×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

BSD Real-Time Operating System NuttX Makes Its 100th Release: NuttX 6.33

timothy posted about 10 months ago | from the you're-a-nut dept.

Operating Systems 64

paugq writes "NuttX is a real-time operating system (RTOS) with an emphasis on standards compliance and small footprint. Scalable from 8-bit to 32-bit microcontroller environments, the primary governing standards in NuttX are POSIX and ANSI standards. Additional standard APIs from Unix and other common RTOS's (such as VxWorks) are adopted for functionality not available under these standards, or for functionality that is not appropriate for deeply-embedded environments. NuttX was first released in 2007 by Gregory Nutt under the permissive BSD license, and today the 100th release was made: NuttX 6.33. Supported platforms include ARM, Atmel AVR, x86, Z80 and others."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Happy Thursday from The Golden Girls! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46299199)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

NETCRAFT CONFIRMS IT!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46299257)

Slashdot and BSD are dead!!

INITSCRIPTS FOR THE WIN!!! (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 10 months ago | (#46299629)

Netcraft is down. That's what you get when you use systemd.

Ambitious (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#46299291)

Seems like a pretty ambitious project to run on a Z80. Good thing this isn't April 1st.

I've seen some Z80 based software that implemented various bits of Unix-like functionality. Some of them appeared to be pretty impressive, but nothing like the list at the site. I would assume that the available functionality is going to vary by architecture given the constraints present on the low end.

Re:Ambitious (4, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | about 10 months ago | (#46299355)

Seems like a pretty ambitious project to run on a Z80. Good thing this isn't April 1st.

Git off my lawn you young whippersnapper.

I was running OS-9 [wikipedia.org] on a Tandy Colour Computer (6809E, 2MHz) back in the late '80s. A full preemptive multi-tasking multi-user unix like system in a tiny little box. I even had a GUI running on it (well for about 1/2 an hour as it was too frisking slow!). Its amazing what you can do if you avoid bloat.

Re:Ambitious (1)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#46299415)

I know very capable systems could be built on the hardware of the day, especially when assembly wizards were at work, and many people loved OS-9, but I had to balk at NFS. I quite agree about the bloat comment.

Re:Ambitious (1)

TheGoodNamesWereGone (1844118) | about 10 months ago | (#46299465)

You beat to it, posting that. I miss my old CoCo

Re:Ambitious (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46299569)

We all miss Coco [wikipedia.org] , .... but hey, how about that TRS-80 Color Computer [wikipedia.org] !

Re:Ambitious (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#46299367)

UZI: UNIX Z-80 IMPLEMENTATION [cpmclub.de]

UZI is an implementation of the Unix kernel written for a Z-80 based computer. It implements almost all of the functionality of the 7th Edition Unix kernel. UZI was written to run on one specific collection of custom-built hardware, but since it can easily have device drivers added to it, and it does not use any memory management hardware, it should be possible to port it to numerous computers that current use the CP/M operating system. The source code is written mostly in C, and was compiled with The Code Works' Q/C compiler. UZI's code was written from scratch, and contains no AT&T code, so it is not subject to any of AT&T's copyright or licensing restrictions. Numerous 7th Edition programs have been ported to UZI with little or no difficulty, including the complete Bourne shell, ed, sed, dc, cpp, etc.

UZI180 - Unix Z80 Implementation for the Z-180 (UZI180) [sourceforge.net]

Re:Ambitious (1)

ColaMan (37550) | about 10 months ago | (#46299453)

Well it certainly looks better than CP/M.
You could always emulate your way out of trouble on the low end I suppose, but then you'd suffer a pretty hideous performance/memory hit.
But even the 'low end' is pushing 20MHz these days.......

Re:Ambitious (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 9 months ago | (#46303721)

Well, early Unixes and Unix clones were available for computers whose addressing model was 16 bit (or worse). Indeed, this survived well into the 1980s, with early versions of Coherent available for the 8088 (yes, I know some will say that has a 20 bit address space, but it's sorta paged such that each process can only see 64k (actually three banks of 64k) at once. And Coherent user space programs generally only saw 64k of memory, period.)

