Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Wind River going up, up, up! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Anthony Tran who wrote (6444)	10/5/1999 3:22:00 PM
From: Prognosticator	Respond to of 10309

Anthony: thanks for your post: here is my take on Tawei Liao's comments. 1. Linux kernel is a monolith architecture, like IOS right now. It comes in one big chunk. Any changes means that you have to reboot the whole system. That's not good. The same is true of VxWorks. You have to build the kernel as a monolith (for example to include/exclude NFS etc). Linux can dynamically load and unload applications, as can VxWorks, so I don't think this is a valid point. 2. Support for a whole range of microprocessors. Companies like RedHat sells customer service, but they don't do heavy duty development. You need to have a lot of heavy duty development in order to do the BSP (board support packages) for a lot of different processors. This is a very valid point. However, somebody will see this as an opportunity for a new startup, then BAM! instant $1B valuation. Hmm. Maybe I should..., no if I thought of it, somebody is already doing it. 3. Suppose a company does develop a lot of support and also come up with a good debugging environment. Do you think that company will still give it out for free? I don't think so. The appeal of free linux is gone once you start adding a lot of features. The 'free' nature of Linux is often confusing: 'free' refers more to the ownership of intellectual property, rather than charging for delivery. While Linux can be obtained for no cost, a company could certainly charge for the BSP's and tools to help developers. And probably make a lot of money. Hey, I just described Wind River (but of course, they have no position on Embedded Linux). P.

To: Anthony Tran who wrote (6444)	10/5/1999 4:21:00 PM
From: Ronald Paul	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10309

I concur with Tawei on impact of RT Linux on WIND. There are companies that work on RT Unix. They have also been around for years. For similar reasons, RT Unix never posed a threat to VxWorks. RT NT and CE prompt similar wonderment. If an RTOS is designed from the ground up, it would have to be similar to QNS, pSOS, VxWorks,etc with a micro-kernel, in order to be competitive as far as the OS is concerned. It would look nothing like NT,DOS,Linux,Unix,etc. Along with the OS, WIND tackles all the BSP, tools, processor support, and porting issues for the customer. This is where the real value added occurs. Fiddler and co. figured out a long time ago that customers, such as HP, would need to start out-sourcing OS and embedded development environment efforts, or make a strategic decision to go into the RTOS business themselves. The costs and time-to-market issues involved with inhouse development simply forces many of the customer's hands if they want to remain competitive in their markets. I am hazarding a guess that for many companies needing to squeeze cost of development, going with RT Linux will not be the right answer. My perspective, fwiw