|
|
Log in / Subscribe / Register

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

[Posted December 2, 2005 by corbet]

LinuxDevices.com reports that LinkSys has released a new version of its WRT54G router intended specifically to be hacked on. "LinkSys last month switched the standard model of its ubiquitous WRT54G wireless router from Linux to VxWorks, starting with the 'series 5' version. Now, LinkSys is shipping a Linux-based WRT54GL model that it says it created specially for Linux hobbyists, hackers, and aficianados. The L version is identical to the 'series 4' WRT54G units that Linux hobbyists have long enjoyed hacking, according to the company."
to post comments

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 5:24 UTC (Fri) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link] (14 responses)

According to Dhillon, LinkSys's biggest competitors in the wireless access point market, including NetGear and D-Link, switched from Linux to VxWorks long ago. "Linux has a larger memory footprint. To be honest with you, a lot of companies in the networking space have already switched," he said.

If they are switching, I bet it is some combination of long time VxWorks programmers not wanting to have to compete with Linux programmers, and Wind River licensing VxWorks for next to nothing (or maybe nothing) with the hope of keeping it on life support a little longer.

Larry

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 6:04 UTC (Fri) by RMetz (guest, #27939) [Link] (13 responses)

In the article it says they're doing it because it allows them to save money on their bill of materials since Linux takes up more memory than VxWorks. The licensing costs apparently don't make up the difference.

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 7:36 UTC (Fri) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link] (12 responses)

Yeah, but I think that is baloney; for the amount of effort it takes to write software for VxWorks vs Linux they could get the memory footprint down under Linux; 2MiB flash and 8MiB RAM is more than enough to run ucLinux and the application software for a home router/firewall.

I wonder if the main reason some embedded vendors are moving away from Linux is they are afraid of the whole GPL thing.

Larry

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 8:30 UTC (Fri) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

It'll be interesting to see the sales figures. Bear in mind, apparently the reason for the v5 is it halves the flash memory required (and linux then no longer fits). If there's sufficient demand for the GL, will Linksys then drop the v5? That would be nice :-)

Or upgrades the GL when they upgrade the v5, with the only difference being the extra Flash.

Cheers,
Wol

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 9:49 UTC (Fri) by rmstar (guest, #3672) [Link]

2MiB flash and 8MiB RAM is more than enough to run ucLinux and the application software for a home router/firewall.

It would be interesting to see what happens if someone actually puts together such a software package and offers it to them free of charge :-)

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 12:46 UTC (Fri) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

Help me understand why hardware vendors care fig #1 about a software license like the GPL.
The rumor that hard drive and video card vendors fear exposure of patent violations certainly has some possibility.
Cartel-ish behavior emanating from certain corners of the continental US is also a possibility.

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 15:22 UTC (Fri) by pflugstad (subscriber, #224) [Link]

for the amount of effort it takes to write software for VxWorks vs Linux
Actually, it's probably mostly a branding effort. VxWorks ships a Platform for Network Equipment that has like 95% of what you need to do a box like the Linksys. Just setup the web pages to do what you want, with your branding, and you're pretty much there.

And since they are selling 100's of 1000's of these a month, the development and licensing costs are in the noise at that level, especially as the more you sell, the cheaper the development is.

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 15:25 UTC (Fri) by pizza (subscriber, #46) [Link] (2 responses)

Bzzt, try again.

Ultimately the only reason any Taiwanese company uses Linux in a mass-produced product is because it is cheaper per-unit than the alternatives. Don't delude yourself into thinking any otherwise.

Also, don't delude yourself into thinking Linux is the end-all be-all for everyone. It keeps getting better, yes. So do the alternatives. In the end we all win.

Besides, Linksys (with rare exceptions) doesn't actually write any of the code that goes into their prodcuts. Aside from the UI tweaks and branding, it's all done by the ODMs and chipset manufacturers.

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 18:17 UTC (Fri) by mf (guest, #34286) [Link] (1 responses)

You're very close. Cisco recently bought Linksys, and it's time to start paying off the purchase price. Cisco is all about manufacturing and margins. Linksys is probably under heavy pressure right now to get their margins up, and one way to do it is by cutting BOM costs. VxWorks is already in a lot of Cisco products (I've worked on a few in the past). They're probably not giving it away, but you can be sure the incremental adder for VxWorks is less than the savings in BOM costs.

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 19:15 UTC (Fri) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link]

but you can be sure the incremental adder for VxWorks is less than the savings in BOM costs.

