An EE Times straw poll of embedded device makers in Europe found that while last year 50% said they planned to use Linux, that number had dropped to 33%. 26% said they planned to use a commercial OS, up from 15% a year ago.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2007-03-07
nvidia has specifically stated that their drivers contain hints about their own intellectual property, and that's part of the reason why they won't open them. So at least some of the reason is protection of their own intellectual property.
When it comes to embedded systems, several companies I know of have custom chips built for them, and make kernel tweaks to support those custom chips better. Open sourcing those changes would give away a competitive advantage they have based on some of the chip designs they have had done. And that's why they aren't going to use Linux.
There is also another issue, which is that they want someone they can reliably count on for support. As of right now, there are no Linux vendors specializing in embedded Linux. No commercial vendors anyway. If that changes, their might be more interest from hardware vendors in embedded Linux.
Edited 2008-10-08 01:13 UTC
Member since:2006-01-14
Member since:
2006-01-14
Fine, I'll tell you why you are wrong. First lets start with Nvidia just to get it out of the way. Nvidia CAN'T open up its drivers as it licenses some of the tech from other companies. Just like Sun licensed some Java libraries from other companies. But that is besides the point.
First, most embedded devices are probably using one of several standard CPU's which already have Linux support. Most companies are NOT producing their own chips, so there isn't any trade secrets there for them to give away.
I think the main reason why this is happening, if it is a problem at all, is due to money. There are a few OS's which will run in less memory than linux. That means less memory on the board and less cost. However, in at least the one instance I know of, the substitute OS was not as robust as linux. It may also be the case that these other chips support other OS's better than linux. That may change as Intel ramps up their new low power chip line. Again, the survey didn't really get specific so who knows what the reasons are unless we ask.