Read the article here: Does Linux Suck?

the comments about security are just nonsense. why would you "depend" on the OS to protect you? especially an embedded system - you harden it by providing no access to threats. yeah, you should probably turn off telnet (goodbye 1980s!). but to pretend there is no structural difference between linux and windows security models is just ignorant. what linux offers is unmatched configurability: you control exactly what's in the kernel, and control user-space from init on. all while being closely related to easy-learned desktop linux, not to mention nice tricks like UML.

Linux is OK. The part of Linux I really cannot stand is this "Linux Brotherhood" style of programming. If you are not part of the "Brotherhood" ... watch out!

Also, the support is non-existent ... that is unless you call Google searches product support!

Other than that, I have found Linux to be pretty decent for a wide range of really large projects.

Nothing is the answer to everything (and some things aren't the answer to anything).

"Embedded" Linux is ok if you have a big, fast chip, don't care about power consumption (i.e., "PC in a box") and are looking for relatively cheap, plentiful coders who can't work "close to the metal." WinCE (or some other flavor of "embedded" Windows) fills the same niche (but is more limited in supported microprocessors).

But that looks, to me, like a fairly small segment of the marketplace; there are only so many companies building game consoles and set-top boxes. I question whether Linux or WinCE are appropriate for things like electric motor controllers or engine controllers (despite the fact that there are companies out there demanding that background for those kinds of projects). Certainly, the vast majority of microcontrollers/microprocessors sold are of the 4-, 8- and 16-bit varieties and aren't appropriate for these demanding operating systems even if you can afford the power requirements.

Like Jack, I've worked with Unix/Linux in the past and find it an acceptable programming platform (although not particularly user-friendly for non-technoids in its native form). Likewise, Windows is acceptable (I actually rather like Vista, at least as much as the other versions, although that may be because I don't program for it).

But if you can actually afford the resources to run them, you've probably "over spec'ed" your chip.

"When the only tool you have is a hammer..."

Without a doubt Linux has merits, but I've also seen it bloat hardware (and therefore cost) requirements to a frightening extent on far too many projects.

On more than one such occasion an OS-less ~66MHz ARM7 implementation in C, executing in place from flash, using only the on chip SRAM of the MCU would be more than enough... One thing leads to another (usually in conjunction with the words "free", "easy", "Google", and "drivers") and pretty soon there's a 200+MHz ARM9 with 64+Mbytes of SDRAM and a USB thumb drive under the hood. sigh

Then -- to add insult to injury -- the whole thing takes 30+ seconds just to boot and begin to be useful. Meanwhile those cheap and plentiful desktop PC programmers ("I'll just malloc() myself 128Mbytes of RAM...") are busily including 4Mbyte libraries to access some little 20-line function they don't want to be bothered to write.

Palm->face.

I don't really have anything against Linux as a technology when applied intelligently to an appropriate problem, but I think too many in our profession find "...it is tempting to treat everything as if it were a nail."

Nice inflammatory title. Try "I like to beat puppies" next.

Your thesis, "We're only supposed to talk about Linux after first cueing the choir of angels who sing its eternal praises." is a bit off the mark. Yes, there are Linux evangelists who would like to see the open source OS loaded on every surface of silicon in the world. Anyone want to bet that Microsoft hasn't wished for the same fate?

Linux fills a gap in the software ecosystem that didn't exist before it was developed. No, it isn't the best application for every problem. But as we have seen in the handset market, consumers and developers haven't exactly been blazing a path for Windows-based solutions either.

The simple fact is, there are no simple facts when it comes to operating systems - no matter what the hard-core advocates on either side tell you. Yes, Linux is free in that you don't have to purchase the product. But support is lacking and documentation is sparse (I'm being generous). But Linux allows the developer to control the software down to its lowest levels. No hidden libraries, no magic system calls. Weakness mixed with strength.

Microsoft's solutions are easier to get running because there are already plenty of people out in the community who have experience with their development paradigm. The product comes with plenty of support and lots of great tools. But that depth of support comes at a price. And once you are in the Microsoft gravitational pull, your product is now part of Microsoft's product churn cycle. Strengths and weaknesses.

There are plenty of real-time OSes and other embedded OSes that I haven't even touched upon, but the point is: Why does Linux suck any worse than the alternatives? The fact is, it doesn't. It fills a niche quite well that would otherwise be left unfulfilled, and opens the door to small development companies with *NIX-based expertise who come to the embedded market place with their eyes wide open to the limitations.

At least that's how I see it.

I'd agree Linux doesn't work well with 8-bit microcontrollers/microprocessors, but I think a lot of my old VoIP-phone customers at a previous company would have to disagree about it working on 16-bit controllers.
We used uCLinux (since rolled into the standard kernel tree) for MMUless processors. It fit in much less than 1 MB and worked very well for a semi-realtime application.

Any one tried shifting
Linux libraries between different distributions like uCLinux, Redhat and Ubuntu... It does not work.

Any one saw what goes behind the graphics screen of Linux? That X-Windows is ancient.

Linux has remained stable because it got stuck to what Unix was 30 years ago. Computing has changed since then!

Anyone remember why Unix lost ground to Windows in the mid 90s? Solaris, AIX, BSD, System V... all looked alike but to the end user, they were all different. They all meant proprietory hardware. Unix was developed as a portable operating system and got ported a few too many times. Linux included.

I use Linux on ARM routinely. Even then, when I try it on a new ARM chip, porting is never easy.

There are niche areas where Linux or WinCE or other OSes are good, at times unavoidable. However, with better development environments, it should be possible to write your own OS or set of programs that make the end product work. Especially in the embedded arena. Leave WinCE and Linux to desktops and netPCs. Embedded computing has a far greater footprint.

As cross platform communication becomes routine, dependency on OSes should reduce - You stick to a protocol suite and not necessarily to an OS. Give me five years. Custom OS should become rule of the day.

And there are lots of applications which will not need an OS at all.