Blorigo Blog

Linux Devices segnala  un  provocatorio articolo su Embedded.com, a firma Dan O'Dowd,  che parla dell' utilizzo di Linux come piattaforma in ambito embedded, dal significativo titolo:

 "Embedded Linux: With friends like these, who needs enemies?"

Ovviamente, essendo O'Dowd il CEO di una azienda che si occupa di sviluppare sistemi operativi per dispositivi embedded (la Green Hills Software),  non si rimane affatto stupiti nello scoprire la tesi sostenuta nell' articolo:

Linux non sarebbe adatto alla realizzazione di prodotti in ambito embedded in quanto risulterebbe essere una piattaforma di sviluppo troppo costosa per un utilizzo professionale.

Sostanzialmente  una riedizione, con qualche adattamento alla contesto differente, della tesi dell' inferiore Total Cost of Ownership sostenuta in passato  dalla Microsoft (o da chi per lei), per motivare  la
presunta convenienza di Windows  rispetto a Linux.

La cosa che caratterizza in maniera particolare questo articolo e' che, a sostegno della sua tesi, vengono addotte alcune affermazioni rilasciate dal CEO di una delle maggiori aziende che lavorano con Linux in ambito embedded; ovvero MontaVista Software:

In the January/February 2008 issue of Military Embedded Systems, Jim Ready, the founder and chief technology officer of MontaVista, says "a [develop-it-yourself] embedded Linux distribution [is] a significant investment (read 'big bucks') in time and money." He estimates the three-year cost of a large scale embedded Linux deployment at $19,623,750. Here are some other quotes from the article:

"To keep abreast of the changes occurring on a daily basis a developer needs to monitor the email traffic of 11 different and unsynchronized open source projects... up to 5,000 messages a day with 1,000 of these being patches that need to be evaluated and possibly applied to the source base. Simply ignoring the traffic, figuring that the system in use seems to be working well enough, can lead to disastrous consequences later.

"A recent security patch that took all of 13 lines of code to implement against an embedded Linux system would have taken more than 800k lines of source patches to implement, if the previous trail of patches had been ignored. It's a classic case of pay now or really pay later.

"If there ever were a situation where the 'software money pit' could really take hold, it's in owning 30 million lines of constantly changing source code. Even in the simplest case, the development costs are typically in the millions of dollars."

Inoltre viene utilizzata in maniera strumentale la pubblicita' realizzata da un' altra delle aziende leader nel campo della realizzazione di dispositivi con Linux embedded; ovvero Wind River Sistems:

Wind River delivers the same message in a recent full-page advertisement. It asks: "Choosing Linux as your next device operating system?" It answers: "CHAOS" in large crooked letters, followed by "fatal error," "system crash," "game over," and "panic."

L' analisi di O'Dowd prosegue affermando che il business model, sia di MontaVista che di Wind River, sarebbe quello di farsi pagare dalle aziende pentitesi di avere utilizzato Linux come piattaforma embedded per i loro progetti:

It seems clear what is happening: Wind River and MontaVista are trying to get the dwindling number of disenchanted embedded Linux users to pay them "big bucks" to escape the embedded Linux nightmare. They hope that if they can get enough customers signed up, they will finally get enough money to tame the beast.

L'articolo continua citando uno  studio (Richard Nass, www.embedded.com/design/opensource/201803499?pgno=2) secondo il quale il trend dell' utilizzo di Linux nei sistemi embedded sarebbe in calo:

Each year, Embedded System Design magazine carries out a survey of embedded systems developers. Over a two year period from 2005 to 2007, the percentage of developers using embedded Linux and the percentage planning to use embedded Linux have both declined. And even more important, the percentage not interested in embedded Linux has nearly doubled.

