Something something personal attack on Linus, whom still manages to this day every merge in master.
You know, he has no software engineering culture developing his software engineering masterpiece over 20 years, as opposed to the impeccable software engineering culture at Boeing.
The only real “problem” would be the lack of certifications, which are quite hard to get.
Real Time Operating Systems (RTOS) are normally used for these tasks, but, AFAIK there are already projects using linux with patches to make it run a RTOS kernel.
In my opinion, I think it all depends on what part of the plane it is running. If it is a core sensor, providing real time data, it makes a lot of sense to use a RTOS. It needs to prove it can run its tasks on time, and the scheduler needs to be understandable. There’s also a lot of overhead with running a full OS with processes, which don’t make sense for a sensor which only function is to provide data over a CAN/LIN bus.
But, for other things, like dashboard visualizations, music for the aircraft, entertainment, and those non-critical-realtime needs, then it makes a lot of sense to run linux. After all, you’d get access to a lot of already built software and a working dev environment.
And don’t get me wrong, this is clearly BS from boeing to keep selling their closed source software. There are already open source RTOS systems, like FreeRTOS. I do not mean to keep those real time systems closed, but to use a full OS where it makes sense and a RTOS where that makes more sense. Both open source!
That makes sense, and yeah I imagine the problem isn’t the entertainment system.
I just don’t get the the last paragraph. I don’t know if using Linux affects their code being OS or not. If they’re just running it on top of Linux and not modifying it, it probably won’t be a GPL violation to keep it closed.
Boeing has their own RTOS, which they might be using on more than “real time critical” software. What I mean is: embrace open source, be it Linux or some other OS more specific for that task, but open source all the things!
I remember there were talks about merging the patches and making it an option when building. I don’t know the current status of that.
On real time operating systems, like freertos, not only the kernel is real time but everything else is too. Like: you can guarantee your call on the I2C and SPI won’t take more than 5ms, for example, even with hardware issues. The whole environment is built around the hardware realtime concept.
I agree that a small, special purpose OS would probably be more suitable for safety-critical systems. On the other hand I highly doubt that the safety-culture is better at Boeing than in the Linux ecosystem.
You forget to take into account that every Boeing employee knows they are building systems that can kill people if things go wrong. Meanwhile on Linux a lot of bugs really don’t matter that much, especially in -rc and otherwise non LTS versions.
Taking that into account their safety culture is much worse.
Linux and the open source community may be chaotic … but companies like Boeing are completely corporate and they will risk or even sacrifice safety if it means making a few extra million or preventing the loss of millions in profits. They’ll calculate how much it will cost to make settlements with the families of the dead or in to issuing changes or recalls and figure out which is cheaper … pay off the dead or fix the problem. If paying off the dead is cheaper, they don’t mind watching the body count.
A bunch of bullshit so that Boeing can sell the shit they want to sell.
I’d be interested in hearing what they are using for safety-critical OS. Notice they said “software engineering” and not “OS”, which makes me think they’re running on Windows.
For avionics, I doubt that they would use a traditional os. As far as I’m aware, Microsoft doesn’t have safety-certified builds of Windows with a real time kernel. Certifying a Linux build would also be a huge and costly endeavor. What they are likely using is a certified RTOS, like Vxworks, RTEMS, ThreadX, SafeRTOS, etc., or even Ada with the Ravenscar profile. You don’t really “develop” applications for these, you instead incorporate them as libraries inside your application and compile the RTOS into your application, and then run it on bare metal. Infotainment systems on the other hand will use more traditional OSes.
A lot of the presentation seems to be rather typical of the aerospace industry, which is all about safety. Im not too convinced that this is due to Boeing being Boeing, but rather that DO-178 compliance is a bitch, ITAR can be another bitch, and certifying not only a single build of the Linux kernel but also an entire distro build will be a superhuman effort. At best it’ll take a long time with a sizeable team. Not sure that would Boeing be filling to fund that.
