Embedded Systems Conference
Breaking News
Comments
Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
elctrnx_lyf
User Rank
Author
IoT
elctrnx_lyf   4/21/2014 12:29:43 PM
NO RATINGS
IoT is pickin up in most of the different segments. It indicates the popularity of interconencted devices is going to increase is much more in the future.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Trend 11? 12?
rick merritt   4/21/2014 1:48:45 PM
NO RATINGS
Did we miss something big going on in your design group?

LarryM99
User Rank
Author
Re: Trend 11? 12?
LarryM99   4/21/2014 7:08:42 PM
NO RATINGS
@Rick, I was struck by the number of Linux variants in the group. Add them up (arguably, even including Android) and it becomes a very large percentage. I would also be curious as to how many are using buildroot, Yocto, or the other Linux kernel personalization systems to create tailored distributions. That used to be the realm of the specialists, but now they are very mature and approachable.

boblespam
User Rank
Author
Re: Trend 11? 12?
boblespam   4/22/2014 2:41:32 AM
NO RATINGS
Something you probably missed, along with virtualization is code generation (Matlab Simulink and others).

Embedded vision is something going up too.

I didn't know FreeRTOS was so successfull, I really need to look at this OS more seriously.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Trend 11? 12?
rick merritt   4/22/2014 6:55:07 AM
NO RATINGS
Good comments from boblespam andf LarryM99:

Embedded vision is really big now, especially among component vendors. And more analysis on use of Linux variants would be interesting, too.

Keep this good input coming, folks!

RoweBots1
User Rank
Author
Re: Trend 11? 12?
RoweBots1   4/22/2014 11:45:11 AM
FreeRTOS is not an RTOS it is only a small kernel thar runs on virtually all mid size and larger MCU devices.  Written in C is is very portable and because it has no I/O and higher level protocols or significant demos,   There is not much else to know.  SafeRTOS was the 12 function call version of this the last time I looked.

I think that the popularity of this reflects the general lack of business training in the community with respect to time to market,  software reuse and software engineering economics.  

FreeRTOS is really a build your own RTOS with a free kernel and months of effort put into I/O models, I/O drivers, testing, integration, and documentation before you start your actual development.  Engineers do like to build their own solutions but this is definitely a money loosing strategy unless you see engineering time as very low cost.  

For a few thousand dollars, you can purchase quality offerings which provide standard APIs, connectivity of your choice, documentation, testing and integration of modules and support for the entire offering.  What is the benefit of spending tens of thousands more and months of development time to ernable FreeRTOS or worse still SafeRTOS development with a poorer quality alternative?

If you know anything about FreeRTOS, this is what you should know and understand.  Free is definitely very very expensive if you really understand the costs involved.

I should mention that I work for a company that sells complete RTOS solutions.  The facts are the same for a FreeRTOS vs an actual RTOS comparison regardless of which RTOS you choose.

 

kfield
User Rank
Author
FPGA data a surprise
kfield   4/22/2014 2:31:34 PM
NO RATINGS
The FPGA data was a surprise to me - given the interest we see at our events and the near price parity in some cases, I would have assumed the opposite.

betajet
User Rank
Author
Re: FPGA data a surprise
betajet   4/22/2014 3:24:45 PM
NO RATINGS
I was shocked when I saw this data at the ESC session.   The reasons behind this were also interesting, so I hope we'll have a follow-up 'blog on the FPGA results alone.

I do FPGA design professionally, and what I find is that a lot of design organizations are scared of FPGAs and don't have people who know how to design with them.  In a way that's good for a free-lancer like moi, but cuts down the overall volume of work.  One effect I think is happening is that IDEs and development boards with good communities are making it easier for people to use embedded CPUs, but the same is not happening with FPGAs.  My own experience is that each new release of FPGA tools is harder to use and runs slower.  Perhaps that's only because it does more, but if my impression is true it could be one of the reasons you're not seeing as many FPGAs getting designed in.

It could also be that what people are designing these days has shifted away from FPGAs.  For example, all these Internet of Digital Things products just need a standard SoC with standard interfaces.  It's not like a data comm box that has to speak strange protocols or have extremely high data channel density, which is an excellent fit for an FPGA.

