Windows device development faster, cheaper than Linux? (Register)

Windows device development faster, cheaper than Linux? (Register)

Most of these points have been covered, and even the register says it's a Microsoft sponsored study. Thanks for the direct link by the way.

Windows development tools are going to be good for small scale development projects, particularly with small companies simply using small embedded devices like handhelds, owing to the need to just code and get things done rather than spending time on other issues and research. This isn't really embedded systems development, it's just programming monkey-style in the same way as using Visual Basic on a PC. This approach is going to be somewhat cheaper for these types of projects (and probably make more sense), although for those companies producing full embedded products (particularly consumer devices) this won't make any difference. The study also continously talks about "is open source really free?" when this debate is now over. No one believes open source software is totally free money-wise anymore, and it is also possible with embedded systems to buy commercial development tools that run on top of Linux. Microsoft certainly isn't free either, particularly when it gains a monopoly - it's primary business goal. In embedded systems it isn't really possible to do development with totally free software - yet - and this is something the report also gets wrong initially, but then goes on to describe the high costs of Linux-based development tools. We get the usual free software FUD of "sifting through mountains of code" and "no free lunches". These debates are now well and truly over.

There is also the line of "..whether embedded developers really need (or want) to see the operating system source code." which is an attempt to justify closed-source systems. No mention is made of Shared Source, which we can all assume is total hot air. Free software has demonstrable advantages in the area of available source code, and these are now very well documented. From then on we get even more rubbish about the "supposed advantages of seeing the code and fixing it for yourself", and we also get various warnings about the perils of code forking, something Microsoft continuously and vigorously uses against open source development. It also talks about the 'hype' of Embedded Linux and asks on what basis this assumption can be made. This doesn't sound like an impartial report to me, and I thought this was about embedded systems development anyway? The actual valid points of the report are lost under the general tone - "Oh isn't Linux-based embedded development a chore?" and "Linux isn't really free".

The section on purchasing third party add-ons is most revealing, as it seems be trying very, very hard to make a case for saying "Don't pay royalties for MPEG2/MPEG4 codecs etc. Windows Media et al is all built in with Microsoft's tools!" along with, you guessed it, Digital Rights Management. This really is the most interesting part of the report, as it seems to be making a direct and vigorous case for developers to stop using add-ons for playing MP3s and other media formats in favour of Windows Media tools. In view of the unabated popularity of MP3s, DVDs, and MPEG formats (along with various free ones), this is extremely important for Microsoft if it wants to (and it really does) get into the entertainment/consumer oriented 'multimedia' embedded systems market. This is where we really see what the motivaton behind this report is and who it is targetted at.

However, the funniest part of the report says "...unlike embedded Linux distributors, Microsoft charges for tools only once, and there are no annual supprt or maintenance costs". We should all remember that the next time we sign up to a licensing scheme, or see a bill for upgrading from software that is no longer supported as well as the countless days of stress we all have as a result of putting back together Windows machines that have been trashed as a result of insecurities and botched service packs and patches. Is this what we want to see within embedded systems and consumer devices? If Microsoft gets a monopoly lock on this market (unlikely) then this is what we'll have, and they will have a license to raise licensing fees as they see fit. Again.

The rest of the report simply reads as a sales pitch for embedded Visual Studio development tools. Hardly impartial in any way shape or form.

For those in the embedded systems field who need to invest in innovation, large companies such as Nokia, Sony-Eriksson, Motorola etc., especially those producing consumer devices, using Linux and other platforms and tools just make total fundamental business sense. Firstly they need to innovate for themselves, and secondly it would be total suicide to put Windows and MS development tools on all of their devices, as the fate of their products then rests with Microsoft. The 'cost advantages' of Microsoft development tools simply aren't going to matter to these companies. Ironic that they talk about that, isn't it? I certainly don't want all mobile phones and other devices looking the same, as computers do. As I've said before, this market is simply not going to be a clone of the monopolised PC market for Microsoft's 'taxing' purposes.

Now, can we stop it with these stupid Microsoft studies please? The raw desperation is really getting on my nerves.