If the 8088, then why not the Z80/8080? Well, mostly because almost all Z80 computers had less than 64k of RAM, and those that had more used banking techniques that weren't terribly terribly efficient. But in theory, at least, a computer maker can add a decent MMU to a Z80, and make it perfectly capable of running (smaller) Unix systems. Unix was ideally suited to the environment in some ways, it was originally built on the principle that that a collection of small, efficient, tools was better than a smaller number of larger tools.

So it doesn't really surprise me, and it's not ridiculously ambitious assuming you're not demanding a modern operating system capable of running gcc and EMACS, or other similarly large tools.

Well, I clicked to look at this story but all I ca (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46299313)

Oh and beta doesn't work right. It gave me this worthless error message:
"Filter error: You can type more than that for your comment."

Look out (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46299363)

Ima bout to bust a NuttX.

rPi? (1)

MadCow42 (243108) | about 10 months ago | (#46299369)

Cool... anyone tried it on Raspberry Pi?

Re:rPi? (2)

paugq (443696) | about 10 months ago | (#46299535)

There have been several threads on NuttX on the RPi and the "problem" is: what to do with so many resources? NuttX does not need 512 MB or RAM. It does not even need 512 *KB* of RAM! But yes, it's completely possible and there was a thread recently about using NuttX as a desktop operating system. Maybe not that crazy.

Re:rPi? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46299685)

Then the whole thing must be able to fit into L2 cache on modern processors, making it screaming fast.

Re:rPi? (2)

cold fjord (826450) | about 9 months ago | (#46300669)

Maybe, maybe not. There have been systems built in the past using all low-latency static memory and it made less of a difference than expected. Hard to say, maybe things would be different now. You would certainly want to test it, not just assume.

Re:rPi? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301401)

Well, you could run emacs on it. Don't know if you'd have the memory to do anything useful, though.

Nice professional name for an RTOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46299377)

Lol "Nutt". I understand that the actual real name of the guy who made it, but seriously. Here's what you do: mentally picture Beavis and Butthead saying the name of your product. If they laughed after they said it, that's not a good name for a product.

Re:Nice professional name for an RTOS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301407)

Gimp. GimpgimpgimpgimpGIMP!

What makes an OS realtime? (1)

t0qer (230538) | about 10 months ago | (#46299399)

Had a friend ask me this once. I honestly couldn't come up with an answer. You look at the nuts and bolts of O/S's both realtime and non realtime, and it's basically all the same stuff, with more emphasis given to lower transaction times. Is it just a buzzword? Not trying to troll, but if someone has a definitive answer I'd love to hear it.

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 10 months ago | (#46299459)

Had a friend ask me this once. I honestly couldn't come up with an answer. You look at the nuts and bolts of O/S's both realtime and non realtime, and it's basically all the same stuff, with more emphasis given to lower transaction times. Is it just a buzzword? Not trying to troll, but if someone has a definitive answer I'd love to hear it.

You can get into all sorts of discussions about interrupts and responsiveness etc but the best definition I ever saw for a Real Time system was:

It gets the work done in the time given

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (4, Informative)

cold fjord (826450) | about 10 months ago | (#46299469)

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (1)

recharged95 (782975) | about 9 months ago | (#46301439)

Why Do I Need It?

Cause when it crashes (RTOS), it will crash "hard" and you instantly know you need to reboot it... (now).

Where as a non-RTOS "crashes" the OS will still allow the mouse to move, disk churning, UI frozen, you will wait 10 seconds wondering WTF? and then wait +3 as you hold the power button to reboot it and then another 2 minutes for it to reboot and login.

Basically you need a RTOS to save time from waiting.

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (4, Informative)

tiagosousa (1931172) | about 10 months ago | (#46299491)

Had a friend ask me this once. I honestly couldn't come up with an answer. You look at the nuts and bolts of O/S's both realtime and non realtime, and it's basically all the same stuff, with more emphasis given to lower transaction times. Is it just a buzzword? Not trying to troll, but if someone has a definitive answer I'd love to hear it.

