Red Hat And Lineo Respond To MS Embedded Linux FUD

jeffy124 writes: "Red Hat and Lineo, the major spearheads of Embedded Linux, have said that Microsoft's recent white paper comparing Linux and Windows XP embedded is full of inaccuracies, false facts, and overall distorts the value of Linux in general. Lineo has gone as far to say it flat out lies about Linux. ZDNet has Lineo's response, Red Hat comments, and a summary article." Updated by HeUnique: LynuxWorks has also wrote a response (only this one is a bit more detailed).

What did you expect?

Honestly, did you expect them to come back with "yup! There right! Everything we did is crap now!"

Obviously, both sides are biased and think their product is better.

The only way to see which one is better is an independent, non-biased study of the two.
Even then, though, I'm sure one will be better for some applications, and the other for other applications...

Re:heh, that's not the point...

If you really read the white paper, it seems to me that the only real point that MS is making is that under linux you have a choice of what to include or use in your embedded device.

The windows solution they provide may be very good, but what if you don't want it? I mean, it sounds to me from the paper like if you use MS, then you are building an wireless internet wma/web browser/email device. They talk about how much better the web is on it and how much better the media playback is on it. Why don't they just release a device with all these features themself?

On the other hand, the linux solution they describe is not very concrete on what it can or cannot do. Seems to me like linux has options, while win XP doesn't. (except in the choice of languages aparently, you aren't contrained to java and C like in linux ;) )

If I were desgining an embedded device, I would use linux, cause even though it might be 'more work' according to this report, at least I'd have a choice of what tools and features to include in my device.

Re:heh, that's not the point...

THAT'S FUCKING MARKETING!!!!!!

No, it's fraud and misrepresentation. They're both illegal. I take it you think libel and slander are just "FUCKIN MARKETING" too?

if you want to say that MS actually lied in its whitepaper, you show me one point in that press release

"Linux lacks an integrated tool set, so OS and applications development time is slowed"

This is not true, there are several. Go to Trolltech's site (www.trolltech.com) to see one.

"For example, there are at least five different window managers and at least four competing browsers, increasing programming complexity and reducing the pool of available developers."

There is no reason why this should increase the complexity of development; the WM makes no impact on the code; there may be several browers (it's called choice) but there's only one HTML spec. Since these have no effect on the code the second part is also false.

"There is no common integrated development environment (IDE) for Linux. OS development is command-line driven and applications development requires a new set of tools for each device. Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly toolset."

This is bollocks from start to finish; most of it was true in 1998, though.

"Comprehensive OS foundation with proven performance and reliability"

This can't be true since XP has not been out long enough to be "proven" as reliable.

Then there's a bunch of benchmarks followed by "Note: WindowsXP Embedded was not tested directly. Internal Microsoft testing indicates that WindowsXP Embedded exhibited similar or better reliability and performance characteristics than WindowsXP Professional."

'Not tested directly' is the same as 'Not tested'.

"Linux looks to Java as a distributed applications development environment."

Linux has never done this; Linux looks to source code as a distributed application environment, in general.

"Open Source does not an ecosystem make"

Making this claim raises the question of is it true? I can't see any reasonable way to describe the millions of programmers supporting Open Source and the newsgroups and mailing lists where they can be contacted as anything other than an "ecosystem" in the sense MS is using.

"The Red Hat Worldwide Technical Support Guidelines and Definitions document states that Red Hat will not support any modifications made to their distribution of Linux that are not approved or recommended by them."

The lie here is only implied but is a lie all the same, it is that MS will do this. Try modifying Windows XPE's code (assuming you have it) and see if MS will help you debug it.

The distortions in the rest of the piece may indeed be marketing but if you said them of me I'd be laughing all the way to the bank with the damages award.

TWW

Re:What did you expect?

Obviously, both sides are biased and think their product is better.

True, but Lineo didn't say "Linux doesn't support plug and play".

Not only is it blatently untrue, Linux DOES support plug and play, but it's supported it longer than NT. And XP is NT 5.1; if you don't believe me, check your web-server logs.

Re:What did you expect?

I didn't realize an embedded system NEEDED plug 'n play support.

I mean, how many devices are going to be plugging into your toaster?

