Linux and the Internet of Things
Linux and the Internet of Things
Posted May 1, 2014 12:52 UTC (Thu) by pedrocr (guest, #57415)Parent article: Linux and the Internet of Things
We already have Linux in cars, so that's done. We already have plenty of home automation solutions for the light switch case, don't see why we'd want a full system in each switch but ok. But clothes and food? I have yet to see a compelling use case for the "Internet of Things", has anyone? So far it's a lot of "we'll build it first and then the applications with show up". They may, but I worry it's much ado about nothing.
Posted May 1, 2014 18:12 UTC (Thu)
by mtaht (subscriber, #11087)
[Link]
"It is more difficult to remove things from a system like Linux than it is to build something up from scratch. "
No, it is far, far, far harder to build something up from scratch, and getting more difficult every day. The subtractive approach to linux is what allowed it to (for example) sweep the home router market - it was far easier at the time to cut it down to fit a small router than it was to (for example) build up any of the proprietary OSes at the time (vxworks, etc) to handle the new feature requirements.
We teeter perpetually on the brink of a complexity collapse, even with
The 80/20 rule applies to software stack needs for embedded devices, (actually it's probably closer to 99/1), but it's a different subset for every device.
However I agree with him that:
"This subtractive method is not the way to get Linux into these IoT devices, he said. In addition, if you slim Linux down too far, "you don't have Linux any more". No one else will be running your "Linux", and no one will be developing software for it. You will have lost the network effects."
The simplest devices (say, sensors) have power requirements and other problems that do seem to make alternate OSes like tinyOS more desirable, and with substantial investments into that sort of thing, I could see a new OS arise for many devices in the IoT category.
What I don't see in either scenario is a commitment to making sure these devices with tiny margins are kept updated and secure beyond the life of the product; the cost model is bad enough on devices in the 40 dollar range...
We face (and IMHO are already in) a world full of insecure, buggy devices, a toxic waste dump that requires superfund-level cleanups. Unless business models or government/licensing/certification structures are found to keep our embedded devices updated and safe to use, the Internet of Things may as well become a world of grey goo.
Posted May 2, 2014 7:42 UTC (Fri)
by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742)
[Link] (3 responses)
Alex
Posted May 2, 2014 13:38 UTC (Fri)
by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989)
[Link]
Posted May 2, 2014 16:19 UTC (Fri)
by Baylink (guest, #755)
[Link] (1 responses)
Complexity Will Kill You.
The complexity of a system is dependent, in large part, on the amount of state that is maintained in each node in the graph.
Broadcasting has a fair amount of it, but it's all in one place: the radio station, where a trained engineer is paid way too little money to know how to keep it all working.
And because that's true, there's a fighting chance that system will remain functional during... Katrina. Or Sandy. Or Andrew.
If you abandon point-to-multipoint RF broadcast technology completely, in favor of leveraging the Net...well, not only does your radio station now need a technical support department, but there's no guarantee at any given point *who* the call should go to.
And if there's been 8 inches of rain in an hour, and I'm trapped on top of my car (this just happened, today, in Tampa FL), I ain't got time to call tech support, y'know?
This complexity diaspora will be the thing that kills either ideas like wholly-Internet-based broadcasting... or *us*, after it's too late.
It's the dirty little secret of David Isen's Stupid Network...
Posted May 2, 2014 21:27 UTC (Fri)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Complexity could be bane or salvation. When you mentioned Katrina I immediately recalled the funny fact: after Katrina New Orleans had no electricity, it had no running water (except on streets), all broadcast channels were not available, broken, but it had an Internet—although, obviously, not everywhere. It's about points of failure, not about complexity. As for switch which sometimes does not work… you don't need electronics for that. Good old wear and rust work just fine. We don't even notice when that happens. We just replace the thing (eraser can help for a short time if you can not replace defective switch or light-bulb right away), but if the same thing happens with “clever” light switches… we just have no idea what to do. It's not because they are more complex or less reliable, that's because they are unfamiliar. This being said Internet lately becomes both more complex and dangerously centralized. That is problematic combination, it's true.
Linux and the Internet of Things
solid abstractions like virtual memory, and stack hardening. Continued work to make embedded linux systems more manageable, and more updatable, is needed - and work, like that openwrt has been doing, to simplify userspace is continually needed.
Linux and the Internet of Things
At work we have that, some kind of clever light switches. They are additionally wireless. And I think they get their energy from the actual button push movement.
Usually they work. Sometimes they don't...
I mean, it's a light switch. As long as I remember this is the first light switch I have ever used which sometimes does not work. Just mechanically connecting two cables is so a simple operation, I don't want a computer and operation system involved in this.
Linux and the Internet of Things
Linux and the Internet of Things
Linux and the Internet of Things