3 ms·

> Which means there is a 0% chance of a usable product. No manufacturer will ever use it and it will be all around terrible. Xerox PARC products actually have

by kkfx 2y ago

> Which means there is a 0% chance of a usable product. No manufacturer will ever use it and it will be all around terrible. Xerox PARC products actually have had no formal commercial success, but the entire modern IT was born on them. To be more precise 80-90% of anything we have in any sector is born out of public research... Yes, the public does not produce nor sell products, that's a private sector thing, the public do research. > If VW is bad at software, the German government is at a totally new level. The public is not the government. German government have much more resources than VW and have all German public universities and research centers, who actually are much more skillful than VW, in essentially any fields. > Wtf are you talking about. No, that is not true at all. That's what I see from various Chinese EVs, well, three manufacturer at least, but that's is. > You know that cars are different, right? [...] Do you think you can run the same software on a rear wheel drive ICE with active suspension as on a all wheel EV with torque vectoring? Yes. As we have GNU/Linux on embedded systems, servers and desktop, the codebase is one, the compiled/configured final binary of course differ. Consider a thing: today it's cheaper putting an ESP32 in a roller shutter remote control than create from scratch a far simpler one. As I said specific devices have to be tied to the iron, but they can be managed with a common system and many functionalities can be put in the common system. Something actually happening with ADAS typically handled by the infotainment system simply because they need much more computational horsepower than classic ABS, SRS and so on. Stellantis actually try to do that concentrating in a SoC running QNX most of the car functionalities.

constantcrying 2y ago
This is so tiresome. I thought you were talking about FOSS, but now you are telling me car manufacturers should do exactly what they are doing now, except the idiotic government should do it, so they can fail like Xerox Parc at commercial success. What? >Xerox PARC products actually have had no formal commercial success Which means that the example was a total failure, since the goal would be a commercial success, not a proof of concept leading to drastic decline. >German government have much more resources than VW The German government has definitely far less competent engineers. Which seem to be a somewhat valuable resource in building cars. >German government have much more resources than VW and have all German public universities and research centers, who actually are much more skillful than VW, in essentially any fields. Germany's most capable research organizations are mostly private. And are financing themselves by doing research for the German industry. I have no idea why you mention this though, treating software platform development as a research project is absurd. >who actually are much more skillful than VW, in essentially any fields. In any field except designing and producing cars at large scale. >As we have GNU/Linux on embedded systems, servers and desktop, the codebase is one, the compiled/configured final binary of course differ. You don't run Linux on an ABS system. That's, pardon the word, retarded. >As I said specific devices have to be tied to the iron, but they can be managed with a common system and many functionalities can be put in the common system. Sure, that is an E/E platform, which every car maker already has. Why another one? >Something actually happening with ADAS typically handled by the infotainment system Legitimately don't know what you are talking about. You know that cars have multiple processors for that exact reason? >Stellantis actually try to do that concentrating in a SoC running QNX most of the car functionalities. VW has the exact same concept. As does every car maker.

by kkfx 2y ago

constantcrying 2y ago

This is so tiresome. I thought you were talking about FOSS, but now you are telling me car manufacturers should do exactly what they are doing now, except the idiotic government should do it, so they can fail like Xerox Parc at commercial success. What? >Xerox PARC products actually have had no formal commercial success Which means that the example was a total failure, since the goal would be a commercial success, not a proof of concept leading to drastic decline. >German government have much more resources than VW The German government has definitely far less competent engineers. Which seem to be a somewhat valuable resource in building cars. >German government have much more resources than VW and have all German public universities and research centers, who actually are much more skillful than VW, in essentially any fields. Germany's most capable research organizations are mostly private. And are financing themselves by doing research for the German industry. I have no idea why you mention this though, treating software platform development as a research project is absurd. >who actually are much more skillful than VW, in essentially any fields. In any field except designing and producing cars at large scale. >As we have GNU/Linux on embedded systems, servers and desktop, the codebase is one, the compiled/configured final binary of course differ. You don't run Linux on an ABS system. That's, pardon the word, retarded. >As I said specific devices have to be tied to the iron, but they can be managed with a common system and many functionalities can be put in the common system. Sure, that is an E/E platform, which every car maker already has. Why another one? >Something actually happening with ADAS typically handled by the infotainment system Legitimately don't know what you are talking about. You know that cars have multiple processors for that exact reason? >Stellantis actually try to do that concentrating in a SoC running QNX most of the car functionalities. VW has the exact same concept. As does every car maker.