MESSAGE
| DATE | 2008-05-03 |
| FROM | Ruben Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [NYLXS - HANGOUT] Free Software developers and users CONTINUE to be completely marketing Naive
|
I just wish some people would shut up...
-----------------------------------
Embedded Linux: With friends like these, who needs enemies? If embedded
Linux champions are saying that embedded Linux is terrible, why would
anyone want to risk their products or their company on it? By Dan O'Dowd,
Green Hills Software Embedded.com (05/03/08, 12:00:00 AM EDT)
Embedded Linux is the most hyped embedded operating system ever. It
is promoted as inexpensive, high quality, high productivity, reliable,
widely available, and well supported. It is none of these things, as two
of its greatest proponents have recently pointed out. Wind River Systems
and MontaVista Software, companies that each describe themselves as
"the leader" in embedded Linux, have both initiated marketing campaigns
touting the horrors of using embedded Linux.
In the January/February 2008 issue of Military Embedded Systems, Jim
Ready, the founder and chief technology officer of MontaVista, says "a
[develop-it-yourself] embedded Linux distribution [is] a significant
investment (read 'big bucks') in time and money." He estimates
the three-year cost of a large scale embedded Linux deployment at
$19,623,750. Here are some other quotes from the article:
"To keep abreast of the changes occurring on a daily basis a developer
needs to monitor the email traffic of 11 different and unsynchronized
open source projects... up to 5,000 messages a day with 1,000 of these
being patches that need to be evaluated and possibly applied to the source
base. Simply ignoring the traffic, figuring that the system in use seems
to be working well enough, can lead to disastrous consequences later.
"A recent security patch that took all of 13 lines of code to implement
against an embedded Linux system would have taken more than 800k lines
of source patches to implement, if the previous trail of patches had
been ignored. It's a classic case of pay now or really pay later.
"If there ever were a situation where the 'software money pit' could
really take hold, it's in owning 30 million lines of constantly changing
source code. Even in the simplest case, the development costs are
typically in the millions of dollars."
Wind River delivers the same message in a recent full-page
advertisement. It asks: "Choosing Linux as your next device operating
system?" It answers: "CHAOS" in large crooked letters, followed by
"fatal error," "system crash," "game over," and "panic."
Even the greatest critics of embedded Linux have never been so harsh. The
experts say that embedded Linux is "CHAOS" and "a money pit." With
friends like these, who needs enemies?
One would expect Wind River and MontaVista to tout the advantages of
their embedded Linux support, but why trash the product on which their
business is based? If they are being unfair to embedded Linux, the Linux
community will rise up to denounce them, destroying their embedded Linux
support business.
It's more likely that Wind River and MontaVista are telling it as they
see it--for marketing purposes. Marketing usually puts forward a problem
(bad breath, headaches) that many potential customers will relate to, and
then promises a solution. Why would Wind River and MontaVista put forward
the problem of embedded Linux nightmares in marketing materials unless
they think many potential customers have experienced those nightmares and
need a solution? Wind River and MontaVista are certainly in a position
to know how hard it is to use embedded Linux, because they are using it,
supporting it, and selling it. And since their business is trying to pick
up the pieces for companies that have already failed with embedded Linux,
they have heard plenty of horror stories.
Wind River and MontaVista each say that they can tame the embedded
Linux monster and make it work for customers. But can they? Trying to
fix embedded Linux for eight years, MontaVista is reported to have lost
over $60,000,000, going through five rounds of venture capital, three
rounds of layoffs, and three CEOs in the last two years. Since jumping
on the Linux bandwagon, Wind River has gone from profitability to losses,
recently announcing a layoff of 7% of their staff.
So why are Wind River and MontaVista bashing embedded Linux? Each year,
Embedded System Design magazine carries out a survey of embedded systems
developers. Over a two year period from 2005 to 2007, the percentage
of developers using embedded Linux and the percentage planning to use
embedded Linux have both declined. And even more important, the percentage
not interested in embedded Linux has nearly doubled.
According to ESD's analysis, most of those who are reasonable targets for
embedded Linux (those with PC-like applications) have already adopted
it. The rest have learned it is not appropriate and are moving on. See
the article "Annual study uncovers the embedded market" (Richard Nass,
www.embedded.com/design/opensource/201803499?pgno=2) for details of
survey.
It seems clear what is happening: Wind River and MontaVista are trying
to get the dwindling number of disenchanted embedded Linux users to pay
them "big bucks" to escape the embedded Linux nightmare. They hope that
if they can get enough customers signed up, they will finally get enough
money to tame the beast.
But what happens if they cannot? There are indications that they
may have exhausted the market. If Wind River fails to stem the tide,
they will need to drop their support for embedded Linux to return to
profitability. And if MontaVista doesn't show some sign of stemming
their losses soon, their investors will pull the plug. When Wind River
and MontaVista abandon embedded Linux, their customers will have to live
the embedded Linux nightmare that Wind River and MontaVista are telling
them--all too clearly--that they will have.
This embedded Linux bashing from embedded Linux's strongest proponents
should give pause to those who are thinking through their embedded
operating system strategy. If embedded Linux champions are saying that
embedded Linux is terrible, why would anyone want to risk their products
or their company on it?
Why would anyone use a product that its proponents say is awful? Would
you buy a car from a salesman who admitted the car was a piece of junk
just because he said he had a great service department? That's what
embedded Linux's friends suggest that you do. With friends like these,
who needs enemies?
Dan O'Dowd is the founder and chief executive officer of Green Hills
Software. Prior to Green Hills Software, O'Dowd managed compiler
and operating systems development at National Semiconductor, where he
designed the architecture for the NS32000 32-bit microprocessor. O'Dowd
holds a bachelor of science in engineering from the California Institute
of Technology.
-- http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Interesting Stuff http://www.nylxs.com -
Leadership Development in Free Software
So many immigrant groups have swept through our town that Brooklyn, like
Atlantis, reaches mythological proportions in the mind of the world -
RI Safir 1998
http://fairuse.nylxs.com DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS -
RI Safir 2002
"Yeah - I write Free Software...so SUE ME"
"The tremendous problem we face is that we are becoming sharecroppers
to our own cultural heritage -- we need the ability to participate in
our own society."
"> I'm an engineer. I choose the best tool for the job, politics be
damned.< You must be a stupid engineer then, because politcs and
technology have been attached at the hip since the 1st dynasty in
Ancient Egypt. I guess you missed that one."
© Copyright for the Digital Millennium
|
|
