Related: https://eclipse-foundation.blog/2023/11/21/introducing-eclip...
(via https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38445039, but we merged that thread hither)
Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
101–110 of 139 posts
Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
#102> [ThreadX firmware binary] runs on the Pi's VideoCore GPU. This is the primary device, the part that boots up the Pi and controls its hardware: the Arm cores are slave devices to the VideoCore GPU.
Very interesting factoid - I had no idea.
Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
But it makes RPi fans perk up their ears because it's part of the GPU blob that they still haven't been able to reverse-engineer. This news about Azure RTOS has been posted to HN a few times over the last week or so, even once by me, but I didn't realize you had to put "Raspberry Pi" in the headline to get traction.
Article author/submitter here. > I didn't realize you had to put "Raspberry Pi" in the headline to get traction. Yes, this was my theory. I was guessing most people hadn't heard of ThreadX and didn't know what it was or that it was used in devices they already owned. That is the sort of info that gets stuff read and shared.
Mods just yanked "Raspberry Pi" from the headline. Interesting.
Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
#104How QNX plays in all this picture/benchmark? [1] I understand this is a different RTOS but do we expect Microsoft to open source QNX as well or because it was the cash cow of the sector they will wait? QNX has several licensing options. [1] https://blackberry.qnx.com/en
QNX is a Blackberry product, not Microsoft.
Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for your insight! As someone who has lead FuSa certification on multiple automotive products, I can’t disagree with you more. But maybe you just had a bad experience.
I've also led the process at multiple companies. It's a big enough space that there's definitely room for different experiences, even within the same companies. That said, I'm surprised you've never encountered issues with people e.g. not understanding how serious UB is vs other types of issues in C-family languages. That's fairly universal even among developers from what I've seen.
I think you might be confusing software standards with functional safety standards. They are related, but one is required by the other. FuSa from my role has been predominantly architecture and process. Developers do need to follow coding and documentation guidelines. If they are fighting that then there are bigger problems with leadership.
Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
#106How QNX plays in all this picture/benchmark? [1] I understand this is a different RTOS but do we expect Microsoft to open source QNX as well or because it was the cash cow of the sector they will wait? QNX has several licensing options. [1] https://blackberry.qnx.com/en
QNX is a Blackberry product, not Microsoft.
Thank you, my fault. Nokia was acquired by Microsoft. Microsoft and Blackberry had a partnership only [1].
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/news/blackberry-shares-jump-mic...
Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
What? It's in the first paragraph of the linked announcement. Unless you didn't know what RTOS was an acronym for but that is a simple google request.
It's also accepted publishing standards to expand an acronym the first time it is used. Of course, kids today don't know what standards are because a boomer made them or some such nonsense excuse for just I do what I want
The first two uses of the term are part of product names, not uses of the term itself. They almost immediately explain the acronym in the next paragraph, and give alert readers a tremendous hint in the very first sentence. I think they did a perfectly acceptable job of providing context here.
This publication was literally founded by a boomer, so I don't think your conclusory whining is particularly well-targeted.
Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
Zephyr is a lot more complicated than ThreadX and has been trying to get safety certified for many years now. It does have a really nice testing and board package story though, along with many other features ThreadX doesn't have. Like running a sample on a supported board with Zephyr is pretty trivial. With ThreadX it seems to be included in the vendor sdk much like freertos might be. Some pros and cons to each certa…
Any experience with Riot OS? https://www.riot-os.org/
It’s pretty easy and convenient to get running, but it’s mostly written by students - so core components are left unmaintained once their authors graduate to other things.
Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
#109How long before I can play Doom on it?
Re: Microsoft open-sources ThreadX
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the notion here that opening up ThreadX will start to allow visibility into VideoCore, since ThreadX runs the thing. But an RTOS/scheduler is only a miniscule part of a GPU and since Broadcom never opens up anything, I believe it's a false hope. Opening up any GPU code, from any maker, invites patent lawsuits from competitors. And then the injunctions start flying.
Having worked (very) closely on GPU firmwares and drivers, I always find it funny that it is still something so closely guarded and protected. Honestly there isn't much to it. That's fairly regular code, not like futuristic algorithms. You won't find any novel rasterizing code or ways to order your commands or whatever, 99% of the interesting work is done by the GPU. You'll find basic or vaguely clever code to order…
This is really just the modern patent regime at work, isn't it? Any random problem a chip company SE or EE can solve in an afternoon can get that solution whisked past an overworked patent examiner. Now open-sourcing your basic code to "optimize the order of the commands" opens your company up to a hojillion-dollar lawsuit from a patent troll or any competitor that feels like going nuclear. Maybe the patent is BS but it'll take a multi-million-dollar lawsuit to prove it.
It might not even be realistic that some jerk is going to search through 10 million lines of driver code looking for patent violations, but these are corporations we're talking about. They're twitchy when it comes to risk. So the source of insanity here is the broken patent system, isn't it? (I agree that while you get to write vaguely clever code, even specialized software dev is 99% perspiration.)