Realtime simply means that certain operations are guaranteed to complete in a given timeframe. This is harder than it appears.

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301099)

Keyword here is "guarantee", and that is what makes it hard.

In contrast, other traditional OS's don't make any guarantees about time to complete an operation. They do try to be fast, they don't guarantee it. What they do try to guarantee is that an operation will complete EVENTUALLY. I.e. the goal is to minimize starvation.

That is at least my attempt to make the distinction as simply as I can.

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (4, Informative)

elfprince13 (1521333) | about 10 months ago | (#46299593)

Did you bother looking it up?

A real-time operating system (RTOS) is an operating system (OS) intended to serve real-time application requests. It must be able to process data as it comes in, typically without buffering delays. Processing time requirements (including any OS delay) are measured in tenths of seconds or shorter. A key characteristic of an RTOS is the level of its consistency concerning the amount of time it takes to accept and complete an application's task; the variability is jitter.[1] A hard real-time operating system has less jitter than a soft real-time operating system. The chief design goal is not high throughput, but rather a guarantee of a soft or hard performance category. An RTOS that can usually or generally meet a deadline is a soft real-time OS, but if it can meet a deadline deterministically it is a hard real-time OS.[2] An RTOS has an advanced algorithm for scheduling. Scheduler flexibility enables a wider, computer-system orchestration of process priorities, but a real-time OS is more frequently dedicated to a narrow set of applications. Key factors in a real-time OS are minimal interrupt latency and minimal thread switching latency; a real-time OS is valued more for how quickly or how predictably it can respond than for the amount of work it can perform in a given period of time.[3]

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (1, Insightful)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 10 months ago | (#46299601)

It's a buzzword more than anything. A realtime system is one in which a late result is an incorrect result, so logically an RTOS would try to make assurances that late results due to factors outside the control of the application programmer won't happen. This is impossible to flatly guarantee; ultimately it's up to the system integrator to determine whether a given implementation adequately meets the timeliness demands and no RTOS is going to assure that. The good ones will get out of the way and help the implementor though.

Does not HelloWorld.asm OS guarantee cycle count? (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 10 months ago | (#46299849)

> This is impossible to flatly guarantee ... no RTOS is going to assure that.

Does that include a "trivial" RTOS, or are you speaking only of an RTOS of significantly complexity? It would seem that on an MCU, the very simplest OS, the "HelloWorld.asm" of operating systems, would absolutely run each of its functions in the exact same number of cycles, every single time. On a Z80, for example, INC always takes exactly one cycle, and ADD take two cycles, every time.

On a Core processor it would be much less consistent due to pipelining, out-of-order execution, etc., but these little MCUs don't do any of that, do they?
Some of the little bit of MCU code I've written has been fairly sensitive to timing and I've figured that 4 cycles is 4 cycles, every time. Have I been doing it wrong?

Re:Does not HelloWorld.asm OS guarantee cycle coun (1)

chuckugly (2030942) | about 9 months ago | (#46301085)

> This is impossible to flatly guarantee ... no RTOS is going to assure that.

Does that include a "trivial" RTOS, or are you speaking only of an RTOS of significantly complexity? It would seem that on an MCU, the very simplest OS, the "HelloWorld.asm" of operating systems, would absolutely run each of its functions in the exact same number of cycles, every single time.

Barring a hardware failure or power failure or .... There are things(tm) that the (RT)OS just can't fix. Some fix/manage more than others but in the end it's up to the system integrator and customer to decide if a system is a suitable real time solution.

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46300113)

It's a buzzword more than anything. A realtime system is one in which a late result is an incorrect result, so logically an RTOS would try to make assurances that late results due to factors outside the control of the application programmer won't happen. This is impossible to flatly guarantee

Not necessarily. But you need information on how much time the tasks need to complete and how little time they have to do it.
Often it isn't of interest to have a RTOS since it is easy to implement time critical tasks in a dedicated microcontroller that doesn't have to bother with other tasks but sometimes it is of interest to use an RTOS where there are a mix of tasks that has to be processed in a given timeframe and a bunch of stuff that is less critical.
Take for example an MP3 player. No one will buy a music player that stutters, it is a big flaw that makes the product fail at its core function. If the MP3 player runs an OS the music playing task has to be able to process the data in the given time. The GUI part will have to do with what is left, but only up to a certain point. An RTOS can handle this setup so that music stuttering is avoided at the cost of the GUI being slightly sluggish but where it still is guaranteed to process every 500ms or so so that you at least can stop the music if there simply isn't enough processing power available.

