4 ms·
I worked for a company that opted for Windows Embedded back in the early 2000s, probably inspired by Tektronix scopes due to them also making scientific instrum
by TeeMassive 4y ago
I worked for a company that opted for Windows Embedded back in the early 2000s, probably inspired by Tektronix scopes due to them also making scientific instruments.
They boomed. They must have had good relationships with Microsoft because they produced kernel patches just for them.
Anyway, 15 years later of "it works now, why change it", they start a new project to rewrite the cash cow. It was a Phoenix Project; and it also had a name associated with rebirth, as most of these projects do. Turns out, Windows Embedded is still not a good idea 20 years later, and they couldn't change their code because it was so tightly coupled with Windows. The project took 250% more time than budgeted and even then it was a MVP.
A competitor decided to do the same product but in Yocto Linux using modern tech and remade the cash cow product in less than their budgeted time. The interface was snappy, there was barely no bugs, etc.
Software entropy is real, and I've seen it in many startups that got bought out after they boomed. Then the entropy is left for those who weren't there during booming phase as a poisoned gift. I like to call it tech inflation.
- robocat 4y agoTo me, your story is “Linux good, Windows bad” and you have created a narrative around that. Anecdotally, I have seen multiple successful greenfields rewrites on Windows. I am sure we could find plenty of examples of unsuccessful rewrites from Windows onto Linux. That is: your cause/effect analysis is probably incorrect. Rewrites are hard, and the OS is probably only a minor role. Disclaimer: I am a long time Windows hater, but Windows has been used to put food on my table.
- TeeMassive 4y agoIt's more about the right tool for the job. Also, was your greenfield projects in Windows Embedded specifically?