On Friday 23 January 2004 16:08, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 23, 2004, at 12:02 PM, Ed Skinner wrote:
> > Linux in particular, and FOSS in general, are about 10x more
> > difficult to
> > use in an embedded system than any of the commercial RTOSs or other
> > commercial products. (I base that multiplier on my experience in thes=
e
> > two
> > specific fields.) For more traditionally configured systems (other th=
an
> > embedded), the multiplier would be a smaller number, but still
> > significantly
> > higher than 1x.
>
> I keep hearing that TRON based systems and ITRON in particular dominate
> the embedded market. In fact it is often reported that in terms of
> total deployments TRON beats Windows + *nix hands down. This family of
> OSes is available under the TOPPERS license. I don't see TOPPERS on the
> OSI approved list but maybe they simply haven't asked. The Ruby license
> isn't there either. Certainly nobody could seriously call TOPPERS a
> commercial license.
Hmmm, I beg to differ. TRON and ITRON have a significant following o=
nly=20
in Japan. In the remainder of the world the embedded rankings (if my memo=
ry=20
serves me) are:
1) Systems using home-grown or "no" OSs
2) Wind River's VxWorks
3) uhm..., not sure but the bigger players include OSE, Windows-variants,=
=20
Linux, Integrity, ThreadX, QNX Neutrino, pSOS+, TRON, ITRON [but I don't =
know=20
how they differ], Nucleus, OS-9 and a gaggle of others.
I did find a survey that ranks TRON #1 (see=20
http://www.assoc.tron.org/eng/research/data/survey1999/result-e.html) but=
=20
also note that this is a survey conducted by the TRON Association. I thin=
k=20
their sampling methodology is heavily biased toward TRON users, and that =
it=20
contains a disproportionate number of respondents from Japan at the expen=
se=20
of North America, Europe and the remainder of Asia.
--=20
Ed Skinner,
ed@flat5.net,
http://www.flat5.net/
(text/plain)