CNC machines is probably the best place to look for realtime OS's but one can argue that they belong everywhere.
User interfaces could be seen as a task that requires a timely response and a situation where the computer is so bogged down that manually resolving the problem isn't possible should never happen.

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (1)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | about 10 months ago | (#46299603)

I think it's whether the scheduler can make guarantees about the time granted to a process. In a Desktop OS, the scheduler can arbitrarily decide not to give a process no new time slots.
Or whatever Wikipedia says [wikipedia.org] .

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (1)

Agripa (139780) | about 9 months ago | (#46304721)

And on a lot of desktops, the code operating in System Management Mode can arbitrarily decide to interrupt anything.

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (3, Informative)

EMG at MU (1194965) | about 10 months ago | (#46299635)

A hard real time system has to be deterministic. Operations have to happen exactly at the right times, and take exactly the same amount of time every time. Nothing can go on inside the OS that could delay or slow down the vital operations of the embedded device.
That being said you can have a real time os and do things that will make your system not deterministic. Unless specially designed (ethercat ect...), filesystems and network communication are typically non deterministic.

I suppose another thing I associate with real time is concept of a watch-dog. If you have a task that monitors some A2D and it absolutely has to run every 10ms in order for the system to function properly, you want your watch-dog to trip if your task doesn't run within some window.

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46299895)

The OS is able to make latency and code execution guarantees if it is realtime.

With a RTOS, a triggered event will wake up your process in under n milleseconds (or cycles) and your process will be allowed execution for n milliseconds/cycles without interruption by the OS or other processes. It probably goes without saying that non-deterministic operations like I/O, garbage collection, code interpretation/jit compiling, memory swapping, etc. are not conducive to realtime operation.

Applications written for the bare metal (no OS) can of course be realtime, since there isn't any timesharing happening with an OS or other processes. Programs that run on MS-DOS like CNC software or audio/visual demos are good examples of standalone realtime applications.

In realtime microcontroller applications, a developer might state with confidence that a thread of code will execute within say 15 clock cycles of some external event, and not take more than 500 clock cycles to execute for any code path taken, all while taking into account processor pipelines and memory latency.

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (3, Insightful)

gman003 (1693318) | about 10 months ago | (#46300471)

General gist:
A realtime OS is designed to handle a system that needs to operate in real time, generally one operating some sort of machinery. As such, the scheduler can offer certain guarantees - interrupts will be processed within a certain time limit, processes will get a certain amount of CPU time, and so on. A regular OS scheduler does not offer these guarantees, because they can come with performance limitations in peak scenarios.

Or to put it another way, a realtime OS aims for lowest maximum latency, a regular OS aims for lowest average latency, or potentially even highest average bandwidth.

Imagine an airplane (it's like a car analogy with wings). You have some sensor and a control surface, and every millisecond that sensor reads an input and that needs to affect the control surface in a very simple way. A regular OS scheduler does not guarantee that some other process won't have hold over the CPU for 2ms, while a realtime scheduler can be told to give you that guarantee, and even told how to prioritize tasks if the CPU is overutilized. In a plane, or other machinery, that guarantee can be very important because if things don't happen when they need to happen, things break.

Try F1 (2)

Anna Merikin (529843) | about 9 months ago | (#46300841)

Some years ago in motor racing's Formula 1 competitions, when computer-controllers were in their infancy, Ferrari ran into driver problems -- they kept burning up tires and/or crashing. As it was well-known at the time that Ferrari motors were more powerful than their competition, there was a lot of "expert" press and fanboy head-scratching.

