From owner-freebsd-small Mon Apr 9 17:45:22 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-small@freebsd.org Received: from edna.bus.net (edna.bus.net [207.41.24.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 255EA37B423 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:45:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mso@bus.net) Received: from bus.net (3.ct1.dyn.connix.net [209.66.146.3]) by edna.bus.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA12159 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 20:45:20 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from mso@bus.net) Message-ID: <3AD2573E.156C2F39@bus.net> Date: Mon, 09 Apr 2001 20:43:42 -0400 From: "Michael S. O'Donnell" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win95; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: WindRiver takeover. References: <20010405104816.D746@tao.org.uk> <20010406201050.F798@tao.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-small@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG truth be told, as an embedded developer, i am happy to see some bsd based embedded os development, even if it isn't free. if it remains open source, it could be great. fact is, linux will never get there as an embedded os because it is driven by hobbyists who go feature crazy since they could care less whether they use a proc that costs $15 or $30 (or $90 for that matter), and on a one-off, 32k, 64k, 8M, who cares? qunix is too expensive. embedded systems are really not the goal of pico, it is completely oriented towards i-appliances (i would be surprised if the main developers would disagree). the fact of the matter is, 'embedded systems' is as about a narrow a term as insect. as horrible as it sounds, a corporate approach will result in a survey of the market's needs, and a universal system design. although i do not have the skills to contribute, i have watched the development of many attempts at free embedded OSs. they quickly go out of control, then the key contributors reign it in to something highly focused, which invariably becomes either an os only good for routers, or gets shelved when real-time concerns conflict with the pc-based os it originates from. i believe we should welcome wind river's best efforts. if they remain open source, and allow us to download and only pay if we sell a product containing their code, this could be a great resource. or, maybe it will completely suck. > If they want to steer FereBSD into the ground for small systems, they > will not succeed. I'll make sure of that. the freebsd license is secure. there is no fear the big, bad corporation will take it away. let's keep an open mind and maybe we can all enjoy some compatibility between the so carefully crafted freebsd and whatever wind river is trying to create. Michael O'Donnell To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-small" in the body of the message