The "incremental adder" for Linux is 0. I think the "savings in BOM costs" is a red herring, since the implication that the new hardware configuration precludes using Linux is a non sequitur.

Larry

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 19:12 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (guest, #1698) [Link] (2 responses)

Sure, but Linksys doesn't have to do the rewriting of the software, so their cost to switch is almost nothing. The software is provided by the ODM that makes the box for Linksys, or (more likely) by the vendor of the wireless chipset/SOC. For instance, their original Linux-based router software was provided by Broadcom. If they're still using Broadcom chips in the new WRT54G, the VxWorks software is probably also provided by Broadcom.

Disclaimer: I work for a company that develops chips and software for competing wireless router products, though my comments here are my own opinions and do not necesssarily reflect the position of my employer.

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 19:23 UTC (Fri) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link]

Linksys doesn't have to do the rewriting of the software, so their cost to switch is almost nothing. The software is provided by the ODM that makes the box for Linksys, or (more likely) by the vendor of the wireless chipset/SOC.

So with Linux or VxWorks the amortized development/NRE cost is roughly the same (negligible).

Larry

So Broadcom

Posted Dec 5, 2005 21:17 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

wasn't capable of building a software load that would fit in the smaller footprint?

Or wasn't given the chance?

Clearly, C/L is still paying them, so they're not entirely on the outs...

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 19:16 UTC (Fri) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link] (1 responses)

If that were true, OpenWRT would work on the series 5 devices, and they wouldn't have had to make the "L" to keep people happy (or they wouldn't relate it to Linux, but rather to having a complex routing system). It should be possible to make it work, but it's not trivial (in fact, the OpenWRT developers have no plans to do it, even though lots of people seem to have the things and want to use OpenWRT), and a company can just hire VxWorks programmers.

VxWorks is just too good

Posted Dec 2, 2005 19:48 UTC (Fri) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link]

for the amount of effort it takes to write software for VxWorks vs Linux they could get the memory footprint down under Linux;
If that were true, OpenWRT would work on the series 5 devices

This seems to suggest that implementing OpenWRT in a way which offers a compelling value proposition for its prospective users is comparable to implementing the minimum core functionality necessary for the box to be a profitable consumer product. I do not think they are comparable.

Larry

LinkSys courts Linux hackers

Posted Dec 2, 2005 12:33 UTC (Fri) by rvfh (guest, #31018) [Link] (2 responses)

I have to say that I disagree with the title here. What LinkSys is doing is putting a new device on the market which does not run Linux, and apparently cannot run it.

Now, it would be nice to understand what allows VxWorks to do the same (?) thing with less footprint. Maybe just the fact that VxWorks is a specialised OS, and Linux is not. And should not be!

LinkSys courts Linux hackers

Posted Dec 2, 2005 13:31 UTC (Fri) by ibukanov (subscriber, #3942) [Link]

> What LinkSys is doing is putting a new device on the market which does not run Linux, and apparently cannot run it.

http://wiki.openwrt.org/TableOfHardware lists number of wireless routers with 2MB flash/8MB RAM as Work In Progress to put OpenWrt Linux on them.

So such memory constains are not a show stopper to run Linux and I doubt that the reduced flash images were the only reason to switch to VxWorks for LinkSys.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers

Posted Dec 2, 2005 15:39 UTC (Fri) by landley (guest, #6789) [Link]

Oh it _can_ run it. They didn't mention changing any of the hardware
interfaces, just the flash and dram. You'd just have to apply Matt
Mackall's -tiny tree, use a stripped down version of busybox with
uClibc... I think a squashfs root with tight decompression buffers would
probably be a win (vs initramfs), but it'll be close. As for run-in place
support... The most trimmed down 2.6 kernel known would eat 1/4 of the
flash... Lotsa balancing and tradeoff analysis necessary here. It's a
challenge. :)

2 megs of flash is pretty tight, but tomsrtbt has always fit on a 1.7 meg
floppy so we know it's doable. 8 megs of ram requires some tweaking too,
but when Linux started it ran in 4 (and swapping was added so it could run
gcc in _2_.)

I'd say the way to start is get the bigger conventional linksys box, strip
down your firmware image so it's small enough, and boot it with mem=8M to
test it out.