In the off-season, FIAT (Ferrari's parent company) bought Wind RIver RTS, which ran as 32-bit instead of 16, giving Ferraris more even (deeper bit depth) throttle response. Result? The next two seasons, no one could catch them, crashing was a thing of the past and so was excessive tire wear from wheelspin as the drivers had finer control of traction through their right foot.

Eventually, other teams went to 32-bit RT and Ferrari's dominance has waned..

You never know when a RTOS will make the difference.

Yes, and it was a REAL real-time OS, not NuttX (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46301001)

Real real-time OSs have various elements that are REQUIRED for real-time:

- Masked interrupts (you can PREVENT hardware interrupts from actuating code, instead scheduling future software handlers)
- Determnisitic interrupts (so that you can tell WHEN the clock will force action, not "generally" when clock "will or will later" react)
- Codepath timings (so you know how long it takes to execute X, and X won't change during the life of the system).

BSD-based systems are knocking on the door of being usable. It will be a while before these "We're true to our 1970s
Unix codebase and we don't play well with others copyleft" systems can catch up to the 20th century, the 21st century,
and real-time software-design and OS requirements.

I love watching ants build anthills. They are so proud of their work. They make great molten-lead art.
Just like BSD being used for anything other than pretending it's almost as good as linux, neither of
which are good for real time OSs.

M

slashdot mods fail - culture erosion (1)

gavron (1300111) | about 9 months ago | (#46301763)

The culture of understanding operating system design and coding has eroded so much and slashdot mods are so random that there are none left who understand what real-time os programming is all about. That's why the parent is mod 0. Sadly this is just one of many topics that random slashdot mods know nothing about, and vote things down because they don't say PS-4 or Kinect or Supermodels or whatever. It's not the beginning of dumbing down slashdot and it's not the end, but it's definitely part of the process.

More bad news. Those of us who do understand these things will quit reading slashdot because as you mods with no training nor knowledge continue to eviscerate anyone who gives you a clue (because you don't know any better lacking any education on the topic) we'll quit reading. You'll like that, because the high fives and accolades we don't give you will be filled by those who do.

I'm not warning you. It's too late. I'm just sharing so later when you wonder "how did we get to be an inbred community of idiots when we asked for input from all quarters" you'll know... you didn't ask for input from all quarters. You randomly elevated those who randomly liked posts they understood. The knowledge of the edges will be lost here, and all you'll have is a like minded community of apes who love to argue Linux vs BSD without understanding anything.

Ehud

Re:slashdot mods fail - culture erosion (1)

qpqp (1969898) | about 9 months ago | (#46301845)

Mod parent and GP up!

we'll quit reading

The community already moved to soylent.

Re:slashdot mods fail - culture erosion (1)

munch117 (214551) | about 9 months ago | (#46304285)

Well, I have mod points and I do appreciate the GP. But you have to understand that AC posts start at 0 no matter how good they are, it can take time before someone with mod points happens to come across it to change that.
Unfortunately my mouse slipped and I accidentally modded it 'Redundant' instead of 'Insightful', sorry about that. Hopefully this post will cancel that.

Re:Try F1 (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 9 months ago | (#46302457)

look man, being 8 bit or 32bit in precision has damn all fucking nothing to do with being real time or not.

however.. I have a computer analogy here.

x86 running dos runs real time. thus, it'll run every time the same speed(ok ok hd might have return in inexactly the same time but still, you could just create a simple bat that set the time to 0:00:0 and ran the game, resulting in the game copy protection asking the same question every time...).

being rtos is not about being faster, not about higher precision, but about having predictable timing, enabling you to run things with it that have to happen at certain time, like running fuel injection or whatever.

Re:Try F1 (1)

Anna Merikin (529843) | about 9 months ago | (#46302907)

Now, think about what you're saying: that fineness of control means nothing in a racing car.

Do you stand by that opnion?

