| Author |
Message |
Richard Saunders
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 2:55 am Post subject:
Why not NetBSD? |
|
|
I'm looking to build a reasonably-sophisticated embedded device, and was
originally thinking of using Linux. While poking around for info, I
also did some looking at NetBSD. From what I can see, NetBSD is:
- designed from scratch for portability
- seems to be easier to use for embedded systems
- has a more flexible and determinate licensing scheme
However, I'm suspicious as I see a lot of activity around embedded
Linux, but much less around NetBSD. What am I missing? I'm hoping that
the learned members of this group can shed a little light on embedding
NetBSD vs. Linux. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:10 am Post subject:
Re: Why not NetBSD? |
|
|
NetBSD is a fine product, certainly a viable candidate for a
"reasonably sophisticated embedded device" (which I presume means based
on a 32-bit core). There are a couple of factors which make it less
visible, though:
1. The license :) Linux development by design is open. NetBSD can be
buried anonymously inside a product. No way you would ever necessarily
know it's being used.
2. It's a simpler - virtually no-brainer - job to migrate from desktop
PC Linux to an embedded distribution. Going all the way over to a
totally separate OS is a bigger task.
3. Embedded Linux is a buzzword. People want to have it on their
resume. Managers "understand" that it is something good. There is a
publicity machine promoting devices based around Linux. NetBSD is
quieter. No free publicity bandwagon to ride. Not quite so cool on
one's resume. Again this is not a reflection on the OS, merely on why
your perceptions of it have been flavored.
4. Lots of fashionable device driver development is going on for Linux.
Not all of this makes its way into NetBSD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roberto Waltman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 3:41 am Post subject:
Re: Why not NetBSD? |
|
|
On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 16:55:27 -0500, Richard Saunders
<rsaund@hotpop.com> wrote:
| Quote: | I'm looking to build a reasonably-sophisticated embedded device, and was
originally thinking of using Linux. While poking around for info, I
also did some looking at NetBSD. From what I can see, NetBSD is:
- designed from scratch for portability
- seems to be easier to use for embedded systems
- has a more flexible and determinate licensing scheme
However, I'm suspicious as I see a lot of activity around embedded
Linux, but much less around NetBSD. What am I missing? I'm hoping that
the learned members of this group can shed a little light on embedding
NetBSD vs. Linux.
|
My company is currently using NetBSD for embedded applications.
FreeBSD was used previously, and we moved to NetBSD when porting a
large system to an non-Intel platform.
My understanding is that Linux was considered and rejected due to its
licensing terms.
I do not see any essential difference in developing software for these
three operating systems, except the obvious points:
(a) FreeBSD is Intel x86 only.
(b) NetBSD runs on more platforms.
(c) There are more drivers, hardware support, etc. for Linux.
(d) *BSD OS's have a Berkeley type licensing scheme.
Roberto Waltman. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vax, 9000
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:56 am Post subject:
Re: Why not NetBSD? |
|
|
larwe@larwe.com wrote:
| Quote: | NetBSD is a fine product, certainly a viable candidate for a
"reasonably sophisticated embedded device" (which I presume means based
on a 32-bit core). There are a couple of factors which make it less
visible, though:
1. The license :) Linux development by design is open. NetBSD can be
buried anonymously inside a product. No way you would ever necessarily
know it's being used.
And this is the reason why more people are contributing to Linux. If you |
base your work on linux, you have to make it public, thus you contribute to
linux, whether you are willing to do so or not. In the mean time,
Improvement of NetBSD may hide in those companies who use it in their
products.
vax, 9000
| Quote: |
2. It's a simpler - virtually no-brainer - job to migrate from desktop
PC Linux to an embedded distribution. Going all the way over to a
totally separate OS is a bigger task.
3. Embedded Linux is a buzzword. People want to have it on their
resume. Managers "understand" that it is something good. There is a
publicity machine promoting devices based around Linux. NetBSD is
quieter. No free publicity bandwagon to ride. Not quite so cool on
one's resume. Again this is not a reflection on the OS, merely on why
your perceptions of it have been flavored.
4. Lots of fashionable device driver development is going on for Linux.
Not all of this makes its way into NetBSD. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kelly Hall
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:56 am Post subject:
Re: Why not NetBSD? |
|
|
Roberto Waltman wrote:
| Quote: | I do not see any essential difference in developing software for these
three operating systems, except the obvious points:
(a) FreeBSD is Intel x86 only.
|
Hmm. Funny that the UltraSparc 5 under my desk is running FreeBSD 5.3.