# /sbin/modprobe bread
# /usr/local/bin/toast
toast v0.1 alpha
Usage:
toast [flags] slot-device
Flags:
-s n number of slices (increments slot-devices by n-1, default n=1)
-c XX color; (one of dry, golden [default], crispy, burnt)
-e eject toast upon completion (default)
+e do not eject toast
slot-device the first slot you are toasting in (default /dev/toast0)
Examples:
toast # makes one slice of golden toast in the first slot
toast -s 2 /dev/toast2 # makes two slices of golden toast in third and fourth slots
toast -c golden /dev/toast0 -c burnt +e /dev/toast3 # ejects slot 0 but not slot 4
# /usr/local/bin/toast -s 1 -c burnt -e /dev/toast0
# /usr/bin/eject /dev/toast0
# killall -9 firealarm

Somehow, I don't think so. But if I know the Linux community, someone will implement. And put into a crontab. For perfect toast tomorrow morning as you are getting out of bed. If only we had a changer device (toast jukebox?) then we could implement an automatic jellier.

Normal for them

This isn't the first time that Microsoft has lied about XP [bbspot.com].

The bad thing about this is that people will only see the Microsoft lies and not the rebuttals by Lineo and Redhat. The people here on Slashdot already know this about MS, but the rest of the public doesn't. That's what billions of dollars of marketing dollars will buy you.

Tell that to average users

It's silly to say that "people will only see the Microsoft lies and not the rebuttals by Lineo and Redhat." This may have been true three years ago, but not anymore.

I disagree. The people that know about Linux as a viable option to M$ are the same as they have always been, the technically oriented *cough* geeks *cough* people that keep up on the latest computer accessories.

A perfect example of this is the Pentium comercials that have been running on TV, where the aliens in the UFO are playing with gizmos (not the gremlin one) and, bored, plug in a Pentium 4. Suddenly, everything comes to life.
What are the average users going to think when they go to buy a computer? Are they going to ask "what is a reliable, cost effective processor?" Not a chance. They are going to say "I want to mix and burn CD's. Obviously, I need a Pentium 4." To reach the majority, PR and marketing are everything.

Re:Tell that to average users

The same thing happened to me. My computer became absolutely useless once I saw those first Windows XP commercials. I immediately went out and bought it so I could use wireless networking, Instant Messaging, and CD Burning. I then played some Madonna and flew around while high on angel dust.

Re:One comparison they forgot...

What makes you say that Embedded Linux is "suitable" for use in ATMs/casino machines? I totally agree that the likelihood of Embedded XP taking off is unlikely, however at the same time I doubt any of the hardcore engineering crowd (that is use to the rock solid reliability of PLCs) is going to be touching Lineo anytime soon (yeah I'm sure there are some case studies/design wins where some cash was passed around and some token implementations took place in non-critical sectors).

If I were to build a critical embedded system right now I wouldn't touch embedded Linux with a 40ft pole: It'd be QNX or one of the other proven systems that I'd trust. Let embedded Linux prove itself for a decade and then maybe then it'll be trusted, but as it sits it seems like yet a Microsoft like "try to get the same code to run everywhere" type of attempts.

I have to admit you need a clue.

I have done porting work with just about every single embedded OS (some predating windows CE by about a decade). I have built/tested/deployed i960 and AMD29k boards using psos, m68k boards using vxworks, and ppc boards using nucleus, all in house, from scratch. You, sir, apparently have done NONE of those, because if you did, you would know that porting Linux is no different. We did it for three different ppc boards, also in house. The process was no different from developing a BSP for any of the other commercial vendor products. The difference is that Linux 1) is a real OS (even if it is lacking in the RT arena still) 2) no rediculous per unit royalty fees 3) free tools 4) portable tools (i.e. can cross compile from whatever platform I like) 5) rediculously stable 6) HUGE driver support (with source - something the commercial vendors love to nickle-dime you for, btw) 7) a large software library (e.g. just about every useful UNIX app exists in one form another) 8) excellent support via source code, email-lists, and irc. (Yes, the "linux has no support" meme is complete FUD - have you ever tried to negotiate WindRiver's support dept. even WITH a fully paid up support contract?)

The fact that MS has been "doing embedded versions" since the mid (try late) 90's is completely irrelevant. There are a ton of crappy, buggy, useless products that still exist today that their vendors have been "doing" for a lot longer. What makes you think that just because they are old that they don't suck?

Something is wrong in Redmond...

