Linux and the Internet of Things

Posted May 2, 2014 7:42 UTC (Fri) by aleXXX (subscriber, #2742)
In reply to: Linux and the Internet of Things by pedrocr
Parent article: Linux and the Internet of Things

Personally, I'm sure I don't want computers in my light switches.
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.

Alex

Linux and the Internet of Things

Posted May 2, 2014 13:38 UTC (Fri) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

IPv6 addresses are all fun and games, until that moment you find yourself "living your life like a candle in the wind, never knowing who to cling to, until the reboot's in".

Linux and the Internet of Things

Posted May 2, 2014 16:19 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] (1 responses)

Alex makes here the smaller version of an argument I've been making the larger version of to lots of people I know in the broadcast world, who are convinced that the end game will be over-the-Net broadcasting replacing over-the-air, and that argument is this:

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...

Linux and the Internet of Things

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.