Rob

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 15:53 UTC (Fri) by kh (guest, #19413) [Link] (11 responses)

It just makes me upset that they did not label the new model as WRT54GV, now there are two different models both labeled WRT54G, only one of which is useful to me.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 16:14 UTC (Fri) by CyberDog (guest, #29668) [Link] (10 responses)

Well the WRT54GL targets the tech savvy audience who should be perfectly capable of telling the two apart.

The WRT54G (v5) targets the majority of the (un-technical) userbase, who would only be confused by extra acronyms.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 16:18 UTC (Fri) by kh (guest, #19413) [Link]

I am not saying it is hard to tell the difference between WRT54GL and WRT54G, I am saying it is difficult to tell between WRT54G that is capable of running Linux, and WRT54G that is NOT. I guess if you never come across used equipment you will be fine, but I sometimes do.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 19:47 UTC (Fri) by ndye (guest, #9947) [Link] (8 responses)

The point seems to be that most etailers don't let you specify you want V4 of the WRT54G.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 4, 2005 7:33 UTC (Sun) by gfranken (guest, #22822) [Link] (1 responses)

Almost bought a WRT54G the other day at the local Staples. Miracle of all
miracles, the Staples floor salesperson runs Linux on his box at home, and
he informed me that all of theirs are V5. He tipped me on the WRT54GL
(which Staples didn't have in stock). I went home and ordered it via the
Net. Sometimes, I get lucky.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 5, 2005 21:20 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

And even though his selfless (ok; corporate-less) act probably ensured you'll spend money there in the future, you dasn't compliment him to his boss for it, since it'll probably get him yelled at.

*Now* are y'all ready to trash the idea of public corporations?

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 5, 2005 3:34 UTC (Mon) by loening (guest, #174) [Link] (4 responses)

The point is that Linksys is selling a wireless router, not a Linux box. They need make no claim on whether or not different versions of the WRT54G will run Linux, as long as their product works as a router.

I think we should all appreciate the effort that Linksys is going through to continue selling a Linux capabable version of their equipment.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 8, 2005 7:52 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] (3 responses)

This is true. But it is still annoying that so many companies insist on using the same identical name on products that are not, infact identical.

This doesn't only matter for people who want to run Linux. (or otherwise hack the boxes) it also matters for people that for example want to limit their hardware to a few specific types of items to easen maintenance.

It's like that network-card (I forget) that used to be named like "86210-b-v3" and still actually had 3-4 different and completely uncompatible chips (and thus drivers). Very annoying.

Besides, labeling the boxes with say "V4" and "V5" would probably have the effect that most unknowing consumers would prefer the V5 anyway, so it's not like it'd be a loss to them.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 8, 2005 15:47 UTC (Thu) by NRArnot (subscriber, #3033) [Link] (2 responses)

Yes, this annoys me. It's so unprofessional. If it's not the same product, and especially if it's not obvious from the appearance that it's not the same product, then it should say so. Surely putting v2, v3, ... after the model number on the box won't hurt sales to folks who don't care about the subtleties?

Don't read this as a specific criticism of Linksys. It's a common problem. I've even seen a case where the Mk1 used 12V DC and the Mk2 used 7.5V AC, and the connector between the power brick and the box was the same size for both and not labelled.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 15, 2005 12:45 UTC (Thu) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] (1 responses)

> I've even seen a case where the Mk1 used
> 12V DC and the Mk2 used 7.5V AC, and the
> connector between the power brick and the
> box was the same size for both and not
> labelled.

It's still possible they were interchangeable, particularly if the 7.5
volt was a higher amp rating. Due to the way many DC power adapters work,
the same adapter may provide 12v @ 100mA (perhaps even 16v nearly open
circuit), but if the current rises to 250mA, it'll only provide 7.5v.
This on a 7.5v 250mA rated adapter. It will provide either one, depending
on what the draw is.

Also note that many low-power appliances have a fairly wide voltage
tolerance. They have to, not only due to the above, but because most of
the chips will be designed for the broadest use possible, often including
automotive/marine or battery operation, and those chips are generally the
most critical parts, unless voltage gets so high capacitors begin to pop
and current gets high enough to fry resistors. Nominally 12v automotive
systems can easily run 17 volts or higher on a full battery and little
accessory electrical drain. Nominally 1.5 volt batteries are actually
1.25 volt if rechargable-NiCad (and I believe NiMH versions are similarly
lower than nominal voltage ratings, but don't recall the specific value)
but source a far higher amperage if the resistance is low enough. On a
typical nominally rated 9v unit, 6 cells, then, output will only be 7.5
volts at full charge, even tho it's rated 9.

