3 ms·
My suspicion is that most attempts to create a better OS for IoT will fail for political reasons. AFIAKT, one really important characteristic of Linux (and Java
by sjellis 10y ago
My suspicion is that most attempts to create a better OS for IoT will fail for political reasons. AFIAKT, one really important characteristic of Linux (and JavaScript also) for large tech companies is that they can control their own stacks, without having to license tech from another corporation, but still have the benefit of network effects. Samsung have Tizen, Google have ChromeOS etc. etc.
At the component level, Linux also empowers the chip vendors to build what they want on their own timescales and then address a large market. Even open Linux drivers are sometimes loaders for proprietary firmware, so they aren't really giving up the ability to ship code in a black box.
I don't see any of them willingly cooperating with a company that wants to manage and deliver the whole OS from the the kernel up. TLDR: The industry probably does not want a Microsoft for IoT.
- sgt 10y agoSpeaking of OS's for IoT - I think http://www.contiki-os.org/ http://www.contiki-os.org/ deserves a mention.
- unboxed_type 10y agoHere is my 50 cent. Zephyr OS from Linux foundation: https://www.zephyrproject.org/ https://www.zephyrproject.org/
- mmalone 10y agoLinux doesn't scale down very well though. I really don't need the full Linux API for a lightbulb. Most embedded OSs are microkernels for this reason. If any mega-trend has a chance of unseating Linux and generally disrupting the OS space it's IoT.
- bonzini 10y agoA lightbulb will have an RTOS, not a microkernel. While microkernels provide utmost isolation between processes and well-defined primitives for communications, a lightbulb might not even have separate supervisor and user modes.
- nickpsecurity 10y agoA lightbulb won't even have a RTOS. It will be a state machine or series of them in C language on cheapest MCU imaginable. Probably 8- or 16-bit. That keeps the cost at nickles or dimes.