6 ms·

Honest question: how many years do you think it'll be until embedded device manufacturers (routers, various TV boxes, wifi hard drives [1]) ship recent kernels?

Honest question: how many years do you think it'll be until embedded device manufacturers (routers, various TV boxes, wifi hard drives [1]) ship recent kernels? A $200 modem/router bought 6 months ago ships with a hacked up version of 2.6.36.4 that's barely buildable - mainly because the wifi chipset vendor refuses to open source their code and refuses to update the BSP [2]. 1: http://www.seagate.com/au/en/support/downloads/item/wireless-plus-gpl-fw-master-dl/ http://www.seagate.com/au/en/support/downloads/item/wireless... 2: http://www.tp-link.com.au/gpl-code.html?model=Archer%20D9 http://www.tp-link.com.au/gpl-code.html?model=Archer%20D9

grawlinson 10y ago
>mainly because the wifi chipset vendor refuses to open source their code and refuses to update the BSP In that case, never. Trying to get vendors to open source anything is a hilarious exercise in futility.
- ashitlerferad 10y ago
  If you want to help the folks who are trying to get vendors to open source their Linux drivers/patches, check out these pages: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ http://gpl-violations.org/helping/ http://gpl-violations.org/helping/
  - voltagex_ 10y ago
    I'm a big fan of both of those - but their backlogs are massive. I'm hoping there's another donation matching campaign at LCA2017 for Conservancy next year - I was able to donate somewhere close to $300 via that last year.
- executesorder66 10y ago
  > Trying to get vendors to open source anything is a hilarious exercise in futility. I hate that this is true. Could anyone explain to me why though? Would it not make life easier for them if they just open sourced their firmware and let other people update/maintain it? (Sorry for the noob question, I haven't looked into this in detail)
  - throwaway_exer 10y ago
    1) opens them up to more patent infringement lawsuits 2) FCC prefers SDN radios be blackboxes 3) costs more money to document and support
    - executesorder66 10y ago
      1) Why would they be infringing on a patent if they open source their own code? Could you expand on this point please. 2) Seems like a small subset of devices. And the FCC only has power in the US right? 3) Surely they have to document their stuff internally anyway. And being opensource can mean free documentation. Same for support.
- hhjkjhkjhhlkj 10y ago
  > Trying to get vendors to open source anything is a hilarious exercise in futility. Not really take Broadcom fro example, from https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/broadcom_wireless#History https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/broadcom_wireless#Histo... Broadcom has a noted history with its support for Wi-Fi devices regarding GNU/Linux. For a good portion of its initial history, Broadcom devices were either entirely unsupported or required the user to tinker with the firmware. The limited set of wireless devices that were supported were done so by a reverse-engineered driver. The reverse-engineered b43 driver was introduced in the 2.6.24 kernel. In August 2008, Broadcom released the 802.11 Linux STA driver officially supporting Broadcom wireless devices on GNU/Linux. This is a restrictively licensed driver and it does not work with hidden ESSIDs, but Broadcom promised to work towards a more open approach in the future. In September 2010, Broadcom released a fully open source driver. The brcm80211 driver was introduced in the 2.6.37 kernel and in the 2.6.39 kernel it was sub-divided into the brcmsmac and brcmfmac drivers.
pmorici 10y ago
You have to look at it from their perspective. Why spend money updating something that works? The number of people who care that their device firmware uses a recent Linux kernel version is so infinitesimally small satisfying them wouldn't even move the needle on sales and you apparently bought one any ways so why should they care? If you want hardware you can tinker with build your own from parts you know work with recent kernels or buy a product specifically marketed at that segment.
- voltagex_ 10y ago
  I've been told I bought the wrong device repeatedly. Annoyingly a day after I bought it, I didn't need the ADSL modem any more. For years, I needed Broadcom ADSL chipsets to get >5 megabit downstream at home, but my next upgrade will probably be a separate router and WiFi AP.
  - kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
    The telcos and cable companies don't want to provision subscriber provided modems so they come up with the BS excuse about unsupported equipment to screw their customers over.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    > but my next upgrade will probably be a separate router and WiFi AP Personally I go the "other" way. Router + WiFi (I use an Airport, but pick your poison), and then the most basic modem possible for the location - this might be a provider-supplied DOCSIS Modem/Router in bridge mode, right now it's a provider-supplied "1 port" ADSL2+ modem/router in bridge mode. With an ADSL setup, you'll probably need to use PPPoE from the router, with a DOCSIS setup, the auth is usually on the MAC address so your router doesn't need to know anything, it just connects via IP to the bridged cable modem. If the modem ever gives me issues, I'll just replace it with a plain-jane ADSL2+ modem. If the ISP's expand their docsis/fibre network past our new house, I'll just swap the ADSL modem for a DOCSIS modem/router in bridge mode. This setup has given me the least headaches in every scenario across several houses in both Australia and Thailand. The only hard part really has been trying to express "I want a DOCSIS router that i can turn off the router" in a way that a Thai-speaking technician or my non-technical english&thai speaking wife can all understand.
deepsun 10y ago
Check out Turris Omnia [1]. It's open-software open-hardware router with automatic updates. 1: https://omnia.turris.cz/en/ https://omnia.turris.cz/en/
- voltagex_ 10y ago
  I did see this, has it shipped? At the time I needed a new modem as I was stuck on ADSL, but I've since (luckily) been upgraded to a fibre connection that only requires something that can speak PPPoE.
  - ashitlerferad 10y ago
    Do you get to plug the fibre strands directly into your own equipment?? Most places telco equipment must be installed and you just get an Ethernet connection. The Omnia has not shipped yet, but production is starting soon. Their kickstarter was wildly successful.
    - voltagex_ 10y ago
      I don't want to deal with blinding light at all. NBNco has contractors come put holes in your walls to install a termination box, then you get Ethernet out. http://www.nbnco.com.au/connect-home-or-business/already-connected/nbn-equipment.html http://www.nbnco.com.au/connect-home-or-business/already-con... I don't really do hardware crowdfunding anymore. I was burned by the Almond+ device - "custom" chipset with no mainline support, ever.
    - kalleboo 10y ago
      Around these parts you get an optical SC outlet like this http://i.imgur.com/4n9m0q6.jpg http://i.imgur.com/4n9m0q6.jpg into which you plug the operator-provided equipment. Which means you ought to be able to replace it, but I honestly don't know if you there is any third party equipment for sale...
- ashitlerferad 10y ago
  Sadly that still requires non-free WiFi firmware :(
di4na 10y ago
You also have to keep in mind that, sadly, most of the toolchain for embedded is... quite old and proprietary. There is a whole ecosystem that force you to stay stucked at old stuff. I know a ton of embedded company that still have windows 98 or XP machine, because they need them to drive their flash tools or their debugger. The whole industry stopped updating when the software part tried super hard to sell them Java... and it did not work that well...
INTPenis 10y ago
Curiously timed question because when the 4.7 kernel release announcement was sent out I googled one of the contributs on a whim and found that they worked for a company that builds embedded systems. And this guy is contributing to the 4.7 kernel. ;) But that's just one guy, one company. I believe most companies like the stability of using something old and well proven.
- spoiler 10y ago
  > But that's just one guy, one company. I believe most companies like the stability of using something old and well proven. Isn't it the opposite with the kernel, though? Doesn't its stability improve over time? That's at least the feeling I get. I make some embedded "devices" as a hobby (none of it is mass-produced), and I feel like things are better now than they used to be ~3 years ago.
  - Nullabillity 10y ago
    > I make some embedded "devices" as a hobby (none of it is mass-produced), and I feel like things are better now than they used to be ~3 years ago. I guess what they meant was that sticking to old versions gives you a stable target to develop against, not that the resulting product will be stable. Upgrading to 4.whatever would give you all the improvements, absolutely, but it would also give you all the new bugs, and mean that you have to keep up with all the refactoring that have been done since (and will be done in the future, if you plan to stay up to date).

