RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 108 bytes --]

limitation of mailer.

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:10:50 -0700 	jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2804 bytes --]

From: jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 17:10:50 -0700
Message-ID: <20021008001050.GB6537@pegasys.ws>

On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 04:01:46PM -0700, David S. Miller wrote:
>    From: <Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net>
>    Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 21:04:29 +0100
> 
>    Then shouldn't the thing thats different from the norm be programmed into a header file which contains how certain functions should be handled differently, which can be dynamically switched by a config option?
>    
> If I gave you a dollar, would you go out and buy some newlines
> to use in future emails?

Maybe he could exchange the mime headers for newlines if he
put his comments at the end where they belong.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt
-
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/

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Gerhard Mack]

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> limitation of mailer.

Are you emailing from your TV set top box!?

	Gerhard

--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[David S. Miller]

   From: <Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net>
   Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:51:40 +0100

   limitation of mailer.
   
I know, it must be really hard to type carriage return
occaisionally.

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 113 bytes --]

oops didnt see that..

Cheers, Dean.

On 	09 Oct 2002 12:49:48 +0100 	Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2460 bytes --]

From: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Alexander Kellett <lypanov@kde.org>
Cc: jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: 09 Oct 2002 12:49:48 +0100
Message-ID: <1034164188.1253.5.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk>

On Wed, 2002-10-09 at 08:37, Alexander Kellett wrote: 
> This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd
> "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of
> having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support 
> for user space apps and is basically just an hardware 
> abstraction layer for "applications" that can be 
> written as kernel modules?

Its called FreeDOS,

-
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/

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 125 bytes --]

you might as well install freedos. lol

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:42:07 +0100 	Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2206 bytes --]

From: Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2002 13:42:07 +0100
Message-ID: <20021009134207.6eddf981.spyro@f2s.com>

On Wed, 9 Oct 2002 09:37:25 +0200
Alexander Kellett <lypanov@kde.org> wrote:

> This talk of adeos reminds me of something that i'd
> "dreamed" of a while back. Whats the feasability of
> having a 70kb kernel that barely even provides support 
> for user space apps and is basically just an hardware 
> abstraction layer for "applications" that can be 
> written as kernel modules?

Isnt that a microkernel? ;-) <ducks>
-
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/

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii, Size: 328 bytes --]

I dunno what you have but here in the uk, we like to be arseholes[joke], no then... My bandwidth bills are kept low, and I prefer the sofa to that seat thing I have, I go online to download/send patches, and its £728 cheaper.

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:55:20 -0300 (BRT) 	Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1324 bytes --]

From: Rik van Riel <riel@conectiva.com.br>
To: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net
Cc: gmack@innerfire.net, <jw@pegasys.ws>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 19:55:20 -0300 (BRT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L.0210081954560.22735-100000@imladris.surriel.com>

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> yeah!

Doesn't your settop box have a cursor so you can walk down and
put your reply below the original mail ?

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".
http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/
Current spamtrap:  <a href=mailto:"october@surriel.com">october@surriel.com</a>

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 106 bytes --]

yeah!

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:22:03 -0400 (EDT) 	Gerhard Mack <gmack@innerfire.net> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1762 bytes --]

From: Gerhard Mack <gmack@innerfire.net>
To: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net
Cc: jw@pegasys.ws, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:22:03 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210081020430.28170-100000@innerfire.net>

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> limitation of mailer.

Are you emailing from your TV set top box!?

	Gerhard

--
Gerhard Mack

gmack@innerfire.net

<>< As a computer I find your faith in technology amusing.

-
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/

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 145 bytes --]

yep. i prefer pressing enter though. lol.

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:00:14 -0700 (PDT) 	"David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1855 bytes --]

From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net
Cc: jw@pegasys.ws, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2002 13:00:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <20021008.130014.53509656.davem@redhat.com>

   From: <Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net>
   Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:51:40 +0100

   limitation of mailer.
   
I know, it must be really hard to type carriage return
occaisionally.
-
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/

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 177 bytes --]

Nobody said if you GPL it they would have to put it in the kernel...

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:52:49 -0700 (PDT) 	David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 5850 bytes --]

From: David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com>
To: simon@baydel.com
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0210080850270.3110-100000@dlang.diginsite.com>

note that you are allowed to distribute a binary-only module as long as
you don't use the GPL-only kernel symbols. Linus has stated that he
doesn't view use of the header files as enough to make a module a
dirivitive work (others disagree, but there are a number of binary modules
out there)

check the archives for the various flame wars over this issue.