So tell me, did the FPGA vendors find out about this result ahead of time and decide not to exhibit at the show? :-)

betajet
User Rank
Author
In-house versus out-house operating systems
betajet   4/22/2014 3:35:49 PM
NO RATINGS
I see an interesting correlation in the trends.  It seems to me that the increase in the use of out-house operating systems correlates with the increase in project lateness.  Personally, I prefer in-house because if there's a problem or a necessary change, you're familiar with the code so you can get in there and make the change with minimal impact elsewhere in the code.  With out-house, it might be very difficult even to find where to make the change, and the side-effects of the change could be hard to predict.  It seems to me that estimating how much effort is involved would be quite difficult, making it hard to maintain the schedule.

JMO/YMMV

RoweBots1
User Rank
Author
Re: In-house versus out-house operating systems
RoweBots1   4/22/2014 4:52:39 PM
NO RATINGS
@in house vs out house OS

I think that it is easy to change something you know and understand for sure.  For sourced operating systems I think that high quality technical support fully addresses (or should fully address) any feature additions and changes.  We certainly make sure this happens and happens in a timely fashion.  It is easy for an RTOS vendor to make these changes and this leads directly to a solution to change the OS for a customer.

The real cost of in house is the delay and expense of lost time to market.  The market share that is lost costs far more than the purchase price  of the RTOS so you immediately end up loosing money doing your own RTOS before you have started development.

RTOS vendors spend millions on product development, even smaller vendors.  How can an in house effort possibily do better unless they spend similar amounts?  Yes with in house you can change it easily but you don't have to if you have purchased a quality product with support.

Think about the cost of documentation and testing as well as the lost time if you throw away the documentation because your project is taking too long.  You need to think about how much better your product will be if you focus on your value added application and use the rich feature set that you can purchase.

The economics clearly are not there for build your own OS except for very specialized cases.

 

Page 1 / 3   >   >>


Radio
NEXT UPCOMING BROADCAST
In conjunction with unveiling of EE Times’ Silicon 60 list, journalist & Silicon 60 researcher Peter Clarke hosts a conversation on startups in the electronics industry. One of Silicon Valley's great contributions to the world has been the demonstration of how the application of entrepreneurship and venture capital to electronics and semiconductor hardware can create wealth with developments in semiconductors, displays, design automation, MEMS and across the breadth of hardware developments. But in recent years concerns have been raised that traditional venture capital has turned its back on hardware-related startups in favor of software and Internet applications and services. Panelists from incubators join Peter Clarke in debate.
Most Recent Comments
bobdvb
 
nlenz
 
SamuelBoegli
 
Cheri S
 
MWagner_MA
 
apaDAV
 
pattrsn
 
Peter Clarke
 
resistion
Most Recent Messages
7/30/2015
10:01:44 AM
Flash Poll
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Special Video Section
Chwan-Jye Foo (C.J Foo), product marketing manager for ...
The LT®3752/LT3752-1 are current mode PWM controllers ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
Active balancing of series connected battery stacks exists ...
After a four-year absence, Infineon returns to Mobile World ...
A laptop’s 65-watt adapter can be made 6 times smaller and ...
An industry network should have device and data security at ...
The LTC2975 is a four-channel PMBus Power System Manager ...
In this video, a new high speed CMOS output comparator ...
The LT8640 is a 42V, 5A synchronous step-down regulator ...
The LTC2000 high-speed DAC has low noise and excellent ...
How do you protect the load and ensure output continues to ...
General-purpose DACs have applications in instrumentation, ...
Linear Technology demonstrates its latest measurement ...
10:29
Demos from Maxim Integrated at Electronica 2014 show ...
Bosch CEO Stefan Finkbeiner shows off latest combo and ...
STMicroelectronics demoed this simple gesture control ...
Keysight shows you what signals lurk in real-time at 510MHz ...
TE Connectivity's clear-plastic, full-size model car shows ...
Why culture makes Linear Tech a winner.