81–90 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you had a little more software in your car it could automatically remediate the issue and you'd be on your way with no repairman involved or at least tell the repairman exactly what to fix. Maybe you could fix it with the step-by-step workflow on your console.
Half the time there’s a light on my car, it’s a damn sensor! More components mean more points of failure.
> If the backup camera or other sensors were to run as containers, we needed to improve the starting speed significantly. I think I see the problem already. Why does anyone think its a good idea to put everything in an embedded system into a container? Particularly as everything comes from a single vendor and so the usual argument about "but libraries are too hard!" doesn't apply.
Do you oppose running camera software in a separate process? I think it makes sense. Camera process might crash and will be restarted, this should not cause restart of the entire shell. What people should understand is that container in Linux is just a separate process running in powerful chroot (which isolates not just file tree, but also process tree and other things). So the same reasoning which applies to running…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isolation berween apps? Although not sure what that would buy over just having separate UIDs.
easier done with dedicated Controllers instead of one BIG controller that needs to containerise its software? Why does the rear camera and lights need to use the same controller as the Engine sensors? This way you even avoid the latest "CAN bus injection attack" that are using the lights connection to inject Key Crypto attacks. not everything needs to be integrated.
This bring costs and supply chain issues, and we had plenty of supply chain issues earlier this year.
I'm all for improvements to pod startup times etc, but the general idea of putting more software into cars is not that appealing. I recently broke down in the highlands of Scotland in a fairly new car with the family - it was a horrible experience. It was made worse by the fact that there was nobody close that had a clue what to do with the car. The breakdown service arrived promptly, plugged the diagnostic tool into…
You said it so well, cars have become too bloated with software that barely any local mechanic would want to touch it. Happened to me and this is the major reason why I am slowly shifting to older cars, they are way easier and cheaper to repair.
Why would you run podman inside a vehicle's computer. Cool nonetheless.
Do we know which cars specifically run their applications in containers?
agreed, id like to know so I can avoid buying them
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you oppose running camera software in a separate process? I think it makes sense. Camera process might crash and will be restarted, this should not cause restart of the entire shell. What people should understand is that container in Linux is just a separate process running in powerful chroot (which isolates not just file tree, but also process tree and other things). So the same reasoning which applies to running…
Containers usually ship their own libraries, which means less sharing, more disk usage and higher memory pressure.
I'm all for improvements to pod startup times etc, but the general idea of putting more software into cars is not that appealing. I recently broke down in the highlands of Scotland in a fairly new car with the family - it was a horrible experience. It was made worse by the fact that there was nobody close that had a clue what to do with the car. The breakdown service arrived promptly, plugged the diagnostic tool into…
More software is fine IMO. More software on critical path ain't. Have the ECU only do the engine thing. Have the AC control just do AC control. Decouple dependencies and make it as simple as possible. Old cars already do it. Blinker switch send signal directly to light controller, not to some central box deciding what it should do with it. If something needs config in addition to control signals, have it keep it own…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More software is fine IMO. More software on critical path ain't. Have the ECU only do the engine thing. Have the AC control just do AC control. Decouple dependencies and make it as simple as possible. Old cars already do it. Blinker switch send signal directly to light controller, not to some central box deciding what it should do with it. If something needs config in addition to control signals, have it keep it own…
You know what this car needs? Kubernetes.