Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 06:15:09 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 06:15:09 -0400 Received: from anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net ([194.217.242.80]:36568 "EHLO anchor-post-39.mail.demon.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 06:15:07 -0400 From: "" To: Alan Cox Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 11:06:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux? CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <3DA16A9B.7624.4B0397@localhost> References: <20021005.212832.102579077.davem@redhat.com> In-reply-to: <1033923206.21282.28.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4428 Lines: 110 Following this thread I am even more disturbed about the embedded Linux world. I do not have any problem with code size, and I would have no problem in paying for some kernel development should I require it. I would ask questions via this mailing list but I would not expect kernel developers to fix problems specific to my environment. I agree that the embedded projects are in need of cpu control, irq behaviour etc. I can also accept that this is the case for a large percentage of embedded projects. I have no real perception of what hardware people use their embedded projects but in my case the hardware is dedicated to the specific task in hand. To get Linux running on the hardware I had to make changes to kernel/lilo code. The hardware has it's own type of interrupt controller, no RTC, it's own type of serial port, no vga etc. These changes are specific to this hardware and are not likely to exist anywhere else. I do not expect kernel developers to maintain this and maybe I am missing the point completely, but why would anyone want me to distribute this code ? More to the point what about the drivers more specific to the task of the hardware ? No one else can run these drivers so how could I expect someone else to maintain them ? The real point of all this is that the kernel developers seem really upset about embedded code which is not released under the GPL. I can understand the desire to keep all of the code free and open. I can also understand how upsetting Linux developers must be in seeing their code being used for other peoples gain, who do not wish to participate in the open source arena. However I can not understand how it would be practical for many organizations to release code under the GPL for specific hardware. The only use I could see for this is other people taking a look to see how the hardware works. This to some companies is too much to give away. Perhaps someone could educate me on this point ? I thought that this was the main problem for embedded projects. If this is no the case I would like to know. So I see the end of embedded Linux not in the code size or speed sense but in the constant battle between organizations wanting to keep their ideas to themselves and the kernel developers wanting these organizations to distribute GPL code. Many Thanks Simon. On 6 Oct 2002, at 17:53, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, 2002-10-06 at 05:28, David S. Miller wrote: > > Embedded applications tend to have issues which are entirely specific > > to that embedded project. As such, those are things that do not > > belong in a general purpose OS. > > 90% of the embedded Linux problem is not this. Its actually easy to get > most of the embedded needs into the base kernel - in fact they overlap > the other worlds a lot. > > Need low power consumption/resource usage - thats S/390 mainframe > instances and ibm wristwatches. > > Need good cpu control - thats desktop/laptop and embedded > > Need good irq behaviour (pre-empt/low latency) - thats desktop/embedded > > and it carries on like that. > > No the big problem is that each embedded vendor is desperately trying to > keep their changes out of the mainstream so they can screw each other. > In doing so the main people they screw are all their customers. > > So if the embedded people want 2.6 to be good at embedded they need to > get their heads out of their arses and contribute to the mainstream. > Otherwise they'll always be chasing a moving ball, and a ball most > people are kicking the other way down the field. Its a simple fact of > line, if you stick you head up your backside all you get to do is eat > shit > > (and yes there are some embedded people who do contribute but they are > sadly a real minority) > > Alan > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ __________________________ Simon Haynes - Baydel Phone : 44 (0) 1372 378811 Email : simon@baydel.com __________________________ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/