5 ms·

Yes, curse these low power cheap system on a chips! All embedded software should be run on x86! Routers on x86, phones on x86, smart thermostats on x86. Just bu

Yes, curse these low power cheap system on a chips! All embedded software should be run on x86! Routers on x86, phones on x86, smart thermostats on x86. Just buy them on eBay am I right.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago
> All embedded software should be run on x86! Routers on x86, phones on x86, smart thermostats on x86. In 2013, Intel made an attempt to make x86 suitable for embedded purposes with the Intel Quark microcontroller: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quark and branded developer boards for it under the name Intel Galileo: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Galileo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Galileo As far as I aware the markets rather preferred existing microcontroller solutions instead of Intel's offer.
- fifteen1506 3y ago
  Maybe they'll try again with x86s.
- topspin 3y ago
  MCUs are all about peripherals. The ISA barely matters. The peripherals are frequently ported forward unchanged or enhanced in forward compatible ways from older MCUs with different ISAs because they are specialized, proprietary, carefully refined circuits and developers can port their working C peripheral drivers with minimal change. You can't helicopter in to that market with your half baked, brand new peripheral suite and expect everyone to adopt it. Intel did go far in set top boxes and smart TVs with their atom/canmore (SoC, not MCU) platform in ~2008 and onward. I ported some media software to it. I think a lot of that has been given back to ARM and Android since, however.
postepowanieadm 3y ago
"cheap"
toast0 3y ago
Intel kind of abandoned embedded recently, but 80186 was x86 for embedded before it was cool. And they've tried to make it work from time to time. x86 routers are great. x86 phones aren't awful, and could have been amazing if Intel didn't cancel them right before Microsoft released Continuum. Not sure if I've seen a smart thermostat on x86, but I dunno sure, as long as its got a common wire do it can pull power, should be fine.
yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Pretending for a moment that x86 and Raspberry Pi are the only options: If Pis are constantly broken in all kinds of weird little ways that take forever to debug let alone fix, and x86 just works reliably, then yes honestly that is a valid conclusion to draw.
serf 3y ago
dev time isn't free -- if it works, it works. Eating up life-cycles with broadcom/infineon issues sounds like one of the circles of hell , personally.
rnhmjoj 3y ago
The problem is not the CPU architecture, it's everything else: no standardised boot mechanism, no hardware enumeration at all, proprietary blobs everywhere, no mainline kernel support, no vendor support 6 months after launch, etc. And yeah, I do in fact have an x86 router: it's probably going to last for a decade, with software updates and all.

Yes, curse these low power cheap system on a chips! All embedded software should be run on x86! Routers on x86, phones on x86, smart thermostats on x86. Just buy them on eBay am I right.

aleph_minus_one 3y ago

> All embedded software should be run on x86! Routers on x86, phones on x86, smart thermostats on x86. In 2013, Intel made an attempt to make x86 suitable for embedded purposes with the Intel Quark microcontroller: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quark https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Quark and branded developer boards for it under the name Intel Galileo: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Galileo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Galileo As far as I aware the markets rather preferred existing microcontroller solutions instead of Intel's offer.

fifteen1506 3y ago
Maybe they'll try again with x86s.
topspin 3y ago
MCUs are all about peripherals. The ISA barely matters. The peripherals are frequently ported forward unchanged or enhanced in forward compatible ways from older MCUs with different ISAs because they are specialized, proprietary, carefully refined circuits and developers can port their working C peripheral drivers with minimal change. You can't helicopter in to that market with your half baked, brand new peripheral suite and expect everyone to adopt it. Intel did go far in set top boxes and smart TVs with their atom/canmore (SoC, not MCU) platform in ~2008 and onward. I ported some media software to it. I think a lot of that has been given back to ARM and Android since, however.

postepowanieadm 3y ago

"cheap"

toast0 3y ago

Intel kind of abandoned embedded recently, but 80186 was x86 for embedded before it was cool. And they've tried to make it work from time to time. x86 routers are great. x86 phones aren't awful, and could have been amazing if Intel didn't cancel them right before Microsoft released Continuum. Not sure if I've seen a smart thermostat on x86, but I dunno sure, as long as its got a common wire do it can pull power, should be fine.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

Pretending for a moment that x86 and Raspberry Pi are the only options: If Pis are constantly broken in all kinds of weird little ways that take forever to debug let alone fix, and x86 just works reliably, then yes honestly that is a valid conclusion to draw.

serf 3y ago

dev time isn't free -- if it works, it works. Eating up life-cycles with broadcom/infineon issues sounds like one of the circles of hell , personally.

rnhmjoj 3y ago

The problem is not the CPU architecture, it's everything else: no standardised boot mechanism, no hardware enumeration at all, proprietary blobs everywhere, no mainline kernel support, no vendor support 6 months after launch, etc. And yeah, I do in fact have an x86 router: it's probably going to last for a decade, with software updates and all.