grawlinson 10y ago

>mainly because the wifi chipset vendor refuses to open source their code and refuses to update the BSP In that case, never. Trying to get vendors to open source anything is a hilarious exercise in futility.

ashitlerferad 10y ago
If you want to help the folks who are trying to get vendors to open source their Linux drivers/patches, check out these pages: https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ http://gpl-violations.org/helping/ http://gpl-violations.org/helping/
- voltagex_ 10y ago
  I'm a big fan of both of those - but their backlogs are massive. I'm hoping there's another donation matching campaign at LCA2017 for Conservancy next year - I was able to donate somewhere close to $300 via that last year.
executesorder66 10y ago
> Trying to get vendors to open source anything is a hilarious exercise in futility. I hate that this is true. Could anyone explain to me why though? Would it not make life easier for them if they just open sourced their firmware and let other people update/maintain it? (Sorry for the noob question, I haven't looked into this in detail)
- throwaway_exer 10y ago
  1) opens them up to more patent infringement lawsuits 2) FCC prefers SDN radios be blackboxes 3) costs more money to document and support
  - executesorder66 10y ago
    1) Why would they be infringing on a patent if they open source their own code? Could you expand on this point please. 2) Seems like a small subset of devices. And the FCC only has power in the US right? 3) Surely they have to document their stuff internally anyway. And being opensource can mean free documentation. Same for support.
hhjkjhkjhhlkj 10y ago
> Trying to get vendors to open source anything is a hilarious exercise in futility. Not really take Broadcom fro example, from https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/broadcom_wireless#History https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/broadcom_wireless#Histo... Broadcom has a noted history with its support for Wi-Fi devices regarding GNU/Linux. For a good portion of its initial history, Broadcom devices were either entirely unsupported or required the user to tinker with the firmware. The limited set of wireless devices that were supported were done so by a reverse-engineered driver. The reverse-engineered b43 driver was introduced in the 2.6.24 kernel. In August 2008, Broadcom released the 802.11 Linux STA driver officially supporting Broadcom wireless devices on GNU/Linux. This is a restrictively licensed driver and it does not work with hidden ESSIDs, but Broadcom promised to work towards a more open approach in the future. In September 2010, Broadcom released a fully open source driver. The brcm80211 driver was introduced in the 2.6.37 kernel and in the 2.6.39 kernel it was sub-divided into the brcmsmac and brcmfmac drivers.

