4 ms·
The trick is as always to know what you are looking for and find the tool with the strengths in the right places. As with any system, Contiki has its strengths
by adunk 11y ago
The trick is as always to know what you are looking for and find the tool with the strengths in the right places. As with any system, Contiki has its strengths and weaknesses. The Coffee file system does its job well for what it was intended for (storing simple files on an on-board serial flash chip), but it seems like it didn't match what you were looking for. Filesystems certainly wasn't a design goal of Contiki, there may be better places to look.
If you're looking for a lightweight OS that does low-power IP networking with built-in support for self-healing wireless meshing, I think it is difficult to find an OS that beats Contiki. Take this from someone who has in fact built a business on top of Contiki :)
- fra 11y agoNo, this was not a case of "not meeting my needs". I read your papers and carefully considered whether the design goals worked for me. It was a case of "poorly implemented and poorly tested". I know lwIP is widely used, so I'm sure it's not all this bad. However, that was still a pretty big red flag for me.
- adunk 11y agoA couple of years ago Contiki had a lot of rough parts that were in dire need of a bit of love - something we've worked hard to fix in the past few versions. Version 3.0 is by far the most solid Contiki thus far. Maybe you got stuck in the middle of this Not sure about Coffee in particular though, simply because file systems isn't really the focus of Contiki. Unlike server and desktop OSes, where the file system really is a core item, embedded OSes like Contiki don't depend on them and they are only used by a small subset of applications.