3 ms·

Free software can be terrible as well, it solves nothing. What you want to achieve with safety critical systems is diametrically opposed to common open source

Free software can be terrible as well, it solves nothing. What you want to achieve with safety critical systems is diametrically opposed to common open source development patterns. A car company can not possibly take liability for a car where some random guy has flashed some software on.

kkfx 2y ago
> Free software can be terrible as well, it solves nothing. Yes, it can, but being open, with an open toolchain, public from the start where the repo is just few SLoC, chance exists that someone else fix or even substitute it, so if a car sell because the hw/the design is good but software is bad chance exists that others fix it or even change it. Since ANY OEM of course try to grab as much as possible bad things likely disappear quickly while good one flourish. We might have terrible Android crappy ROM but also others totally different and being open it's hard to make them non interchangeable, meaning that after an initial phase there will be no VW or Rivian sw but common "distros" compatible with various cars, certified by the public to be safe for public use on the road.
- constantcrying 2y ago
  Developing software for highly integrated embedded systems requires hundreds of thousands in validation, verification and testing hardware. Wether the hardware and software are open is totally irrelevant. You can't have outsiders develop for it. >it's hard to make them non interchangeable, meaning that after an initial phase there will be no VW or Rivian sw but common "distros" compatible with various cars, certified by the public to be safe for public use on the road. This is completely delusional. This is not how hardware or software works at all.
  - kkfx 2y ago
    Unless vehicles start to be kind of standard, like most Chinese EVs... Or like Japanese house abacus to speed up anti-seismic computations. In the end we already have some common base, at least in EU most light commercial vans for instance have a common base even if they are built by many OEMs and have various cosmetic differences. A Transit, Vito, Ducato, Master etc are the same base with different dress, I see no reasons not to do the same for cars.
    - constantcrying 2y ago
      >Unless vehicles start to be kind of standard, like most Chinese EVs... That is complete nonsense. In the Chinese market companies differentiate themselves by software. I think you don't know what software in cars even is, so you are completely missing the point. These common bases have been proposed, BMW at some point wanted German OEMs to cooperate on that, but they will never operate as open source projects, because they require hundreds of thousands in hardware to develop for. It is a massive project, which requires significant capital, OEMs can cooperate (which has a 99% chance of ending in total disaster), but every incentive they have goes against sharing.
      - kkfx 2y ago
        Then it's the time for a public funded and steered project. There is more indeed https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/january/stellantis-blackberry-qnx-and-aws-launch-virtual-cockpit-transforming-in-vehicle-software-engineering https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/janua... or https://arstechnica.com/?p=2019282 https://arstechnica.com/?p=2019282 to show some I've read about relatively recently but being private initiative they are constrained by money and competition a public Xerox PARC alike project would have no such constrains. About Chinese EVs yes, they show different software, but that's at the infotainment level, car core systems are essentially interchangeable and so are many parts, you can find the same on a SAIC, BYD, CATL, BAIC, Xpeng, Geely, Voyah, Chery, Changan and so on. > I think you don't know what software in cars even is Not in details, but I see the same pattern, a "core" part, with some buses and standards, mostly canbus and ODB, to communicate between core elements and in infotainment part in a tablet, hooked to the core for simple communications. Since all functions are pretty the same for every car because you can let's say design gazillion of breaking techniques, differentiating the break force/pulse per wheel, with various sensors to choose how and so on, the devices you actuate and the sensors you use are essentially the same the same. Of course at a very low level you are tied to the specific iron, like inside a CPU, but just above there is so little difference that you can have a common software stack. Failing to have one is a way to keep costs high while China get ground even if they are terrible at software.

kkfx 2y ago

> Free software can be terrible as well, it solves nothing. Yes, it can, but being open, with an open toolchain, public from the start where the repo is just few SLoC, chance exists that someone else fix or even substitute it, so if a car sell because the hw/the design is good but software is bad chance exists that others fix it or even change it. Since ANY OEM of course try to grab as much as possible bad things likely disappear quickly while good one flourish. We might have terrible Android crappy ROM but also others totally different and being open it's hard to make them non interchangeable, meaning that after an initial phase there will be no VW or Rivian sw but common "distros" compatible with various cars, certified by the public to be safe for public use on the road.

constantcrying 2y ago
Developing software for highly integrated embedded systems requires hundreds of thousands in validation, verification and testing hardware. Wether the hardware and software are open is totally irrelevant. You can't have outsiders develop for it. >it's hard to make them non interchangeable, meaning that after an initial phase there will be no VW or Rivian sw but common "distros" compatible with various cars, certified by the public to be safe for public use on the road. This is completely delusional. This is not how hardware or software works at all.
- kkfx 2y ago
  Unless vehicles start to be kind of standard, like most Chinese EVs... Or like Japanese house abacus to speed up anti-seismic computations. In the end we already have some common base, at least in EU most light commercial vans for instance have a common base even if they are built by many OEMs and have various cosmetic differences. A Transit, Vito, Ducato, Master etc are the same base with different dress, I see no reasons not to do the same for cars.
  - constantcrying 2y ago
    >Unless vehicles start to be kind of standard, like most Chinese EVs... That is complete nonsense. In the Chinese market companies differentiate themselves by software. I think you don't know what software in cars even is, so you are completely missing the point. These common bases have been proposed, BMW at some point wanted German OEMs to cooperate on that, but they will never operate as open source projects, because they require hundreds of thousands in hardware to develop for. It is a massive project, which requires significant capital, OEMs can cooperate (which has a 99% chance of ending in total disaster), but every incentive they have goes against sharing.
    - kkfx 2y ago
      Then it's the time for a public funded and steered project. There is more indeed https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/january/stellantis-blackberry-qnx-and-aws-launch-virtual-cockpit-transforming-in-vehicle-software-engineering https://www.stellantis.com/en/news/press-releases/2024/janua... or https://arstechnica.com/?p=2019282 https://arstechnica.com/?p=2019282 to show some I've read about relatively recently but being private initiative they are constrained by money and competition a public Xerox PARC alike project would have no such constrains. About Chinese EVs yes, they show different software, but that's at the infotainment level, car core systems are essentially interchangeable and so are many parts, you can find the same on a SAIC, BYD, CATL, BAIC, Xpeng, Geely, Voyah, Chery, Changan and so on. > I think you don't know what software in cars even is Not in details, but I see the same pattern, a "core" part, with some buses and standards, mostly canbus and ODB, to communicate between core elements and in infotainment part in a tablet, hooked to the core for simple communications. Since all functions are pretty the same for every car because you can let's say design gazillion of breaking techniques, differentiating the break force/pulse per wheel, with various sensors to choose how and so on, the devices you actuate and the sensors you use are essentially the same the same. Of course at a very low level you are tied to the specific iron, like inside a CPU, but just above there is so little difference that you can have a common software stack. Failing to have one is a way to keep costs high while China get ground even if they are terrible at software.