Talk:Linux on embedded systems

Untitled discussion

i hear a lot of people here in brazil which call that low level programming language "assembler". wouldn't it be "assembly"? for me assembler is the part of a compiler which does the dirty work... if so, in the first paragraph, "using proprietary software coded in assembler." would be "using proprietary software coded in assembly" which i think is the right name for the programming language. sorry for the informal language, i'm just proposing a minor change, i'd do myself, but i thought i'd better ask people before. 201.21.255.222 05:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

assembly is called assembler and assembly interchangeably.173.36.196.8 (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page previously said that Windows CE is around 21 MB vs 2 MB for embedded Linux, which isn't apples and apples. A bare-bones configuration of CE 5, with just a network stack and a few server apps, is as small or smaller than an embedded Linux firmware image. The space difference is mainly due to the extra run-time configuration stuff available in Linux via /proc, the module loader, the permissions subsystem, etc. --Thalakan 08:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and we were targeting the same processor (486 DX) and the same SBC with both platforms. --Thalakan 08:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer external links, this is not a web portal

This article focuses too much on giving readers links to product and project websites. If there is a Wikipedia article about a topic, this article should link to that article, not the project's external website. We're not hear to direct readers to the right website, we are writing an encyclopedia. Gronky 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+1 from me! Too much commercial info, not enough facts & history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.26.97 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008

Added discussion, removed Red Hat

I added some clarification of what embedded Linux entails and a statement about the ELC.

I also removed Red Hat from the list because they don't really support embedded Linux these days. I added yet another link because folks reading the article probably are interested in finding out more. The link is to LinuxDevices.com which is really the leading web site for embedded Linux information.

Oysterpoboy 17:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticisms by Wind River and MontaVista

Recent article on Embedded.com, indicates that Wind River and MontaVista are currently running full-page ads implying that Embedded Linux is unreliable and expensive to keep up. Given the author is a Green Hills representative, I'm hesitant to ascribe much to the article, but I thought I would pass it on to see if people more familiar with the subject felt there was any merit to it. -Fuzzy (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Differentiate Mobile & Embedded

Mobile is not the same thing as Embedded. They may share similar constraints & CPU architectures but they try to achieve very different things. Embedded devices are designed to only ever do one thing, mobile devices like phones are designed to do lots of different things and to be expandable with 3rd party software, add-ons etc. See Wikipedia's own section on Embedded system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.26.97 (talk) 18:54, 11 June 2008

outdated

This article is very outdated, even this part of the article on linux reflects better the situation. We could:

try to find updated figures
talk more about the differences between standard embedded GNU/Linux and android
add build systems
add a history section

GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 22:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. What's a PDA? :) Stevebroshar (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference link is dead

The first (and only) reference link is dead. --Stijn Brouwer (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes about the article redo

Well, mobile devices are also a kind of embedded Linux variants, if everyone agrees. Embedded is pretty much everything that isn't general-purpose. Also, the heading section requires a complete rewrite, as it currently isn't in an encyclopedic form. -- Dsimic (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]