of good will and innocence you seem to be attributing to anyone who disagrees with you.

  • W3C [w3.org] has many member companies [w3.org], and it manages to publish tons of standards...
  • Maybe not a troll. Probably just dumb.

    Here's a clue - neither RedHat nor Linux existed in the 70s.
  • I dunno.

    Why I dunno?

    Because the article didn't say shit.

    If the picture is reliable (yeah, right), then all they've standardized is the upper interface to the drivers. The right third of that is generic driver API; i.e., open, close, read, write, yadda, blah, etc.

    So, putatively (and I ain't puting until I see it on 8x10 color glossy photographs with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one), you could add any HW driver you want. Provided you know the HW. And how to write drivers and alter the initialization scripts to turn off OEM drivers that try to open the same HW.

    The definition of the interface strongly implies some definition of the function to be performed when you call across that interface. But no, that's not an interface spec, that's a software functional spec. Side effects. Some of which you'd hope they'd standardize. There's a big difference between a standard that says "calling int power_off(void) returns 0 for success and 1 for failure" and one that says "calling power_off() turns the power off". Big enough that it makes me think that the picture in the article was typical bogus hack-journalistic Not Getting the Point.

    But. I still expect the standard API to be there. And the source code for non-proprietary drivers. Or else Limux might just have to start migrating certain things at a faster rate than the "standards" people can keep up with.

    --Blair

  • Specs are a way to standardize a platform so that multiple efforts can strive for a common goal. Specifications, however, do not impede on proactive donations of GPL/BSD software.

    Convergence Integrated Media [convergence.de], one of the companies involved, is contributing to Free Software via DirectFB [directfb.org] which seems to be quite [directfb.org] impressive [directfb.org].

    In any case the corporate adoption of GNU/Linux as a viable platform should help spread copyleft fever. This is a Good Thing.

  • Their kernels are special RedHat version (same with SuSE), but they also include the source code to these patched versions.
    And what do you mean by "Other distributions copied Red Hat???" Some of the other distros may use some of the Red Hat features, but to say that in such a general form is definately not true! (what has Slackware / Debian got to do with RH??)

  • Probably not. (Score:3)

    by catpyss ( 321548 ) on Tuesday June 12, 2001 @06:32AM (#157982) Homepage
    I can definitely see the danger with influential companies taking an "interest" in Linux, however people like myself that use Linux for our own purposes outweigh companies.

    Suppose for a minute that one notable contributor [ibm.com] decides that Linux should only run on a cerain platform [amiga.com]. They shmooze kernel developers to drop other platforms and Linux 2.4.5 is the last Linux as we know it. Are we doomed? Nope. We have the kernel source so we can do with it as we please.

    Another thing to consider is that here we are talking about an effort to produce an API, something which could benefit users and developers. X Windows has many of them, and nobody is forced into anything. I would much rather companies add APIs than fork Linux into things like: LinuxTV or LinuxIBM.
  • too true. If anyone is wrong here its CmdrTaco for posting that ATI is a bigger name than Motorola.

    ATI does have larger brand recognition for gamers but that hardly a benchmark, Motorola has
    about 10x the revenue of ATI, ATI could disappear tomorrow the same way as 3DFX

  • Of course, this assumes the manufacturers want to license TV Linux technology.
  • Same place I got cheap Hollywood : Second Hand !

    You can get all sort of crap at auctions or second hand, friends....

    my hollywood + cost me 33$.
    the PII 350 I already got.

    You really want cheap ? buy a K-6 !

  • I don't know if you know but...

    PII 350 (bargain price) 50$ (with mobo)
    HDD 40Go 155$
    A Shitty TNT2 30$
    Hollywood + 40$
    a Sound card : 25$

    Linux (free for some, very expensive if I charge my hourly flat rate as a consultant, rate yourself)

    => 300bucks for a DVD-MP3 station.

    You add 50$ for TV In and you have a Top line Tivo-Mp3-OogsRipping-PrOn station.
    That you can upgrade as you wish

    Please stop bothering me with Top Boxes that will come in 5 years, and of which we speak for 3 years.

    I made my own out of despair 8)

  • I looked briefly at the article...er...JVM was on top of the TV API layer watever. That is a JVM is an optional application but not part of the new spec. hope this helps.

  • Yes, what about that article? Steve Ballmer visited Finland, and while he was here, he told that he would love to see MS co-operate with Nokia. Nokia refused. End of story. If I remember correctly, they (Nokia) have told that they "don't want same thing to happen to mobile-phones that has happened to the PC, where one company has stranglehold on it". Of course, we all know what that "company" is they are referring to.

    In fact, there's a urban legend here in Finland (I dunno that is it true or not), that MS top executives (led by Mr. Gates himself) visited Nokia HQ few years back, and they tried to push Win CE to Nokias future phones... Well, Nokia execs literally laughed at them! Needless to say, Nokia chose Symbian, and MS went back home empty-handed.

  • From the press release: The founding companies are: ACTV, ATI Technologies, Broadcom Corporation, Concurrent Computer Corporation, Conexant, Convergence Integrated Media, DIVA, Excite@Home, iSurfTV, Liberate Technologies, Lineo, MontaVista, Motorola, nCUBE, OpenTV, Pace Micro Technology, Qpass, PeplayTV ...

