[HN Gopher] Red Hat in-vehicle operating system in modern and fu...
___________________________________________________________________
Red Hat in-vehicle operating system in modern and future vehicles
Author : ohjeez
Score : 52 points
Date : 2022-05-10 20:55 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.redhat.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.redhat.com)
| DoctorOW wrote:
| I feel like if there was a press release about IBM repackaging
| Linux to sell to manufacturers, the post here would have no
| positive response, maybe no negative response either. I feel like
| either apathy or cynicism. This is probably part of the value of
| the Red Hat purchase.
| ra7 wrote:
| Is this an alternative to Android Automotive [1]?
|
| [1]
| https://source.android.com/devices/automotive/start/what_aut...
| thebeardisred wrote:
| No, this is related to IEEE/ASME functional safety.
| kornhole wrote:
| This seems to be in an exploratory phase with many questions
| still on how to implement. I do see this as positive in general
| that big car makers such as GM are recognizing the benefits and
| willing to partner with IBM on building open source solutions.
|
| I recently evaluated several cars for purchase and had real
| difficulty with all of them because of the mysterious proprietary
| operating systems that I know are collecting data and sending to
| somewhere. Cars have become Iphones on wheels which sounds great
| to some people, but not to me. I ultimately decided not to
| purchase a new car and stick with an older more analogue one
| until an open source modern car would be available. I might be
| waiting a while, but I don't think I am alone in this
| predicament.
| georgia_peach wrote:
| Looking at android, the open source data-probe is every bit as
| effective as the closed-source one. The idea of controlling
| heavy machinery with red hat seems nearly as inadvisable as
| controlling it with windows.
|
| --
|
| " _Computers can do better than ever what needn 't be done at
| all. Making sense is still a human monopoly._"
|
| - Marshall McLuhan
| brian_herman wrote:
| nice this sounds great!
| RealityVoid wrote:
| This seems to target the "bigger" cpu's in a car, but there are
| tens of ECU's that are far smaller and that I think could benefit
| from a better platform. A much better one than AUTOSAR, which is
| a nightmare to work with. I swear I don't know what automakers
| are thinking with pushing AUTOSAR.
| wyldfire wrote:
| Maybe zephyr [1] is a good option for those ECUs? or hubris
| [2]?
|
| [1]
| https://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/introduction/index.htm...
|
| [2] https://github.com/oxidecomputer/hubris
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| > Automakers are moving toward providing more personalized and
| intuitive driving experiences while becoming more embedded within
| a driver's personal ecosystem. Doing so creates opportunities for
| additional revenue streams and improved customer loyalty. The Red
| Hat In-Vehicle Operating System provides automakers with a
| common, updatable platform that enables automakers to better meet
| customer expectations via frequent and seamless feature upgrades
| and deployment of new applications and services.
|
| Honestly, this sounds horrible. This is PR speak for "Red Hat In-
| Vehicle Operating System will make it easier to serve ads and
| collect user data that can be sold."
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Would is also make it easier to swap parts like sensors?
| Imagine upgrading your lidar, radar, or computer yourself.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| How much can this damn' data be worth in order to risk the
| loyalty of people paying tens of thousands of dollars on your
| product? I assume the _actual_ profit they are making are in
| "addons" and extras that can be unlocked remotely.
| nerdponx wrote:
| Because there is no loyalty risk. They are betting on a
| favorable regulatory environment and apathetic consumers for
| the next several years.
| version_five wrote:
| Yeah I understand why they market it that way to automakers,
| but I wish there was a push to show what it could do for the
| consumer and create demand. I would love to have an open source
| OS that I could customize in my car. I understand there is
| stuff that for regulatory reasons can't change, but all the
| maps and music and whatnot I'd love control over
| netsharc wrote:
| Meh, it seems like all infotainment computers get outdated a
| lot faster than the car, and they don't even have an
| advantage by being brand new because the manufacturer just
| slaps on something "the cheapest and slowest computer you can
| find, and just tolerable enough" to save costs.
|
| The car should just offer HDMI input for the display and
| speakers, and allow the computer to be upgradable. Even the
| display should be a module (say someone wants to upgrade to
| 4K OLED...), which makes me think the DIN got it right:
| https://www.bestcaraudio.com/what-is-a-double-din-car-radio/
| version_five wrote:
| Yeah my first choice would be a car that doesn't have a
| display or lets me project what's on my phone's screen. But
| if manufacturers insist on some OS with a screen as an
| output device, and they do, having an open one would at
| least have the potential to stimulate innovation in
| available software. As it is, everything I've seem is just
| an afterthought or lazy attempt at a revenue stream. And it
| will stay that way as long as manufacturers can lock in car
| buyers to a proprietary closed system
| StillBored wrote:
| I think there was a small window around 2010 where people
| actually used the onboard maps/GPS/etc. But every single
| person I know with a fancy new car + nav system/etc just
| uses their phone tethered over bluetooth.
|
| So, none of that matters, in the end. All you need is a
| volume control, a push to talk to siri/etc button on your
| steering wheel and a decently placed audio pickup.
|
| Then the upgrade happens every couple years with a new
| phone.
| StillBored wrote:
| Ok, color me confused, but what does this actually mean? It
| mentions fedora IoT, via the centos link, which is AFAIK just
| another Linux distribution (something like coreos, but not
| coreos?). Where does that fit in a car? Is linux real-time
| enough, for any of the actual control plane/etc? Is it
| certifiable? Which leaves what, the entertainment system? What
| does this provide that a android fork doesn't, longer support
| lifetimes? It can't actually be Linux can it? I mean RHEL is
| considered an ancient distro and it only does ~10 years. 10 years
| old is basically brand new in some car circles, where people are
| regularly driving 20-30 year old cars. The Linux of 2042 will
| likely be as unrecognizable as the Linux of 1999 is today, so
| this has to be something else right? I guess there is a midplane
| for non driving, non entertainment? AKA the electric windows,
| door locks, etc? Does that need a full blown heavyweight OS?
|
| Confused...
| RealityVoid wrote:
| Besides the dashboard and the infotainment, more recent ADAS
| units usually have some sort of POSIX on them. But, yes, most
| of the systems are RTOS'es.
| soperj wrote:
| You mention an android fork and complain that RHEL is only
| supported for 10 years. How long is that fork supported for?
|
| Confused...
| StillBored wrote:
| If it's an android fork with a 20 year lifetime, then I
| understand what it is.
|
| Is it?
|
| edit: I guess another way to put this is, looking at car's I
| wouldn't expect it to be linux. Maybe something entirely new,
| designed for real time, safety, and long term support. Maybe
| with an android style layer bolted on somewhere for the
| infotainment systems. Being redhat, open source of course.
|
| So, we can expect a Fuchsia like code drop at some point? Why
| not just say that and post it?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-10 23:00 UTC)