...when these kind of resources are used to attack what is essentially a straw man. If they were going to attack a target with FUD, why wouldn't they attack the market leader [eda-expos.co.uk], WindRiver VxWorks [windriver.com]?

Proof positive they're irrationally scared by Linux.

Whoops, looks like you've got egg on your face

Far be it from me to point at that you seem like a clueless, knee-jerk Linux zealot who loves to feel persecuted by Microsoft, but...

If you go to http://www.microsoft.com/windows/Embedded/xp/evalu ation/compare/notwindriver.asp [microsoft.com], you'll see that they have the exact same type of article discussing Wind River. Gee, and it's even titled "Why Microsoft Windows XP Embedded and Not Wind River." Truly amazing. Sorry if I ruined your persecution complex. :)

Re:Whoops, looks like you've got egg on your face

Sue Microsoft? You think a small company like lineo can sue MS? Unfortunately in this country might makes right and MS has the might. This is a company that can bitchslap the United States around like a red headed stepchild for god's sake. You expect lineo to sue them? Yea right. All they can do is post their reply and hope that there is some media out there who hasn't been bought by MS and is brave enough to carry their story.

Yes MS is Lying, yes every time any higher up from MS says anything in the media there is at least one lie. MS is a corporation of liars, thives and scum. It's their corporate culture.

Re:Whoops, looks like you've got egg on your face

According to Microsoft...

• Windows XP: Business model that is better aligned with your business for the long term
• Wind River: Wind River's business model favors Wind River

I'm convinced!

First is better

Why does MS always get the marketing leg up on Linux? Momentum is one thing, but it seems to me that Linux is always playing catch-up as well. Why is that so? Has Linux ever had a successful pre-emptive publicity strike against MS?

Let's face it, if Linux is always reactionary, it will never be seen as anything more than an "alternative" OS. Linux should not be an alternative to Windows. It has a niche all its own. Sure, it overlaps with a lot of Windows functionality, but it's not just "non-Windows". It's much more than that.

The only possibly reason you want Embedded Windows

Is if you needed to work with some proprietary MS protocol like CIFS, DCOM (embedded DCOM?? ugh), or some other stupid MS thing.

The "GPL is bad" argument

Microsoft keep trotting out the same old argument about GPL code, specifically that because of the "viral" nature of the license, any code incorporating GPL code has to be released, potentially opening up Intellectual Property.

I really hate this argument! At least with GPL code you have a choice; use the code and release as GPL or don't touch it. With Windows code, you have no choice; as you can't get the code without paying MS money or getting some NDA signed, you cannot use it.

Re:The "GPL is bad" argument

Yeah, but the option of at least having a binary library that does what you need is usually all you would ask for. Microsoft definitely wins the business case on this bullet item.

I like the embedded Linux option in a lot of ways, but honestly, the scariest thing about it is the GPL. There are too many competitors out there who'll just blatantly use every line of your source code in a knock-off box.

I've known firmware developers personally who've copied binary driver code illegally and used it in commercial products. Open sourcing your own work is just like handing those crooks the keys. You might as well give up your whole business model and go do something else.

Just paying MS for the libraries up front is a lot wiser of a business decision in most cases, because you're dealing with known, mostly-reasonable costs.

Typical

There is no common integrated development environment (IDE) for Linux. OS development is command-line driven and applications development requires a new set of tools for each device. Developers must either build their own tool-chain from piecing together Open Source tools or opt for a specific vendor's costly toolset.

Uh, yeah, that's what happens when you use a monopoly to put all of your competition out of business. In the old days there used to be a choice of IDEs for Windows. In fact, I remember at one point Borland was the leader in development tools. Oh well, what do you expect from M$?

XP Embedded, surely you're joking?

I am a software engineer writing networking code that runs in embedded environments. No one in their right mind would choose Windows XP for embedded development for a number of reasons.

1. Embedded devices use a wide variety of microprocessors, memory architectures, and hardware, often with custom boot code. At least in the hard-core networking industry, X86 is not a big player since RISC processors tend to be a better fit (almost all networking protocols are big endian, for example). As far as I know MS is X86 only (not counting Intel's Unobtainium).

Also, many embedded products are based around non-Intel processors to cut costs and power requirements. There are a wide variety of RISC processors out there with varying levels of integration.

In the networking area I'm in (dealing with network processors from companies like Agere, Broadcom, Intel, MMC, Vitesse, etc.) most of the parts come with support for Linux and VxWorks. I do not see much support for Windows.

