Re: The end of embedded Linux?

[Mark Mielke]

You could always try examining the code for yourself and making a
suggestion regarding inappropriate dependencies, or bloated
dependencies. One of the problems you have here is... Linux 'hackers'
are not trying to sell you an embedded solution. If anything, you
are getting a freebie, and you should be gracious that you don't
have to pay full price for a commercial solution...

Other members of the 'hacker computer' who work for companies that use
Linux in their embedded product tend not to scream and complain. Instead,
they roll up their sleeves and get to it...

One of the methods described above has a better chance of being effective.

Which one do you think that might be? :-)

mark

P.S. Linux 2.5 is a development kernel - the fact that is isn't polished
     to your liking is not a surprise. It isn't polished to *many* peoples
     likings, which is the primary reason that people such as myself have
     not installed it.

On Sat, Oct 05, 2002 at 01:52:38PM -0700, Gigi Duru wrote:
> Now thats some advice from a kernel hacker... You
> really don't seem to care too much about embedded, do
> you? 
> 
> It's not about what I do not do, it's about what YOU
> do (I'm not talking to you personally, but to the
> hacker community as a whole). The kernel core didn't
> jump to 270KB compressed because I didn't do
> something.
> 
> Let me reformulate for you:
> * some years ago, (2.2 era) I was more than happy
> about embedding Linux.
> * along came 2.4, and things got fuzzy (should we move
> on, or stick to the good ol' stuff?)
> * now, 2.6 (or whatever) seems like a very bad choice
> for us.
> * I wonder about the next one (2.8/whatever): will it
> require a mainframe to run?
> 
> It's the trend, you see: you were on the right track
> but now you're loosing it. From the embedded point of
> view, YOU ARE GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION.
> 
> And don't give me the "use 2.2" advice. Stuff is being
> back-ported, I know, but not all of it. 
> 
> Why are old versions being actively maintained anyway?
> Isn't that a realization that those old versions are
> better suited for some tasks than the new one? Why
> would anyone choose to use 2.2? Because it serves him
> better. 
> 
> Now, why is 2.2 serving someone better than 2.4?
> That's something I'd like you to answer...
> 
> The beauty of Linux was it's scalability (I'm not
> talking SMP here): you had the same kernel running on
> the appliance, on the PC and on that mainframe. Things
> were smooth, things were perfect. I would have loved
> to preserve that...
> 
> Regards,
> Gigi 
> 
> --- Andre Hedrick <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Well have a nice day and go pay for windriver
> > licenses, or use the source
> > to adopt to your needs, or hire somebody who can do
> > it for you.
> > Whinning will not help, doing will.
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > Andre Hedrick
> > LAD Storage Consulting Group
> > 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
> http://faith.yahoo.com
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [e-mail]
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
[e-mail]/[e-mail]/[e-mail] __________________________
.  .  _  ._  . .   .__    .  . ._. .__ .   . . .__  | Neighbourhood Coder
|\/| |_| |_| |/    |_     |\/|  |  |_  |   |/  |_   | 
|  | | | | \ | \   |__ .  |  | .|. |__ |__ | \ |__  | Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

  One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, one ring to bring them all
                       and in the darkness bind them...

                           http://mark.mielke.cc/