Re: MontaVista opinions?


"Geronimo W. Christ Esq" <thegreatsuprendo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1166737183.26336.0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
cpope wrote:

MV was good in that I was able to get SOMETHING up quickly to show my
bosses
but the overall value to the project is considerably less than the $30K
we
paid for it. But that's not MV's fault, the real problem in my case is
that
Xilinx has farmed out Linux to MV rather than doing it themselves. The
result is a "worst of both worlds" solution that's left my team wasting
time
on stupid little things that have nothing to do with our product.

Do you think you'd have avoided this with another OS, for the same cost ?

Let's face it, the attraction of Linux is that it's cheap.

That's a good point. I should be clear that I'm down on Xilinx and MV not
Linux. I'm a big advocate of Linux.

For a couple hundred bucks in parts I have a system now with 2.6 level
kernel and USB host functionality where I can plug in flash drives, blue
tooth headsets, wireless lan cards, gps receivers, etc. I can control it
with raw USB, serial port, PPP over serial, TCP/IP, bluetooth, etc. I can
run a web sever, telnet into it, nsf mount drives over to it, etc. None of
the other OSes out there come close to this level of functionality. That's
why in my opinion they always pimp "real time" issues to convince people
that stock Linux is inadequate. The truth is as long as you architect your
system correctly "real time" is a non-issue.

As for development, with linux virtually any problem you run into is a
google search away. With millions of developers on thousands of platforms
there is a massive amount of free support on the web. How many people out
there know anything about Nucleus, for example?

So yeah, I wouldn't want to own stock in any boutique OS company trying to
get by charging per unit licensing fees. In fact, MV probably has the right
business model it's just that they haven't done their technical work very
well.

-Clark



.

Relevant Pages