While 12v to 7.5v is probably one margin to the other, many portable units
will be perfectly happy on a wimpy 12 volt supply rated 100 or 150mA, when
the unit says 9v 200mA, or conversely, perfectly happy on a 9v 500mA rated
supply, when the unit says 12v 150mA. I've run 12v on 7.5v supplies and
the reverse as well, in a pinch, but I don't like to do it for long or
unsupervised, because either the unit or the power supply (depending on
which way one is going) often gets hot.

Thus, it's perfectly possible that the two were entirely compatible, if
the first only shipped with a 12 volt wimpy supply, due to cost, but was
really nominally 9 volt, while the second might have /still/ been
nominally 9 volt, but shipped with a heavier duty 7.5 volt supply that was
now cheaper.

Duncan

[OT] battery voltages

Posted Dec 30, 2005 23:55 UTC (Fri) by roelofs (guest, #2599) [Link]

Nominally 1.5 volt batteries are actually 1.25 volt if rechargable-NiCad (and I believe NiMH versions are similarly lower than nominal voltage ratings, but don't recall the specific value)

NiMHs are about 1.2V open-circuit. Five of them in series are almost exactly 6 volts--which is virtually identical to four lithium button-cells. (I've been experimenting with LED headlights...)

Greg

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 14, 2005 4:32 UTC (Wed) by fwenzel (guest, #33783) [Link]

That's right. I recently ordered one, making sure that I could return it for a full refund. Then I looked at the UPC to make sure it was the right version, and, lucky me, it was.

However they did not allow me to choose which revision I wanted, they didn't even know it themselves.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 17:19 UTC (Fri) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

How likely is it that my local Best Buy or Circuit City will stock the
GL? Seems to me that the GL will end up marginalized.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 17:56 UTC (Fri) by citibob (guest, #34285) [Link] (3 responses)

Look, if I buy the Linksys from the store, plug it in and use it, I really don't care what OS it uses --- at long as it interoperates with my other equipment, which it does. Linksys routers don't force me into any particular brand computer or desktop OS or printer or anything else.

If I'm not satisfied with the features of the firmware, then I will install my own OS. The fact is that Linksys is building open boxes, in contrast to most video game consoles these days (for example). So they are the good guys. It doesn't really matter what OS they choose to pre-install, you can always run Linux on it if you like.

As for the memory requirements --- no one is being stopped from making a Linux that will fit into the new, smaller Flash ROM. Is Linux really so bloated it can't run on the new Linksys? And if so, is it really something we should be supporting? Rather than complaining, we should be making a Linux (or related OS) that CAN run productively on the new hardware.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 19:17 UTC (Fri) by brouhaha (guest, #1698) [Link] (2 responses)

If I'm not satisfied with the features of the firmware, then I will install my own OS.
And if you buy a WRT54G thinking that it has enough memory to install your own OS (because the rev 4 and earlier did), but you get a rev 5 that does not, won't you be somewhat annoyed?

Besides which, new hardware revs of consumer products are sometimes almost completely different internally, so there's no way to be sure when you buy a new revision that it's even capable of running the software you want to install on it. The vendor normally only guarantees that the device will run the firmware initially installed on it, and updates from the vendor's own web site.

That's what makes the WRT54GL interesting; they're specifically targetting people who want to install their own firmware.

Disclaimer: I work for a company that develops chips and software for competing wireless router products, though my comments here are my own opinions and do not necesssarily reflect the position of my employer.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 21:56 UTC (Fri) by citibob (guest, #34285) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes, it annoys me terribly that hardware revs keep changing and it's almost impossible to tell what you're buying unless you have the box in your hand. And that's not just a problem if you're hacking the boxes: I bought a Linksys product, expecting it would have features I would need out-of-the-box. But it didn't, it was rev1.1 and I needed rev2.0. There's no way to know which rev you're getting if you mail order. I finally had to go to a number of Staples stores and find the one I needed, looking at the miniscule print on the bottom.

Would I be disappointed to buy a box to find it had only 1/2 the memory I thought it did? Yes, of course! But before the new "L" designation, Linksys never guaranteed anything specific about the hardware.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 10, 2005 3:21 UTC (Sat) by leon_dague (guest, #9701) [Link]

Thanks for all the comments here, I read them all and they
are helpful to a newbie on the topic.

> There's no way to know which rev you're getting if you mail order.