David Lang

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 simon@baydel.com wrote:

> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 11:11:44 +0100
> From: simon@baydel.com
> To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
>
> On 7 Oct 2002, at 21:22, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 18:15, simon@baydel.com wrote:
> > > a serial port and an interupt controller. What I was trying to explain
> > > was that I would not mind making my code available for these
> > > kernel changes. Although I don't understand why anyone would
> > > want it. Apart from API changes, why do this ? The kernel is not
> > > easily or frequently changed on this type of system. It would bloat
> > > the kernel and I would expect to have to address problems of this
> > > nature myself.  However I would not like to make code available for
> > > the more specialised hardware.
> >
> > That depends how specialized the hardware actually is. I think I've see
> > six different non free implementations of 68360 sync serial code around
> > all proprietary for example.
> >
>
> The UART and Interrupt controllers in question are built into a gate
> array. I can't see how any external or parts from other vendors
> would be compatible. To get the board to boot Linux I have to
> modify the kernel and lilo. I understand that under the GPL rules I
> would have to make this code available. I am willing to do this but I
> don't see the point.
>
> There is also more specialized hardware for which I have written
> modules. Although there appears to be some unwritten rule about
> releasing objects, I believe that the GPL rules state that these
> modules must conform to the GPL also, as they contain header
> files. I cannot see how any module can not contain Linux headers
> or headers derived from Linux headers if it is to be loaded on a
> Linux kernel.
>
> These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody
> else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to
> use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this
> code under the GPL.
>
> This is my dilemma and I am sure it is shared by others. For this
> reason I cannot see how anything but an embedded PC with
> applications or a perhaps a very simple hardware device could be
> considered as an opportunity for  embedded Linux.
>
> I have based these thoughts on my experiences so far. If you feel I
> have drawn an incorrect conclusion I would be grateful for your
> input.
>
>
> Many Thanks
>
> Simon.
>
>
>
> > Also my original comments were much more aimed at the core stuff. People
> > who made existing and especially core stuff smaller could send the stuff
> > out. Several of us want to compile a CONFIG_TINY option, and suprisingly
> > enough small is good on high end boxes. My L1 cache is 8 times faster
> > than my L2 cache is 7 times faster than my memory. Or to put it another
> > way, going to main memory costs me maybe 100 instructions.
> >
> > My Athlon thinks small is good too!
> >
>
>
> __________________________
>
> 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/
>
-
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/

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[David Lang]

correct, also nobody said it would be accepted in the kernel even they GPL
it, but the in message I responded to Simon commented that he didn't see
how it was possible to make a module that wasn't GPL, and therefor he was
looking at having to use a different OS becouse he didn't want to GPL his
modules. I was just pointing out that modules that don't use the GPL-only
symbols don't have to be GPL (much as we would like them to be)

David Lang

On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net wrote:

> Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 17:32:25 +0100
> From: Hell.Surfers@cwctv.net
> To: david.lang@digitalinsight.com, simon@baydel.com, alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk,
>      linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?
>
> Nobody said if you GPL it they would have to put it in the kernel...
>
> Cheers, Dean.
>
> On 	Tue, 8 Oct 2002 08:52:49 -0700 (PDT) 	David Lang <david.lang@digitalinsight.com> wrote:
>
>

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 161 bytes --]

If its a personal project, use nothing, not even RMS would care[probably].

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Tue, 8 Oct 2002 04:27:19 -0700 	jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 6331 bytes --]

From: jw schultz <jw@pegasys.ws>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2002 04:27:19 -0700
Message-ID: <20021008112719.GC6537@pegasys.ws>

On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 11:11:44AM +0100, simon@baydel.com wrote:
> The UART and Interrupt controllers in question are built into a gate 
> array. I can't see how any external or parts from other vendors 
> would be compatible. To get the board to boot Linux I have to 
> modify the kernel and lilo. I understand that under the GPL rules I 
> would have to make this code available. I am willing to do this but I 
> don't see the point. 

The point is that is the license fee.  Under the BSD
license the fee is giving credit.  For Microsoft and other
closed-source/propietary licenses the fee is in money.
With the GPL the consideration (legal term under contract
law) or fee that you pay is to make the source of your
modifications and derivitave works available.
Most of the time that is a fairly inexpensive fee.

If you wish to negotiate a different fee all you have to do
is get every contributor to agree to a seperate license for
you.  You are free (libre) to try but i think it would be
cheaper to go elsewhere.

> There is also more specialized hardware for which I have written 
> modules. Although there appears to be some unwritten rule about 
> releasing objects, I believe that the GPL rules state that these 
> modules must conform to the GPL also, as they contain header 
> files. I cannot see how any module can not contain Linux headers 
> or headers derived from Linux headers if it is to be loaded on a 
> Linux kernel. 

Leave headers aside for the moment.  There is a tolerance
(barely) of binary modules distributed largely because they
suit the purposes of linux (world domination, haha).  Using binary
only modules that don't benefit that will draw the ire (if
not prosecution) of the community.

> These modules again drive gate array hardware for which nobody 
> else will ever have a compatible. Although I would dearly love to 
> use Linux as the platform for my project I feel I cannot release this 
> code under the GPL.

