Re: Re (2): NetBSD documentation-hackathon from August 10th to August 14th

[Jean-Yves Migeon <jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost>]

On 22.07.2011 17:56, Scrap Happy wrote:
> Unfortunately, there is no simple, intuitive parallel to draw to
> the PC world that just rolls off your tongue.  Instead, you have
> to try to draw on parallels that migrate into the application
> domain (e.g., "OK, Bob, everyone in your organization runs Windows,
> right?  But, do they all use MSWord for their document preparation
> tool?  Or, do some folks use WordPerfect, FrameMaker, etc.?").
> Most people are savvy enough to realize that these *are* applications
> so the analogy fails to take hold in their mind.  There's nothing
> *big* enough (in that world) to put the issue into proper perspective.
> 
> Perhaps if there were a wide variety of window managers in use this
> might have some resonance with "users" as the basis of an analogy.
> <shrug>

Well, if they do not understand the difference and need questionable
metaphors to illustrate the situation, I am not sure they are in the
right position to make technological choices.

Generally speaking, using system "foo" over "bar" should be more a
matter of costs (ease of development, available skills and technologies,
licensing terms, etc) rather than clueless buzzwording; yeah, that's
rarely the case.

> Understood.  But the PHB's making these sorts of decisions see
> lots of opportunities and *implementations* of Linux-based devices
> (again, my experience is with embedded systems so that's the
> argument I am always forced to face).  It's only natural for them
> to think, "Why can't *we* go that route, also?".  (it's just like
> trying to explain why you typically *don't* want to base a product
> on a PC platform; it just *looks* "so easy"... :< )

I have rarely seen PHB concerned about using Linux or something else;
I'd even say that most of the embedded stuff sold with "runs Linux" is
quite secondary, most users do not care whether their webcam, phone, or
home router uses Linux. It's more something that appeals to hobbyists.

> If *I* then have to sort out how easy/hard (i.e., expensive!) it
> will be to port NetBSD to some *modern* piece of hardware, I'm
> faced with doing much of it from scratch.  OTOH, they (client)
> look and see how their competitors have taken some COTS piece of
> hardware, added some I/O's, slapped "Linux" on it and now have a
> (supposedly) working product on the market.
>
> E.g., I'm presently researching low-cost tablets for a product.
> I can almost *bet* that some Linux hacker/group will have a
> big start on porting Linux (the kernel is all I really care
> about since the application layer rarely resembles a desktop
> machine) to many of the tablets I am interested in.  How many
> will have a significant NetBSD effort already under way (or,
> *completed*)?  :<

Well, first, don't neglect the application layer, unless you believe
that having a Linux + busybox running is enough to be attractive to
customers.

Rest is a matter of evaluating your position, especially what you
already have, and what you don't. If some Linux hacker/group has a big
start on porting Linux, you are not necessarily at an advantage against
competition, as you are counting on others to do the porting for you.

If you're a manufacturer not interested in selling chips/SOCs but
complete products, chances are you want to be the first-mover. So if
your OS development starts off by building up your OS stack, you are
losing time in administrativia instead of going straight to developing a
port.

If you want to keep (or pick up) some code private for whatever reason
(confidentiality, IP problems, licensing, NDA, etc) or that you don't
want to keep asking about legality of "what happens when I link my
foobar code especially if I use XYZ headers?", good for you, I consider
this a PITA. Especially when this involves redeveloping stuff that is
otherwise available but not usable due to legal concerns (yuck).
Releasing patches in a corner on open-source.foo.com does not
necessarily help either, unless you want to gather statistics on bit
rotting.

There's no real "one size fits all" answer.

> [Again, I'm not a zealot/evangelist.  I have to consider how
> efficiently I can get from point A to point B in a product
> development cycle.  The "mascot/logo" matters very little to
> me or my clients.]

As said: if efficiency is a matter of relying on work done by others,
yes, pick up what has already been done. And assume the risk that you
might not dispose of it at your convenience (it's a joke to believe that
having access to the source ought to be enough). Just take a look at the
Honeycomb saga, although "it's Linux" many were left behind.

> While I can document what I do (did) to get a NetBSD kernel
> running on some particular piece of hardware, I'd rarely have
> the time to *generalize* that for others to build upon.  So,
> unless someone was interested in exactly the same piece of kit
> (hint:  there are far more choices for embedded platforms than
> there are COTS "systems" -- I had half a dozen SB2000's that I
> couldn't *give* away! -- that may have been supported), those
> notes are of little value.
> 
> [It also seems that there are more hardware hackers in the
> Linux camp than NetBSD]
> 
> I said it in an earlier post; NetBSD doesn't have a "positioning"
> so there is nothing to explicitly draw people to it.  Linux, then,
> "wins" based solely on "seats" (not merit, etc).

Do you have any number to share regarding "seats" for network equipments?

-- 
Jean-Yves Migeon
jeanyves.migeon%free.fr@localhost