I’ve had a pretty good time with PopOS. GNOME is a bit rough at times (handling window sizes, font size changes, monitor layout updates) and I only had DisplayLink driver issues, which is probably trivial for most personal users nowadays.
Maybe have a look at this ArchWiki page. This describes how you can check for all supported idle methods and provides further links to go more in-depth.
Honestly just anti-foss rambling. Nothing is stopping them to make a custom hardened kernel with what they need. What they want is someone else to cater for them.
ELISA (Enabling Linux in Safety Applications) Project announced that Boeing has joined as a Premier member, marking its commitment to Linux and its effective use in safety critical applications. Hosted by the Linux Foundation, ELISA is an open source initiative that aims to create a shared set of tools and processes to help companies build and certify Linux-based safety-critical applications and systems
I imagine this means they’re contributing both actively and financially to Linux.
Some thinkpads have official support for Ubuntu by the manufacturer (lenovo), which means battery optimizations out of the box, amongst other things. Might be relevant for your laptop.
To me, it really doesn’t feel like you need to switch unless you’re actually being affected by this in some way. Fedora isn’t actually Red Hat, they’re just sponsored by them and assisted by them in other ways because Red Hat uses them as an upstream, but the worst case scenario that I know of, is simply that Red Hat will cut ties with Fedora.
UPD: Sorry. I read the reddit post. So you pass through single GPU. You load GPU bios when Windows load?
In general, such a configuration will be quite complicated, but if you want to try, show the VM configuration and the start hook. Without this not easy to say.
"UPD: Sorry. I read the reddit post. So you pass through single GPU. You load GPU bios when Windows load?"
I haven’t done that. I was of opinion that the radeon rx6800 didn’t need it as nvidia does. Will download a bios and load it with the Vm.
"In general, such a configuration will be quite complicated, but if you want to try, show the VM configuration and the start hook. Without this not easy to say."
I reverted back to pre-virtmanager installation, will try this evening to follow the steps, including adding the bios to the VM, will also post the configurations and hooks. Will appreciate it if I don’t need to dual boot anymore, having snapshot of my windows VM will be of great value for my workflow
I would use one of the tools listed in the archwiki; I have an intel chip so I've never used any myself.
Once you find a tool that can undervolt, usually the recommendation is to lower the voltage incrementally until you see unstable behavior and crashes, than raise it back to the last good voltage, then run a stress-test to verify.
Linux is not Windows. Don’t try to make Windows from Linux. It can be visually similar, but it will never be the same. Don’t expect a seamless migration. Stay on Windows or be ready to learn new things.
I liked using fedora Sway spin on my Dell XPS 13. Sway because it let’s you utilise the screen space well and fedora spin because it came working out of the box, you can use it in any distro really.
I don’t know of any source that condenses a decade+ of this bs.
In the early 2000s ms got a shit load of patents that Linux and later android were supposedly infringing on, and so they demanded that distro companies, hardware manufacturers, and basically everyone using Linux commercially pay them royalties. Every distro was holding their ground since it was obvious patent trolling.
Novell (owners of suse at the time and creators of opensuse) saw it as an opportunity to catch up to redhat. So they made a deal with Ballmer (the dude that called Linux a cancer only fit for communists) that they’ll confirm they’re infringing those patents and that they’ll pay them royalties on every sale because of that. In return they won’t get sued and they’ll be promoted by ms.
One of the oldest commercial distros admitting that Linux is infringing on those patents gave ms a leg to stand on and bully every other distro.
Later on they renewed their deal with ms, and started selling them certificates. The purpose of those was to protect ms customers using Linux from getting fucked by ms trying to fuck Linux. Even later on Novell died, suse got purchased again, and ms bought some of their patents.
This lasted from like 2006 to 2018, and in the end ms realized they can’t get to extinguishing before first embracing and extending. So they open sourced their 60k patents (suse got sold again after this). Now they’re using Canonical to finish what they’ve started.
Like yeah, they’re under new management as an independent entity now, but I’d wait a bit more before calling them some beacon of FOSS values.
linux
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.