I've shipped a product based on Real-Time Linux, another based on a
"hardened" variant of Slackware, one using a Monte Vista Linux port, and
most recently on FreeBSD. All of the development efforts required
nontrivial modifications to the vanilla OS to meet our business needs,
but only in the company using FreeBSD have we bothered to fold our
changes and bug reports back to the developers.
Although it violates the licensing agreement, I doubt all of the
companies using Linux bother to make their source code available.
Kelly |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bryan Hackney
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:57 am Post subject:
Re: Why not NetBSD? |
|
|
Kelly Hall wrote:
| Quote: | Roberto Waltman wrote:
I do not see any essential difference in developing software for these
three operating systems, except the obvious points:
(a) FreeBSD is Intel x86 only.
Hmm. Funny that the UltraSparc 5 under my desk is running FreeBSD 5.3.
I've shipped a product based on Real-Time Linux, another based on a
"hardened" variant of Slackware, one using a Monte Vista Linux port, and
most recently on FreeBSD. All of the development efforts required
nontrivial modifications to the vanilla OS to meet our business needs,
but only in the company using FreeBSD have we bothered to fold our
changes and bug reports back to the developers.
|
The GPL requires moving changes forward, not necessarily backwards.
| Quote: |
Although it violates the licensing agreement, I doubt all of the
companies using Linux bother to make their source code available.
Kelly |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Dec 20, 2004 7:57 am Post subject:
Re: Why not NetBSD? |
|
|
I stay away from GPL encumbered products in my embedded systems. I
admire the people who contribute to open source, and I certainly do use
open source products, but this is business, and if I have a kernel team
implementing a differentiating piece of technology in the core kernel,
I don't want to have to give that up.
NetBSD and FreeBSD are my 32-bit heavy OSs of choice. They are never
exposed in the product. Nobody cares if their toaster runs FreeBSD or
Linux... just if it browns the bread nicely. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Roberto Waltman
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Dec 21, 2004 1:28 am Post subject:
Re: Why not NetBSD? |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 06:14:07 GMT, Kelly Hall <khall@acm.org> wrote:
| Quote: | Roberto Waltman wrote:
I do not see any essential difference in developing software for these
three operating systems, except the obvious points:
(a) FreeBSD is Intel x86 only.
Hmm. Funny that the UltraSparc 5 under my desk is running FreeBSD 5.3.
|
Oops! Yes, and Alpha also. That should have been "...x86 mainly."
Roberto Waltman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:47 am Post subject:
Re: Why not NetBSD? |
|
|
Richard Saunders <rsaund@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:-sudnVlGg6ZVZVjcRVn-pQ@speakeasy.net...
| Quote: | I'm looking to build a reasonably-sophisticated embedded device, and was
originally thinking of using Linux. While poking around for info, I
also did some looking at NetBSD. From what I can see, NetBSD is:
- designed from scratch for portability
|
Yes. Portions of NBSD's development have definitely lagged
those of FreeBSD, Linux, etc. specifically because of this
emphasis on portability. I think the FreeBSD camp has paid
a price for tailoring early releases to the i86 platform in that
adding other platforms *now* seems to be a bit more of a
painful process (i.e. why don't they have support for dozens of
platforms?)
| Quote: | - seems to be easier to use for embedded systems
|
I think the fact that multiplatform products tend to require cross
development efforts just to build themselves means you've got
people already thinking along this track. A product developed
on a PC to *run* on a PC can cut a lot of corners -- e.g., reboot
with new kernel and see how it works.
| Quote: | - has a more flexible and determinate licensing scheme
|
Yes. More of the Berkeley style licensing. My clients *cringe*
when presented with the idea of building on a Linux core -- almost
as badly as a MS-based approach. There is also a *perception*
that Linux is more fluid, implying less *stable* (i.e. how many
kernel releases have their been? are each of these releases fully
characterized? Or, have they just "moved on" with changes -- and
*new*, undiscovered bugs...?)
As a result of this client bias, I can't speak first-hand of the
*realities* of their codebase and/or its quality (flames > /dev/null)
I've learned its usually not worthwhile to try to "educate" a client
to adopt something that he is inherently wary of (anything goes
wrong, the "I-told-you-so's" can be BRUTAL!)
| Quote: | However, I'm suspicious as I see a lot of activity around embedded
Linux, but much less around NetBSD. What am I missing? I'm hoping that
the learned members of this group can shed a little light on embedding
NetBSD vs. Linux.
|
There are products designed around NBSD. They just don't
pimp the OS like the folks using Linux distros do.
There are other UN*X-like platforms that are, perhaps, better
suited to embedded work. Note that most of the free eunices
have a VERY heavy footprint. And, even those that purport
to have (pseudo) real time capabilities have gaping holes
in their RT support (i.e how many have true RT TCP/IP stacks??)
Good luck!
--don |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in