 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Thinking about it, are there *any* other viable free (as in no-cost)
> operating systems for embedded systems, other than Linux and NetBSD?
Anybody know the status of QNX?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>
>> Thinking about it, are there *any* other viable free (as in no-cost)
>> operating systems for embedded systems, other than Linux and NetBSD?
>
> Anybody know the status of QNX?
Oh dear. I was going to make fun of someone who would ask that question,
but then I saw it was Andrew.
http://www.qnx.com/
That didn't even take google. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan <m.n### [at] ieee org> wrote:
> > attempts at hacking (eg. by email worms, rootkits, etc). It would be cheaper
> > too.
> Sadly, not cheaper.
Last time I checked, Windows costed hundreds of euros, while Linux was
completely free. I call that cheaper. Maybe your definition is different.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> But no, that's kind of the point. People use Linux professionally not so
> much because it's particularly good, but because it's licensed free, which
> is what you like when you have either 500,000 servers or you have a profit
> margin in the single-digit dollars.
But nowadays eg. Solaris is free too, and should be quite robust (as it has
a long history precisely in server environments). Also the different BSD
variants (but especially NetBSD, if I have understood correctly) are of
quite high quality (especially in terms of security), especially for server
environment.
I'm not exactly sure why precisely Linux is so popular, given that most
software is not designed specifically for Linux, but basically everything
has been ported to other unix-style systems as well (especially the BSD
variants).
Maybe it's because Linux has the most polished distributions which minimize
the amount of setupping and administrative work?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> > Warp wrote:
> >
> >> Thinking about it, are there *any* other viable free (as in no-cost)
> >> operating systems for embedded systems, other than Linux and NetBSD?
> >
> > Anybody know the status of QNX?
> Oh dear. I was going to make fun of someone who would ask that question,
> but then I saw it was Andrew.
> http://www.qnx.com/
> That didn't even take google. :-)
A quick look seems to reveal that QNX (whatever it might be) is not free
for commercial use, so it doesn't really fit the no-cost part of my question.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/13/09 12:21, Warp wrote:
> Neeum Zawan<m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>>> attempts at hacking (eg. by email worms, rootkits, etc). It would be cheaper
>>> too.
>
>> Sadly, not cheaper.
>
> Last time I checked, Windows costed hundreds of euros, while Linux was
> completely free. I call that cheaper. Maybe your definition is different.
I meant Mac OS was not cheaper.
--
I'm! A! Graduate! Of! The! Bill! Shatner! Acting! School!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> But nowadays eg. Solaris is free too, and should be quite robust (as it has
> a long history precisely in server environments). Also the different BSD
> variants (but especially NetBSD, if I have understood correctly) are of
> quite high quality (especially in terms of security), especially for server
> environment.
Oh, I think those get used also. You could argue that the BSD variants are
driving Apple's server clusters, for example.
Plus, people using Solaris or BSD don't necessarily tell you they're doing
so. I've often heard "We use X inside our product, but we don't tell people
that because it's a competitive advantage."
> Maybe it's because Linux has the most polished distributions which minimize
> the amount of setupping and administrative work?
It could be that.
It could be that Linux is more friendly than Solaris or BSDs to people doing
significant improvements and incorporating them into future releases. For
example, if Google releases a "fall over from master to slave replica
without stopping the server" improvement to MySQL, it likely it gets into
future releases. That doesn't necessarily happen with MS SQL Server. I would
suspect the same is true of improvements in Linux.
Basically, it's a network effect. Everyone uses Linux because that's what
everyone knows in detail. It's good marketing, somehow.
When Google talks about map/reduce, someone implements it on Linux within a
month. I don't know why they picked Linux, but probably because they already
had Linux yadda yadda. So it's the same "unjustified" network effect you get
with Windows - people pick Windows because everyone they know uses Windows.
OS geeks hack on Linux because Linux is the platform where all the OS geeks
hack. Computer nerds move to Silicon Valley because that's where all the
other computer nerds live, which means there's nerd jobs to choose from,
which means there's a big bunch of nerds to choose from, ...
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> A quick look seems to reveal that QNX (whatever it might be)
QNX is a well-known RTOS that's quite popular. It's basically real-time
Unixish. It's very portable.
At this point, such special systems are fading out, because even stuff as
small as your phone is capable of running Linux. Back when "embedded" meant
8K ROM 1K RAM, it wasn't reasonable to have anything close to Linux on such
chips.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> QNX is a well-known RTOS that's quite popular. It's basically real-time
> Unixish. It's very portable.
>
> At this point, such special systems are fading out, because even stuff
> as small as your phone is capable of running Linux. Back when
> "embedded" meant 8K ROM 1K RAM, it wasn't reasonable to have anything
> close to Linux on such chips.
As I understand it, the main use for RTOS is stuff like industrial
robotics, where guaranteed timing is crucial. (E.g., you don't want a
robot to drill a hole in the wrong place just because of a scheduling
glitch.) It's not really for "personal computers", as such.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> As I understand it, the main use for RTOS is stuff like industrial
> robotics, where guaranteed timing is crucial.
Yep. And video games. And media decoding. And a whole bunch of other stuff
that interacts with physics including the time dimension.
> It's not really for "personal computers", as such.
I disagree. As I've said before, cell phones are extremely real-time
devices, to the point of needing to know the temperature so they can adjust
for how much that makes their quartz crystal drift.
You're not going to want a GC cycle to interrupt your playback of your CD,
either. Etc.
When your machine has 5x the power it would need to do the job with
dedicated software from the ground up, it's easy to load a 3x overhead
factor in the form of a general purpose OS and still get it working OK.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