pmorici 10y ago

You have to look at it from their perspective. Why spend money updating something that works? The number of people who care that their device firmware uses a recent Linux kernel version is so infinitesimally small satisfying them wouldn't even move the needle on sales and you apparently bought one any ways so why should they care? If you want hardware you can tinker with build your own from parts you know work with recent kernels or buy a product specifically marketed at that segment.

voltagex_ 10y ago
I've been told I bought the wrong device repeatedly. Annoyingly a day after I bought it, I didn't need the ADSL modem any more. For years, I needed Broadcom ADSL chipsets to get >5 megabit downstream at home, but my next upgrade will probably be a separate router and WiFi AP.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  The telcos and cable companies don't want to provision subscriber provided modems so they come up with the BS excuse about unsupported equipment to screw their customers over.
- stephenr 10y ago
  > but my next upgrade will probably be a separate router and WiFi AP Personally I go the "other" way. Router + WiFi (I use an Airport, but pick your poison), and then the most basic modem possible for the location - this might be a provider-supplied DOCSIS Modem/Router in bridge mode, right now it's a provider-supplied "1 port" ADSL2+ modem/router in bridge mode. With an ADSL setup, you'll probably need to use PPPoE from the router, with a DOCSIS setup, the auth is usually on the MAC address so your router doesn't need to know anything, it just connects via IP to the bridged cable modem. If the modem ever gives me issues, I'll just replace it with a plain-jane ADSL2+ modem. If the ISP's expand their docsis/fibre network past our new house, I'll just swap the ADSL modem for a DOCSIS modem/router in bridge mode. This setup has given me the least headaches in every scenario across several houses in both Australia and Thailand. The only hard part really has been trying to express "I want a DOCSIS router that i can turn off the router" in a way that a Thai-speaking technician or my non-technical english&thai speaking wife can all understand.

deepsun 10y ago

Check out Turris Omnia [1]. It's open-software open-hardware router with automatic updates. 1: https://omnia.turris.cz/en/ https://omnia.turris.cz/en/

voltagex_ 10y ago
I did see this, has it shipped? At the time I needed a new modem as I was stuck on ADSL, but I've since (luckily) been upgraded to a fibre connection that only requires something that can speak PPPoE.
- ashitlerferad 10y ago
  Do you get to plug the fibre strands directly into your own equipment?? Most places telco equipment must be installed and you just get an Ethernet connection. The Omnia has not shipped yet, but production is starting soon. Their kickstarter was wildly successful.
  - voltagex_ 10y ago
    I don't want to deal with blinding light at all. NBNco has contractors come put holes in your walls to install a termination box, then you get Ethernet out. http://www.nbnco.com.au/connect-home-or-business/already-connected/nbn-equipment.html http://www.nbnco.com.au/connect-home-or-business/already-con... I don't really do hardware crowdfunding anymore. I was burned by the Almond+ device - "custom" chipset with no mainline support, ever.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    Around these parts you get an optical SC outlet like this http://i.imgur.com/4n9m0q6.jpg http://i.imgur.com/4n9m0q6.jpg into which you plug the operator-provided equipment. Which means you ought to be able to replace it, but I honestly don't know if you there is any third party equipment for sale...
ashitlerferad 10y ago
Sadly that still requires non-free WiFi firmware :(

di4na 10y ago

You also have to keep in mind that, sadly, most of the toolchain for embedded is... quite old and proprietary. There is a whole ecosystem that force you to stay stucked at old stuff. I know a ton of embedded company that still have windows 98 or XP machine, because they need them to drive their flash tools or their debugger. The whole industry stopped updating when the software part tried super hard to sell them Java... and it did not work that well...

INTPenis 10y ago

Curiously timed question because when the 4.7 kernel release announcement was sent out I googled one of the contributs on a whim and found that they worked for a company that builds embedded systems. And this guy is contributing to the 4.7 kernel. ;) But that's just one guy, one company. I believe most companies like the stability of using something old and well proven.

spoiler 10y ago
> But that's just one guy, one company. I believe most companies like the stability of using something old and well proven. Isn't it the opposite with the kernel, though? Doesn't its stability improve over time? That's at least the feeling I get. I make some embedded "devices" as a hobby (none of it is mass-produced), and I feel like things are better now than they used to be ~3 years ago.
- Nullabillity 10y ago
  > I make some embedded "devices" as a hobby (none of it is mass-produced), and I feel like things are better now than they used to be ~3 years ago. I guess what they meant was that sticking to old versions gives you a stable target to develop against, not that the resulting product will be stable. Upgrading to 4.whatever would give you all the improvements, absolutely, but it would also give you all the new bugs, and mean that you have to keep up with all the refactoring that have been done since (and will be done in the future, if you plan to stay up to date).