    Is "PeplayTV" actually a misspelling for Replay? I assume it is, but then I wondered if it was some unknown startup trying to ride on the coattails (and mis-typings) of Replay's users...

    Does anyone know?

    Also: what's with the "I'll believe it when I see it" cynicism? This is a *good thing* -- especially when TIVO, PePlay, and ATI are involved.

    What, you want Microsoft to come on in with their odd UltimateTV and stomp all over anyone who's not Microsoft?

    I don't see MS looking for a "standards-based" television platform. (Although I wonder if their .NET technology will someone play into Ultimate TV and XBOX. That might be somewhat exciting ...)

  • Whenever I see a bunch of large-ish companies getting together to discuss "standards", I get worried. A big conglomerate like this could have the marketing power to impose any standard it likes, even if it is not a good one. For example, what if they decide the "industry-standard" set-top box should use a closed-source encoder as standard? Or a GPL-free Linux clone like QNX? Too much power in this few hands is worrisome.



  • SLASHDOT: When News Breaks, We Give You The Pieces

    ...hmmm...bunch of companies no-one cares about or has any faith in...together to make a set of standards that by definition will have to be unbelievably flexible. this is vaporware, and even if it comes through, these standards will be all but useless. the machine that is used for server purposes should not be the same machine used as a desktop machine (or games machine, or for music, or development, or....) the only way this is going to happen on a microsoft-like scale is if two or three distros (red hat, debian, suse, et al,) get together and agree to combine efforts (apt-get is usefull enough that all distros should have a standardized version of it, ditto RPM and a standardized installer is a must). it would also be a Good Thing if IBM diverted some of that money they're promising for Linux and threw 1/3 of that to standards development (as it is, they'll prolly develop their _own_ standards) and another 1/3 to advertising (REAL advertising, like on TV, or full-page business magazine ads, not this spray-paint the town red bullshit.)

    -d.
    --
    Slashdot: When News Breaks, We Give You The Pieces
  • There was NO sarcasm in that first post! None at all! He was completely serious. You are NOT missing the sarcasm. I repeat there was NO sarcasm at all!

    -IO
  • the companies listed as "irrelevant" are irrelevant only in terms of this particular venture...meaning, quite simply, that their roles in its implementation are very small compared to the other more involved companies.

  • i've already given this same response to a subsequent thread, but i'll reply to you in the same respect, just to clarify what seems to be a poor choice of words... the companies that are referred to as "irrelevant" in this article are only "irrelevant" in the fact that they are less involved than ATI and TiVo...they don't stand to gain as much from such a venture, and so they are not lending as much support.

  • now that was irrelevant. I simply stated a fact, not some flamebait. I understand that motorola could profit from this venture, as could several of the other companies...but that wasn't my POINT. My point was that they are not yet as INTERESTED in investing as heavily as ATI and TiVo, and thus are not RELEVANT at this point in the game. Now crawl back in your little hole and take your pathetic attempts at starting a conflict with you.

  • this is true... however, my point was not that STB or Liberate were not in a position to really turn this product out...my point was that they are not yet investing as much as ATI or Tivo. Again, i was simply giving a more accurate definition of the word "irrelevant" (a word that was somewhat poorly chosen by the author of the post).

  • I'd suggest Motorola has a great deal at stake here. They developed the DCT-5000 years ago, and the hardware was ostensibly ready in 1999. The only software effort they put any resources into was WinCE, however, and due to Microsoft's inability to deliver their MSTV software there are hundreds of thousands of DCT-5000's sitting in warehouses, undeployed. The TV Linux Alliance provides an excellent vehicle for getting Linux up and running on the box in a way that will allow Liberate, OpenTV, and others to quickly port their middleware and make the boxes useful.
  • Sun has a lot at stake here as well. Most of the application standards in the digital TV space are Java TV-based (OpenCable, DVB-MHP, ATSC-DASE). They can't get the Java piece out without a sufficiently robust operating system underneath, however. This Alliance should ensure that happens, without any dependencies on MS.
  • I believe this API was defined by Convergence, who have joined the TV Linux Alliance. If good ideas exist in the former I imagine they'll show up in the latter...
  • Probably will have to join their organization to get access to the code, and, at minimum, buy a license to get access to the full api to develop your apps for it.

    This API is really not aimed at application developers - that's what DVB-MHP and OCAP are for, since portability and security are paramount considerations for applications being carried into your settop box. This API is designed to make it easier for chipset vendors to provide drivers to make their silicon quickly integratable into the settop box, and at standardizing a porting layer to make it faster for the middleware vendors (Liberate, OpenTV, etc.) to port their middleware. A few apps may live at this level where performance or direct hardware access dictate, but the cable and satellite industry want most of the apps to be written as Java xlets or HTML/JavaScript, whichever is appropriate.
  • Correct. As stated elsewhere in this thread, cable/satellite operators want completely portable apps, not even ones which have to be recompiled based on the underlying processor (ignoring the security risks inherent in a non-sandbox model). Apps which can be will be written to the Java TV API's, or as HTML/JavaScript. Apps which need direct hardware access or higher performance will be written as native code.

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close