Re: Mini-ITX PC's a the future of HA

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Dean Roddey" <droddey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

> I don't think that's the case.

Dude, context please!

> Windows doesn't crash by itself. It crashes because it's mostly
> used in a way that any system would crash, i.e. where a
> non-technical person is free to do anything he/she likes with it.

I don't know whether I can agree with that.  I've watched Windows code bloat
over the years.  You know about software reliability - there's rivers of
stuff written about it - and complexity is the enemy of reliability.  Linux
doesn't phone home because you changed a NIC in your machine, but Windows XP
will.  From everything that I have seen, read and personally experienced, an
untweaked Windows installation will not stay "up" as long as an untweaked
Linux system.  Bad configuration management will doom any computer, but
Windows makes it easy to get screwed by every script kiddie in the world.
Only recently did MS decide it would be a good idea to adjust some of the
most horrendous default security settings.

> Linux wouldn't do any better in that situation. But in the
> automation scenario, the PC being used as an automation
> controller is not being used on a daily basis (directly), it's
> just acting as a back end to a touch panel and is never used
> for surfing the web or getting e-mail or playing games or
> downloading illegal crap and so forth. In that kind of situation,
> where it's set up for a single purpose and left alone, running
> quality software and drivers on quality hardware, it will run
> completely stably for years.

The key words are "single purpose" and I contend that's not the way real
people use PC's *unless* they can afford to dedicate one machine per task.
Lots of people have ended up running their installations that way, but it's
not by choice, it's by necessity.  A truly well-designed multi-tasking OS
would not allow any single application to crash the machine.  Even if dumb
users loaded bad programs, if you have a well-written application running
along side them there should be really nothing that can stop your
well-written code.  That's not true of Windows.  At least not in my
experience.

> It happens all the time in the industrial and commercial worlds,
> where the PCs are used in this very way.

But this is Computer HOME Automation, and many, many of the users here, for
any number of reasons, have to use their workhorse PC as their HA
controller.  I don't recommend it, but I know it to be true.

That's why I see the Via mini-ITX platform as being so important.  It's
finally of a small enough size, a consistent enough design and a low enough
price to be purchased as an appliance.  Since most of what you need is
already on the board, you can usually get all your drivers from one place.
That tends to imply that there's been cooperation between the various driver
writing teams, something you rarely see in the PC peripheral world.  To me,
that means enhanced stability.  It's why I see this particular machine as
being so potentially valuable to the HA industry.

With a very standard configuration and knowledgeable SW person somewhere in
the loop, I'll agree that Windows can be made to behave.  But I don't think
it's born that way.  I also think it's nearly impossible for the average PC
user to get it that way unless they are willing to have one machine for the
net, one for word processing, one for home automation, one for games, etc.

> So it's really nothing to do with Microsoft refusing to create a stable
OS.
> They've already done that, if it's used correctly.

I didn't say they refused. I said:

"MS has not demonstrated that it can create a reliable operating system
suitable for "appliances" let alone critical black-box functions."

I question whether they know how.  Mac OS's have been undeniably more stable
than MS's over the years, as have the various *nixes.  I also said:

"People have accepted that Windows crashes because they
keep buying it anyway.  There's not much incentive for MS to         improve
the product if people don't care about having to reboot."

Windows, from the very beginning, has considered "gee whiz" goodies like
Active-X more important than reliability.  You only had to look at their ads
for the most recent versions to know that.  They basically say "this version
works."

I also believe that XP is way too bloated to run reliably now, especially on
a CF card.  XP installations can choke up to nearly 3GB of disk space.  When
someone comes out with a HomeSeer-like package for *nix that lets you load a
lean *nix OS with the HA application onto a PC like the Via, the HA world
could change.  I see the Via PC as a tremendous opportunity for *nix to move
forward in the world home automation because it's a platform that's being
very heavily used by the *nix community, and they're hard at work ironing
out the bugs.

> But if every single person out there worked on their own cars,
> and put their own performance mods and add ons into it, using a
> 'performance mods wizard', what do you  figure the state of cars
> would be?

I don't think that's the real issue.  Windows advertising implies you can
load all the apps you want and all the HW you want.  We both know that as
you add either, you're reducing the chance the Windows is going to stay up
and running.  Reliability drops drastically as each new component is added.
Is it really the same for *nix?  When I get a chance, I'll look.  Certainly
someone's done MTBF analyses on Windows v. *nix running the same sorts of
configurations on identical machines.

>There's no way you can create an OS that's as open
> to as much hardware and software variations as Windows and
> keep it stable when Joe Blow is the one maintaining it, an surfing
> the web with no real knowledge of network security and the kids
> are surfing illegal gaming and media sites and so forth.

It doesn't help that Windows makes it nearly impossible to surf safely
because of poorly written code, poorly designed Active-X controls and any
number of bad default choices that virtually guarantee something bad's going
to happen to you when you connect to the web.

My contention is that if you take a normal Windows machine, and you load it
up with software - good software, from reputable manufacturers, not just any
old freeware - you're going to reach a point where things just don't work
anymore.  Why? Because the design of Windows still allows problem
applications to bring down the entire system.  True, it's much better than
it used to be, but it's still not right. Those are the reasons why I believe
that the star HA PC of the future may very well turn out to be Unix.

One other point.  It's interesting to note that HP and others who have
instituted a DVD "quick play" feature on their laptops basically boot the
machine into a small version of *nix and then load a DVD playing app.  Why?
Because Windows takes so damn long to boot.   That might be another reason
why the HA server of the future might just be a *nix box.  If the system
does go down, you want it to come back up fast, and not to the blue screen
of death.

Lean and mean usually win out over bloated and top-heavy.

--
Bobby G.