Not quite true. I searched for WRT54G on ebay and found a few items
where prospective buyers asked for, and got, the first four digits
of the serial number. Googling for "WRT54G versions serial number"
then led me to www.dslreports.com where someone has posted a list
of 10 four-character serial number prefixes and the product
version indicated by each.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 2, 2005 22:58 UTC (Fri) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

These companies should change the names of products when doing this big a change internally. At least:

WRT54GV1, V2, V3 etc.

To duplicate my /. post from today on this subject:

-----
"Not only are they selling something that they know people have the intent to modify..."

This is not quite accurate.

On my recommendation, I would say ten to twenty of these have been bought so far, perhaps more.

I recommend them because they can be hacked to run Linux. To date, to my knowledge, none have been.

Even mine, which I keep buying, which are specifically to play with, I have never yet gotten around to actually putting something else on.

I always end up having to loan it out (as currently) or sell it to a client because the local stores are out of stock and they need one asap, etc.

So, it is the potential to do something special if needed that has been selling them in my case. I wonder how much this is so in other cases.

Now, will this L model purposely make it easy to put something else on? That would be a welcome move on Linksys' part. And note, my customers will still be buying the L models if they follow my recommendations in case they need the added features in the future. (Depending on price points.)

all the best,

drew
-----

The Cost of Embedded Production

Posted Dec 3, 2005 18:33 UTC (Sat) by smoogen (subscriber, #97) [Link] (3 responses)

Nearly 10 years ago, I worked for a company that had written a browser that hoped to get bought up by a big company like Oracle or Microsoft.. when that didnt work out.. they found that writing a browser for set-top boxes, PS2, medical monitors, and hand-held devices might save the company... but in order to do that, they needed to send a lot of desktop memory/CPU hungry programmers, qa, and marketing people to a boot-camp for them to deal with a world where memory cant be upgraded, cpu is usually 10 years behind the times, and a core dump can mean that their Mom died in hospital.

The main things I remember from the boot-camp were that every computerized product has at least the following costs when a company decides to market something:

Upstream Licensing Costs
Development Costs
Quality Assurance Costs
Maintenance Costs
Marketing Costs
Hardware Costs

And while the costs per units were usually seen in 1-5 dollar sizes.. the numbers of units that would be manufactured at a time went from 10,000 to 1,000,000 units. The second issue was that embedded hardware have fixed sales prices that are usually much lower than shelf price (usually on the order of 10-20%). So a 50.00 Linksys router means a 5.00-10.00 to Cisco/Linksys after you cover the 20% Best Buy gets, the 40% the middle men get and the various shipping and storage costs that take 20-30%. [Which is why you can buy a semi-black market linksys in Taiwan for $10-$15] That meant that costs have to be contained to that 5.00 a unit.

While Linux has a zero/unit licensing cost, its development, qa and maintenance costs are higher than the fixed VxWorks costs which basically bundles all that together in their finished licensed product. Cisco also probably has a large fixed contract with VxWorks so the costs are cut across every Cisco product versus just the Linksys.

Second embedded hardware costs do not go as nX but can go from X^2 to X^n. Doubling the amount of ram in a system can quadruple or sextuple the price of parts being used.. depending on extra power consumption, testing, parts, size of product, etc. Being able to cut back a CPU clock speed can increase reliability which cut maintenance costs.

If anything.. this should help spur Linux hackers more. You need to figure out a way to use a smaller cpu, memory footprint than the current VxWorks and offer more features (or better reliability with the features that exist).

The Cost of Embedded Production

Posted Dec 4, 2005 9:59 UTC (Sun) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link] (2 responses)

While Linux has a zero/unit licensing cost, its development, qa and maintenance costs are higher than the fixed VxWorks costs which basically bundles all that together in their finished licensed product.

Case studies or other data? In using VxWorks and Linux for product development I have not found anything VxWorks "bundles all that together" any more than Linux... I have not seen any technical or cost advantage of VxWorks over Linux.

If anything.. this should help spur Linux hackers more. You need to figure out a way to use a smaller cpu, memory footprint than the current VxWorks and offer more features (or better reliability with the features that exist).

Linux is already competetive with VxWorks (or significantly better) in those ways. Nevertheless I do not think a sufficient effort will be made by [the open source community] to develop a solution which provides the capabilities in 2MB flash and 8MB RAM that have been provided in 4MB flash and 16MB RAM, because there is simply not enough of a value proposition. If it was something like a difference between 50USD retail and 150USD retail, then I think it might be considered worth the effort to get Linux to run adequately on the 50USD box, but for something like 50USD vs 75USD, I would not expect there to be sufficient motivation to get it to run as well on the 50USD box when it already runs fine on the 75USD box.