Ed il motivo di tale tendenza negativa sarebbe da cercarsi proprio nella scarsa affidabilita' dei sostenitori dell' utilizzo di Linux in ambito embedded:

Why would anyone use a product that its proponents say is awful? Would you buy a car from a salesman who admitted the car was a piece of junk just because he said he had a great service department? That's what embedded Linux's friends suggest that you do. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Non si e' fatta attendere la reazione del CEO di MontaVista che in un altro articolo, sempre ospitato su Embeded.Com, risponde ad O'Down disegnando una realta' completamente  differente:

Some creative engineers ignored the doubters and saw the values of embedded Linux: faster development cycles, no learning proprietary RTOS quirks, no entrapment by proprietary software, no royalty payments.
...

The first engineers who experimented with embedded Linux found that it worked. It saved them from having to integrate many open-source projects. It gave them predictability in achieving their design goals. It helped accelerate product delivery dates. It saved development costs. Other companies, such as Wind River, saw the potential and added embedded Linux offerings to their product lists.

Embedded Linux comes in many flavors, DIY or homemade, semiconductor distributions, and independent commercial versions from MontaVista, WindRiver and others. The number of companies designing end products with all these flavors of embedded Linux continues to increase. Motorola, NEC, and Panasonic for example, have deployed more than 30 million mobile phones with MontaVista Linux; Yamaha chose the OS to build its MOTIF XS music production synthesizers, now used by Stevie Wonder, Beyonce Knowles, Justin Timberlake, and other musicians. Developers' creativity never stops. They've used embedded Linux to build some wonderful and unexpected devices: patient monitors, toys, industrial robots, self-defense devices, games, satellites, e-book readers.

LinuxDevices segnala anche altri studi  che, sull' utilizzo presente e futuro di Linux in ambito embedded indicano una tendenza opposta a quella che viene descritta dall' articolo di O'Dowd, :

• An October report by VDC found that Linux will remain one of the leading embedded operating system choices "into the future."
  
  
• An August report by ABI Research forecast a 75 percent CAGR (compound annual growth rate) for Linux in smartphones through 2012, making it the fastest-growing OS in the sector.
  
  
• An Embedded Market Forecasters report in December, which was based on a large survey of embedded developers, concluded that embedded Linux is just as dependable as other RTOSes.

Ma il CEO di Green Hills Software non e' nuovo a questo tipo di polemiche e gia' in  passato si e' reso diverse volte protagonista di prese di posizione analoghe; nel 2004 aveva dichiarato, sostenendo la tesi della insicurezza del software open-source (ed attirandosi per questo le critiche da parte della comunita' open-source),  che l' uso  di Linux  all' interno di dispositivi  utilizzati in compiti di rilevanza militare fosse da considerarsi una minaccia alla sicurezza nazionale. Contemporaneamente aveva, in maniera implicita, criticato MontaVista e LynuxWorks per avere aperto  delle filiali in Russia ed in Cina:

"The very nature of the open source process should rule Linux out of defense applications," O'Dowd said. "The open source process violates every principle of security. It welcomes everyone to contribute to Linux. Now that foreign intelligence agencies and terrorists know that Linux is going to control our most advanced defense systems, they can use fake identities to contribute subversive software that will soon be incorporated into our most advanced defense systems."
...
"If Linux is compromised, our defenses could be disabled, spied on or commandeered. Every day new code is added to Linux in Russia, China and elsewhere throughout the world. Every day that code is incorporated into our command, control, communications and weapons systems. This must stop,"
...
"Linux in the defense environment is the classic Trojan horse scenario -- a gift of 'free' software is being brought inside our critical defenses. If we proceed with plans to allow Linux to run these defense systems without demanding proof that it contains no subversive or dangerous code waiting to emerge after we bring it inside, then we invite the fate of Troy,"

Anche in questo caso la chiave di lettura per capire tutto questo interesse per la sicurezza nazionale  si potrebbe trovare nella soluzione proprosta, da parte della Green Hills Software, per risolvere "i probemi creati da  Linux e dal software  open-source":

utilizzare il loro sistema operativo che fornisce la possibilita' di eseguire altri programmi scritti per altri sistemi operativi utilizzando la loro tecnologia Padded Cell; e di  eseguirli in maniera "sicura" (secondo gli standard EAL6 +) utilizzando la loro nuova tecnologia Padded Cell Secure Hypervisor.