Re: Try F1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#46310781)

Reading comprehension please. GP said the precision has nothing to do with how real-time a RTOS is.
Weird: AC feeding troll with UID

Re:What makes an OS realtime? (1)

LoRdTAW (99712) | about 10 months ago | (#46370969)

See my response here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4829197&cid=46333375 [slashdot.org]

In a nutshell real time implies determinism, meaning it responds to interrupts or allows a task to run in a given amount of time in a guaranteed manner. E.g. if you needed to respond to an interrupt in less than 100us or a task MUST RUN every 10ms, an RTOS can guarantee that provided the hardware can handle the task at hand. in a timely manner.

Some people call a near lag free video display from a camera to a monitor real time or perhaps even a video game running smoothly (60+FPS). While they run in real time in the sense that they respond quickly to input, there is nothing under the hood which guarantees that those frames will be delivered on time all the time. They may experience lag or stuttering if another process running in the system needs a lot of CPU or I/O.

Whereas in a real time system, the camera or video game would force the OS to comply with their timing constraints. E.g. if the camera sent an interrupt that a frame was ready, the OS would drop everything and service that interrupt. Then a process handling the video frames would also be guaranteed so much time to take the frame and render it to the screen. Every other process would have to wait for free time. So if the CPU could render a frame in 5ms and you needed a frame to be rendered every 20ms on the dot for a constant timed 50FPS, then an RTOS could guarantee that. Other processes would have to wait. In a non RTOS, the OS would juggle processes, interrupts and threads as it sees fit.

  Though, you have to be careful how you design because too many interrupts or long processing times can lead to disastrous performance as other processes are blocked while a real-time process and interrupts swamp the CPU. If that happens, you need dedicated hardware like fast micro-controllers, DSP's or FPGA's to do the heavy lifting and a RTOS on another CPU taking the processed data and doing something useful with it.

 

SSH and HTTPS support? (2)

quantumphaze (1245466) | about 10 months ago | (#46300119)

This looks interesting but I can't find any information on whether it can run an SSH server or HTTPS on their site or through google. Does anyone know if it would be possible to port something Dropbear SSH [ucc.asn.au] to NuttX (assuming the CPU can handle it)?
They claim they have a POSIX-like system [nuttx.org] , which Dropbear needs so it should be possible, but has anyone done it yet?

Re:SSH and HTTPS support? (2)

Required Snark (1702878) | about 9 months ago | (#46301619)

RTFM!

From the FIRST PAGE of the web site under Networking.

BSD compatible socket layer.

Networking utilities (DHCP server and client, SMTP client, TELNET client, FTP server and client, TFTP client, HTTP server and client). Inheritable TELNET sessions (as “controlling terminal”).

NFS Client. Client side support for a Network File System (NFS, version 3, UDP).

A NuttX port of Jeff Poskanzer's THTTPD HTTP server integrated with NXFLAT to provide embedded CGI. UDP Network Discvory, XML RPC Server.

You should stop posting stupid stuff and just hang around and lurk until you grow up.

Re:SSH and HTTPS support? (0)

Chryana (708485) | about 9 months ago | (#46301945)

And I think you should avoid posting at all, ever, if you're going to be such an ass to answer a simple question. I thought the question was interesting because I was curious about the capabilities of this OS, yet not sufficiently to go find out this information. Well, thanks for nothing. Jerk.

Re:SSH and HTTPS support? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302515)

Running an HTTPS server should be doable, there are many small bsd/commercial licensed openssl implementations. OpenSSL/GnuTLS is obviously too bloated.

You could run dropbear with minor changes, the /dev/pts system ofcourse does not exist in NuttX, but it does has the concept of a console, so you should be able to port it relatively easily.

Re:SSH and HTTPS support? (1)

NoImNotNineVolt (832851) | about 9 months ago | (#46304069)

In his defense, his username is Required Snark.

Re:SSH and HTTPS support? (1)

Chryana (708485) | about 9 months ago | (#46306893)

I did notice that detail before posting. I checked the definition of the word first, and I thought his comment was too insulting to be defined as snark. However, English is not my mother tongue, so I am willing to recognize that I could be wrong there. In any case, I really don't think this kind of comment is welcome on any public forum, yet it was modded up. I guess some people agree we should be kicking out the users who don't read the articles linked in Slashdot stories (right...), or they don't mind receiving a good dose of verbal abuse if they're given a little insight with it.

