Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

mongoose-os.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 102 posts

Re: Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

#41

Post by ntoll »

grive wrote: post #15

> Prototyping and Scripting Engine > Micropython Moving to production (C/C++) or factoring out critical pieces to C/C++ is not trivial VS. > mJS - JavaScript engine for prototyping and C/C++ for production I don't know much about it, but from the surface it seems that the problem is exactly the same? What is the benefit of prototyping in JS instead of Python? In the end, either you refactor everything purely in C, or…

Speaking from experience, using MicroPython is trivial and often "good enough", as are implementing modules for MicroPython in C should they be needed (C isn't my first language by a long shot, but I managed to write a module for MicroPython with little problem).

Also, MicroPython has pretty much all the features of core Python whereas mJS appears to have pretty much all the useful features of JS removed. Why not just use C instead of mJS?

Finally, couching Mongoose in a way that criticises the efforts of others is a bit of a turn off for me. Give me positive reasons for using your product rather than bashing the people you believe are your competitors. The culture and community of a project is important - negativity such as this is a worrying signal.

Re: Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

#42

Post by guyfawkes303 »

monocasa wrote: post #36
guyfawkes303 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So I'm a little confused on how licensing works in these types of situations. 'GPL may force you to give the source code', which source code? Presumably whatever code lives on the device that uses Mongoose is just one piece of a much larger puzzle. So does this imply you only need to give the code that lives on the device running Mongoose? Or any of your code that interacts with it?

What he's saying is that embedded devices a lot of the time statically link the kernel, libraries, and application all into on bare metal program. A GPL licence on the kernel and libraries would affect the application.

Right. My question is if the code on the bare metal device talks to, say, a cloud server running an API, does the code running the API also fall under the GPL, and therefore need to be released? I assume not, but assumptions can be dangerous.

Re: Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

#43

Post by monocasa »

I really fail to see what this brings to the table.

In the section on their main page contrasting with arduino, they bascailly just say that they're more reliable, with nothing to really back that up.

Looking at their documentation, I don't really see how they can make that claim. The issues with Arduino's reliability stems, IMO, from the fact that Arduino code isn't an RTOS. Ie. there's no separation of real time priorities. This also seems to not really be an RTOS either, just a fancy bare metal environment.

What is this structurally bringing to the table beyond Arduino other than "we think we wrote the code better"?

Re: Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

#44

Post by 5trokerac3 »

tyingq wrote: post #26
mijoharas wrote: post #7

> GPLv2 license: FREE FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE This confuses me, the GPLv2 doesn't say anything about commercial use, it merely says that you need to redistribute the source code to anyone that you distribute your software to. Have they placed additional restrictions on the GPL (which I believe you are prohibited from doing)? or are they just trying to highlight that they are dual-licensing it under a license that isn'…

Sounds like they are trying to say you can't opt for the GPL if you plan on commercial use. Not a lawyer, but I don't see how that flies. They could make their own GPL-like license with that clause added in. But using it as-is means it's open for commercial use, subject of course to the GPL terms. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommercially

They might argue that packaging a product with their OS and selling it is the equivalent of white labeling it, which might be technically true, considering the user would have no idea what's powering the thing.

It would be the equivalent of writing a GUI plugin for WordPress and trying to sell it as something like Squarespace.

Not that I agree with this possibility of Mongoose OS's approach. I don't at all, and think it would completely negate their "open source" claim, from a semantical standpoint.

Re: Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

#45

Post by Spivak »

kierenj wrote: post #6

You had me until the "Pricing" section. The Old Way - Varies, depends on many factors. Requires ongoing investments, hiring developers or integrators The New Way - GPLv2 license: FREE FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE / Commercial License: CONTACT US So with Mongoose OS, you don't have to invest, or hire developers? Am I being unfair by thinking that, while the other points make life easier, this is scraping the barrel a bit? W…

Are you annoyed that they're selling commercial exceptions to the GPL or that they're not listing the price on the page?

Re: Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

#46

Post by monocasa »

guyfawkes303 wrote: post #42
monocasa wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What he's saying is that embedded devices a lot of the time statically link the kernel, libraries, and application all into on bare metal program. A GPL licence on the kernel and libraries would affect the application.

Right. My question is if the code on the bare metal device talks to, say, a cloud server running an API, does the code running the API also fall under the GPL, and therefore need to be released? I assume not, but assumptions can be dangerous.

Oh gotcha. No, your remote code wouldn't need to be released just because your IoT code is GPLed.

Re: Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

#47

Post by drozd »

bsaul wrote: post #11
robinduckett wrote: post #5

Bit of a confusing name, when there is already an extremely popular mongodb node.js framework called Mongoose

Disagree with the downvote. Never used mongoose, nor am i a node developper, yet my first reaction was to wonder why a js db library evolved in an iot framework.

I think Mongoose was called mongoose before mongo db plugin existed.

https://github.com/cesanta/mongoose - that's the project from which Mongoose OS stems.

Re: Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

#48

Post by drozd »

dankohn1 wrote: post #39

If you're considering embedded OS options, please look at these two (completely free) projects from the Linux Foundation: Yocto project creates a custom embedded distro based on your needs https://www.yoctoproject.org/ Zephyr supports hardware that can't easily run Linux https://www.zephyrproject.org/

Sure, try to run those on e.g. TI CC3200 microcontroller.

Re: Mongoose OS – An Open Source Operating System for the Internet of Things

#50

Post by rectang »

mijoharas wrote: post #7

> GPLv2 license: FREE FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE This confuses me, the GPLv2 doesn't say anything about commercial use, it merely says that you need to redistribute the source code to anyone that you distribute your software to. Have they placed additional restrictions on the GPL (which I believe you are prohibited from doing)? or are they just trying to highlight that they are dual-licensing it under a license that isn'…

By having complex and/or copyleft licensing, it just opens the door wider for the Apache Mynewt OS with its Apache 2.0 license. http://mynewt.apache.org/
Post reply on HN