The fact that may be custom hardware that no-one else will
every have access to isn't relevant to the licence.  The
general concensus is that very few embedded projects are
really all that dependant on such specialized hardware.

> This is my dilemma and I am sure it is shared by others. For this 
> reason I cannot see how anything but an embedded PC with 
> applications or a perhaps a very simple hardware device could be 
> considered as an opportunity for  embedded Linux. 

It isn't much of a dilema.  It is just a simple choice you
have to make.  Do you create your own OS?  Or if you choose
to buy one, which license terms are best for you.

Of course you are free to use linux for prototyping and
product developement.  The publication requirements only
come into play when you distribute.  If you choose to use
linux to help develop your product and then distribute with
a different OS then linux has helped to enlarge the GGP
(Gross Global Product) and that is still good.

> I have based these thoughts on my experiences so far. If you feel I 
> have drawn an incorrect conclusion I would be grateful for your 
> input.

They may be correct conclusions for yourself.  Only you can
judge that.  I doubt that they are correct generalizations.

There are some things i would think about before rejecting
linux on such a basis.  Nothing prevents you from putting a
firmware layer underneath linux or putting a bit more
intelegence in your device and then providing a free driver
that can interface with it.  You may be able to put the
intellegence of your hardware control in a user-space
process with elevated priority.  You might look into
something like using the adeos nano-kernel to host linux and
the device controll software as seperate contexts with a
communications interface between them.  There are so many
ways to get linux and proprietary software and hardware to
talk to each other it seems silly to reject it just because
one of way bears license terms you don't like.

If you wish to use linux and contribute good.  If you wish
to go away that is your choice.  If you wish to whine, see
option two.  In either case good luck with your project.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt
-
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/

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 258 bytes --]

Suggesting a entire new sub config option seems wise, in this way not only arm ipaqs could benefit, so could 386s , whole series of rejuvinated computers, become useful.

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:22:12 -0700 	Matt Porter <porter@cox.net> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3451 bytes --]

From: Matt Porter <porter@cox.net>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: giduru@yahoo.com, andre@linux-ide.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 2002 09:22:12 -0700
Message-ID: <20021007092212.B18610@home.com>

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 09:28:32PM -0700, 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.

Exactly, every application wants some of the finer details of
kernel operation tuned to their task.

> The common areas, like smaller hashtables or whatever, sure put a
> CONFIG_SMALL_KERNEL option in there and start submitting the
> one-liners here and there that do it.

Ahhh, but you just defeated the ideal of being able to customize
to task.  This is where the hallowed "the user is dumb" theory
bites us in the ass.  A single option to control all these sizing
issues reduces flexibility and that is what the embedded system
designer is looking for.  The ideal situation is if as we work
on all these areas where we can reduce size, we provide fine
grained options to tweak them (with a default desktop/server value
and a default "tiny" value).  You can have this CONFIG_TINY or
whatever, but then we should also provide the ability to tweak
the values exactly how we want in a specific application.  The
tweaking options can be buried under advanced kernel options
with the appropriate disclaimers about shooting yourself in
the foot.

Regards,
-- 
Matt Porter
porter@cox.net
This is Linux Country. On a quiet night, you can hear Windows reboot.
-
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/

RE:Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Hell.Surfers]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 254 bytes --]

He probably means that some features are unnecesary and, are threatening to turn the kernel into bloatware, I cant talk though, I use IE 3 under wine...

Cheers, Dean.

On 	Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:33:10 -0700 (PDT) 	Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org> wrote:

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2700 bytes --]

From: Andre Hedrick <andre@linux-ide.org>
To: Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com>
Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@holomorphy.com>, Gigi Duru <giduru@yahoo.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The end of embedded Linux?
Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 18:33:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10210061828420.23945-100000@master.linux-ide.org>

On Sun, 6 Oct 2002, Aaron Lehmann wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 05:44:38PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> > Even better, if you yourself took action to correct this regression it
> > would be as welcome as any other Linux development activity.
> 
> It seems to me that what would be even better than patches is a
> general awareness of bloat and an attitude discouraging adding any
> bloat whatsoever to the base kernel. Proactive bloat prevention is a
> much better solution than asking embedded developers to send fixes
> whenever someone increases the size of the core kernel unnecessarily.
> Let's prevent a Mozilla here.

So lemme guess, you calling "embedded" == "Mozilla" ?
This is the reason those developers do not submit patches and fixes?
Under that rational, why not unplug the support for the embedded archs?
This follows your line of reasoning perfectly?
So you are proposing to unbloat the kernel by not fixing and patch archs
which embedded people depend on?
Thus letting then rot and die then final removal of baggage?

Sarcasim and Humor,

Andre Hedrick
LAD Storage Consulting Group

-
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/