This isn't BSD! (4, Informative)

l2718 (514756) | about 10 months ago | (#46300459)

The headline creates the impression that this is a real-time adaptation of BSD (the "Berkeley Software Distribution", that is, BSD Unix). In fact, this OS is an original development; it is merely licensed under the terms that BSD is licensed under.

Would the headline have said "A GNU real-time OS" if it was licensed under the GPL, the license of the GNU operating system?

Re:This isn't BSD! (3, Insightful)

Lawrence_Bird (67278) | about 9 months ago | (#46300875)

If Timothy wrote the headline, yes.

Re:This isn't BSD! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | about 9 months ago | (#46301087)

I was wondering about that. It does look really interesting but it is not BSD Unix but that does not mean that it is not cool.

Re:This isn't BSD! (1)

hawk (1151) | about 9 months ago | (#46301491)

No.

It would be labeled GNU/RTOS, and everyone who objected would be accused of ignoring RMS' contribution . . . :)

hawk

Re:This isn't BSD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302197)

The headline creates the impression that this is a real-time adaptation of BSD (the "Berkeley Software Distribution", that is, BSD Unix). In fact, this OS is an original development; it is merely licensed under the terms that BSD is licensed under.

Agreed. But the moral of the story is:

Some people care about what things are called not what they actually are.

Re:This isn't BSD! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302365)

Things should be called what they are.

Re:This isn't BSD! (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about 9 months ago | (#46302583)

Would the headline have said "A GNU real-time OS" if it was licensed under the GPL, the license of the GNU operating system?

No it would have said a GPL operating system.

It just happens to be that in the base of BSD the OS and License have the same name.

Re:This isn't BSD! (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 9 months ago | (#46305097)

I was wondering about this as well. Already, there is a BSD RTOS - it's the Minix microkernel w/ NetBSD userland. So BSD already has an RTOS.

So this NuttX - is it a POSIX compliant or UNIX like OS? Or is it something totally different - like QNX, VxWorks, et al? Is it a microkernel based OS like QNX or Minix, or a monolithic OS, like HP-RT (Real time HP/UX for PA-RISC)? From the list of microcontrollers given - Z80, Atmel AVR, I'm getting the impression that it's a lot less than a UNIX

NOT for boards like Raspberry Pi, Beaglebone (2)

Andrew Wagner (3539183) | about 9 months ago | (#46302321)

The summary doesn't give a good idea of the scope of the project. The lead developer is targeting chips with low pincount. He considers more powerful smartphone class ARM's like found on the Raspberry Pi and Beaglebone Black to be too powerful for his project to make sense, and recommends running linux: http://comments.gmane.org/gman... [gmane.org] That said, he offered to help if someone else wanted to do a port for some reason.

Re:NOT for boards like Raspberry Pi, Beaglebone (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46302487)

Depends,

We have used an other RTOS (but comparable, we could port the system to NuttX without many technical problems) on a powerful ARM processor. It indeed is somewhat overpowered, but one of our tasks needed a lot of RAM memory and high speed IO.

Using linux with xenomai would have been another option but this makes licensing much more complex.

Re:NOT for boards like Raspberry Pi, Beaglebone (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 9 months ago | (#46305117)

Why not use MINIX then? If the resources available are overkill for NuttX, it shouldn't be for MINIX, which is a full 32-bit OS, existing on x86 and being ported to BeagleBone. Licensing is BSDL, so the GPL complications you'd get w/ Linux would be sidestepped here. And you'd get the NetBSD userland along w/ it.

Does it run Systemd? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46306787)

A Unix these days is only usable with systemd. Does it run? If not, bury it now.

What you do not seam to get is....... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 9 months ago | (#46307415)

Greg himself, with some contribution from others, has created and maintained an RTOS that runs from 8 bit to 32-ARMs that is completely configurable, completely open source, and includes ALL the middle-ware that other charge $6K-$16K and he has done 100 releases of an RTOS that beats when it competes with the embOS, uC/OS out there.

A Job Well done!

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?