2. Embedded developers often need very low level access to the operating system. I doubt very much that MS will make available the source code to their OS. Where I work, we have the full source code to VxWorks ($$$, but worth it), which our product is based. This allows us great flexibility in terms of adding features or fixing bugs (what, bugs in commercial software???). If we had to wait for Wind River (or Microsoft for that matter) to fix a bug we'd never get anything done.

3. Linux is becomming very popular in the embedded area in part due to its open source and the licensing issues in many instances. Linux also has a proven track record of having been ported to a wide variety of hardware, from IBM mainframes to the Sega Dreamcast and other platforms. XP has no such track record.

4. Many embedded environments do not want features like IE, media player, or even a GUI. In the networking products I've worked on the only front end is either through a serial port or a telnet session.

Embedded developers are not your typical programmers. It's one thing to write an app in a nice GUI front-end and be able to step through the code in a debugger (like one can do with user-space apps). In the embedded world it's often the case that everything is running at the kernel layer.

-Aaron

Yeah, that whole thing was a load of crap...

I did some work on an embedded Linux device and as near as I can tell, development costs are about comparable to the other embedded projects the company was doing (Though they did choose a bunch of Windows-programming idiots who didn't even know what processes were for the development effort, so I and the kernel hacker were the only two Linux guys on the proejct, but that's another story.) Factor in the savings in royalties and you've saved the company a pretty penny. Most people don't realize it but most of the time you also have to license a BIOS if you're working with an X86 solution (Dunno about other platforms.) We were working on rolling our own to avoid that expense as well. A few dollars does make a HUGE difference over the course of a million units.

Speaking of which, does anyone have any figures on how much the other embedded OSes cost per system? I assume they'd have to be rough figures as I expect the various companies negotiate the exact price based on units to be licensed. I'd be curious.

Really the biggest issue we ran in to was with releasing our kernel mods back to the community but I believe we decided to do so. I and my kernel-hacking co-worker were lobbying to do so, and there were really no reasons not to. The interface and higher level software was not going to be released, which is just as well as I'm sure it would have been as dangerous as Monty Python's "Funniest Joke in the World." (A joke so funny you die laughing, for those who missed the skit.)

Foreign territory for MSFT

I worked in the embedded systems field (automated test equipment) some years ago, and it was not at all anything like the typical IT shop. For starters, the President and founder was an EE, as were most of the VPs, and the designers, and right on down the line to my little corner of the world. There were no gullible PHBs with liberal arts degrees masquerading as wannabe technologists; my managers ate, slept, and breathed silicon and clock rates. They didn't buy into anybody's slick and deceptive marketing practices back then, and I'll bet they don't fall for it now.

A colorful GUI with bundled streaming media is not going to send those guys flying through the air like in the commercials, but it's guaranteed to send the salesmen flying out the door.

Java lies

Microsoft lies through their teeth:

Java was designed for use with a single programming language -- Java. Developers have no option to choose the best tool for the task and cannot use knowledge or code from other languages.

Jython [jython.org], for instance, lets you run Python programs natively on any Java machine. I've also seen Java-targeted compilers for other languages, but I can't find a link at the moment.

Re:But sometimes there ARE better alternatives

You want the liscensing changed, and you completely ignore the alternative, which was releasing the source. In fact, you ought to be sued to force the source to be released.

I'm betting the competitive advantage your competitors might get from seeing the source to your kernel mods would've been heavily outweighed by the time it took them to decipher it. Also, the easiest thing for them to do would be to also use Linux in their product, and releasing source, leaving you on a level playing field with respect to intellectual property concerns.

If they had tried to copy you, and also used Linux, it would've come down to which of your development teams could make a better product more quickly. Gee, that sounds like competition doesn't it?

Nice argument, but bogus

• Modules can be binary-only, and under any licence you like
  
• If the plug-in support is insufficient, then you can always extend it. HP offer a plug-in scheduler system (although they say Linus hates the idea), and plug-in IP stacks have been supported for some time.
  
• "Internal" releases can be binary-only, where "internal" can reasonably be interpreted as anything other than the "mass market".
  
• If none of that convinces you, then what's the commercial value of a driver? It's just a transliteration layer, and a cinch to reverse-engineer with nothing more than basic electronics diagnostic tools. (You know the inputs, you know the outputs, so you know the black box in the middle.)