[luau] another interesting thing I found on another list

[Jimen Ching]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Charles Lockhart wrote:
>Hey Jimen, so where do you think the cutoff point is between an embedded
>system and, uh, a non-embedded system (would that be just a pc?)?  I
>agree with you that a lot of the SBC's out there don't really fit into
>the embedded category, as quite a few have more power than the system I
>run at home, but I've never been real clear on what would be an
>acceptable breaking point.

As systems shrink, we'll soon be able to boot linux off a wrist watch
sized computer.  So my definition of embedded system is not based on the
size or the resources of a system.  My definition of an embedded system is
simple--any system where it takes the minimum amount of resources to
perform a function.  Put another way, if you can't tell the difference
between the embedded system and a desktop, then that embedded system isn't
embedded.

A prime example is the Xbox.  That is just a small Wintel computer that
only plays games (for most people).  On the other hand, a PS2 would be
considered an embedded system.  Since it was designed with a minimalist
philosophy, it only includes what it absolutely needs.  Running Linux, or
other desktop OS's, on such a system is overkill.  It defeats the
minimalist philosophy.

Of course, there is nothing wrong with designing a game system like the
Xbox.  Some people buy a desktop just to play games.  But let's stop
calling it embedded systems.  If someone is able to develop a handheld
device using Linux and it provides the same capabilities as a desktop, why
must it be called embedded?  Really, who are we trying to impress?

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching at flex.com     wh6brr at uhm.ampr.org