[Sussex] Sky boxen / Embeded LINUX and NT

[Steve Dobson]

Geoff

On 27 September 2002 at 14:53 Geoff Teale said:
<snip>
 
> With Embedix you get a choice of kernels, for example, I have 
> been told[1] the process scheduling in one version of the kernel
> is actually quite different from the stock LINUX kernel and
> another one only runs a single user process (this is not
> uncommon on embedded systems). 
>
> These changes are not just the public patches they are 
> Embedix specific kernel changes. 
> 
> When you buy Embedix you get all the normal GPL rights which 
> include the source and the right to change it and distribute
> it, etc.  However, Embedix's changes are such that they cannot
> easily be folded back into the stock kernel without breaking
> other things that Embedix doesn't use.

I live; I learn.

<snip>

> My conjecture is this people are moving to LINUX on embedded 
> systems for the same reason they are adopting windows: costs.  
> 
> You can hire a windows or LINUX C/C++ developer for <£40,000p/a.  
> 
> You can get (for example) a QNX C programmer for >£60,000p/a.
> 
> I don't think the technical argument is even considered and 
> the additional hardware requirements to meet the base spec for
> these OS's is just passed to the customers.

This is a different question.  I was addressing the question:
"How can we be sure that LINUX in embedded space isn't a lame 
duck just like Windows?"  This is moving into the question of:
"Now that `small' embedded computers are as powerful as the
desktop systems of a few years ago.  How do we ensure that
Linux wins over Windows and other commercial OSs?"

I agree that "cost" is the biggest driver but your reasoning
is skewed.  Two years ago I would have agreed with you whole
heartedly, but experience is a good teacher.

I was working on a small (postcard sized) PC to be added into
a expensive device (~ $150,000 and up).  I had a quick solution
that if we when to the 64Meg "Disk on Chip" from the 32Meg 
version (a cost different of ~ $100).  The manager said that
the device's price was determined not by the company but by 
the market.  Therefore the cost of my time to do the extra
work to squeeze into the smaller device was worth well over my
year's salary.

The more I have though about it the more I agree.  All products
have price bands, VCRs, cars, laptops, washing machines.  There
is very little choice between the price bands.  The price bands
denote feature jumps and brand names.  If you can squeeze the
features of the band above you have a winner.

With productions runs in the embedded market being measured in
the 100,000s a $15 saving per unit is big bucks.  What is 
£20,000 to these savings?  Therefore if the QNZ's runtime 
licence is less that WinCE it is more likely to be selected.
The cost of the development licence and engineers are more
or less insignificant over the lifetime of the product run.
Remember most are produced (with minor tweaks) for years.  It's
only computers that are measured in weeks (days & hours can't
be that far away).

My above arguments are for the mass produced embedded markets
only.  For small production runs (Military, nuclear power
stations, ...) then these argument losses big time to your.

The counter argument to yours in that area is that one 
technology is "perceived" as less risky, and therefore
worth the extra cost.  However the technology fight has to
done with managers that "just don't get it".  I know, it
was one of my reasons for leaving my first company (of
11 years).

Steve