Larry

You say

Posted Dec 5, 2005 21:26 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] (1 responses)

we've got nothing in common; no common ground to start from..

Oh, wait. Wrong thread.

... that you've worked with VxWorks, and blah blah...

But, have you just programmed with it?

Or have you negotiated the multi-hundred-thousand unit sales contracts, which may include bundled programmer support which a vendor shipping Linux would likely have to either expense internally or pay someone outside for?

You can't bundle support into free.

You say

Posted Dec 9, 2005 2:36 UTC (Fri) by jhwang107 (guest, #34421) [Link]

Right, there are some hidden costs when using Linux, but the same goes to VxWorks based system(s).

You still have to spend time to port the BSP codes, and you still have to spend time test the protocols, fine tune. Overhead for running automated tests on VxWorks is too much for a small system, but may be ok for larger systems. But then again, on large systems, memory isnt a issue, so use Linux not VxWorks.

Linux is just easier to work with compare to VxWorks.
Yeah, in general VxWorks takes less foot print. But I have to mention it is really annoying to have to reinitialize the VxWorks based systems we have *every time* we make a minor configuration change. For what it is worth, choose Nucleus over VxWorks in a peer to peer comparism.

Their licensing cost isnt cheap either. Might as well take the money and increase your memory size.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 4, 2005 22:40 UTC (Sun) by opalmirror (guest, #23465) [Link] (1 responses)

Yay to LinkSys for maintaining a seperate assembly line JUST FOR THE HACKERS and partners who hack their box! Also yay to LinkSys for improving success of the main product line by lowering their production costs for a good product and making it even more attractive/competitive.

In my experience, having worked for a high unit volume/cost-sensitive embedded systems company (supermarket and grocery laser bar code scanners), it's all about manufacturing costs and amortizing development expenses over thousands of units. Pennies matter a whole lot. And yes, rather than staffing OS developers, the scanner engineering group paid for embedded OSes to build their application on top,

I can only guess that the cost savings on the smaller memory parts was a big savings, and the small added cost of VxWorks licensing and porting the application was minimal. There are many other considerations in the cost of the OS - are you paying someone else to support it (I would, in LinkSys' place) and if so, what kind of deal can you get? There are a lot of deals involved in such a change.

Disclaimer: I work for Wind River (first on VxWorks internals, now Linux internals) but I know no specifics about LinkSys dealings. I am not a company spokesperson.

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 9, 2005 4:28 UTC (Fri) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link]

Yay to LinkSys for maintaining a seperate assembly line JUST FOR THE HACKERS...

I don't see that. I see Linksys moving from Linux to vxWorks and retaining an inventory of old WRT54G stock to sell at inflated prices as the WRT54GL.

Pretty smart of Linksys, as usually customers don't like to buy superceeded stock, let alone pay more for it.

I *just* figured out

Posted Dec 5, 2005 21:31 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]

One of the reasons they're *really* doing this:

Sputnik.

http://sputnik.com/products/agent/linksys.html

I'll bet they have a deal with the Sputnik people that was one of the factors in keeping that model of hardware available. (Though, amusingly, the Sputnik page doesn't say anything about it...)

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 10, 2005 12:59 UTC (Sat) by alfille (subscriber, #1631) [Link] (1 responses)

I've used the WRT54G WRT54GS and now the ASUS WL-500 deluxe. The latter is easier to hack, has double the memory(32M), 2 USB ports, supported by OpenWRT and is $100 mailorder.

The point is that there is are many alternatives to the LinkSys, some better. Adding the confusion of labeling confusion it is easier to suggest one of the alterntives to prospective hackers.

In our case we use the Linksys to run 1-wire sensors and monitoring remotely. (See owfs.sf.net)

Paul Alfille

LinkSys courts Linux hackers with WRT54GL (LinuxDevices)

Posted Dec 10, 2005 14:39 UTC (Sat) by alfille (subscriber, #1631) [Link]

The model I talked about is the "ASUS WL-500G Deluxe" and the complete list of Linksys WRT54G alternatives can be found at:

http://wiki.openwrt.org/TableOfHardware -- part of the excellent OpenWRT site.

Paul Alfille


Copyright © 2005, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds