3 ms·
Of interest to me because I have been doing agricultural process monitoring and production control systems for about 30 years. And most of my clients' systems a
by BJBBB 5y ago
Of interest to me because I have been doing agricultural process monitoring and production control systems for about 30 years. And most of my clients' systems are at least semi-custom and re-invent wheels for no other purpose other than to do it their way; that is, silos (pun not intended). But where NDAs and IP agreements allow, I have attempted to standardize some architectures.
But was disappointing to see the way the LF is organizing this - no representation from the ag industry's heavy hitters and no specific and attainable goals.
Should this be done by an Operating Systems organization? Other than centralized control and logistical systems, ag engineering is not the realm of microprocessors and operating systems, and code monkeys. Ag engineering is a world of hardware, micro-controllers, FSMs, and scheduler stacks.
But then, if not the LF, whom has the organization to do this?
- is_true 5y agoThis should be done by the Food and Agriculture Organization that belongs to the UN. But well, you can't ask much to the United Bureaucrats Organization
- rektide 5y agoLF is basically a deployable organizational model, typically taken advantage of by someone with an existing project or projects they want to release & collaborate on. there are blockchain, mainframe, embedded os projects, countless more, under LF. worth noting that Linux Foundation began as a merger of between Open Source Development Labs (who worked to push Linux adoption in enterprise) and the Free Standards Group (who worked to push open source standards) to standardize Linux. Only one of these groups started with an exclusive Linux focus, and that same group also focused on the enterprise & driving adoptability.
- jerrysievert 5y ago> and that same group also focused on the enterprise & driving adoptability. well, sort of. there were a couple of half-assed pushes with things like linux for data centers, but mostly it was a data center filled with hardware that got very little use other than one asterisk system sitting in a corner, a stack of machines/disk that could be "checked out", but mostly got used for automated testing, and an NEC numa itanium machine that barely worked. add to that, projects that intel no longer wanted to support being shoved off, and you have a pretty good view of day to day life at the OSDL. source: worked there, doing day to day life at the OSDL.
- ghaff 5y agoOSDL was almost certainly too focused on Linux vertical scalability at the time because that's what IBM and others were focused on. While things like NUMA optimizations became more broadly important over time (as those architectures became part of smaller and smaller systems), it's of course not how Linux primarily grew early on. The current LF executive director actually held that position at FSG when they merged.
- ghaff 5y agoDespite the name, the Linux Foundation covers a whole lot more than Linux these days, including a variety of industry vertical orgs with both industry and vendor representation including (off the top of my head) motion picture, finance, healthcare, energy, automotive. So this is actually a pretty good fit. The general idea is to start out an org like this as essentially an MVP and iterate and grow over time.