[HN Gopher] OxidOS Automotive
___________________________________________________________________
OxidOS Automotive
Author : todsacerdoti
Score : 41 points
Date : 2024-03-17 13:01 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (oxidos.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (oxidos.io)
| SlackingOff123 wrote:
| Is this written in Rust by any chance?
| f321x_ wrote:
| Yes its very oxidised
| ororoo wrote:
| the site says "100 Times safer cars", so yes, as rust makes
| everything automatically safer.
| Lorin wrote:
| I know quite a few people that would prefer not having rust
| in their cars.
| anjel wrote:
| For what reasons?
| UnitOfMeasure wrote:
| WHOOOSH
| olivierduval wrote:
| Because they want their car without software... ;-)
|
| It's nice to have a software for entertainment... but it
| takes more trust to have some software controlled brakes
| thfuran wrote:
| It is unsightly and structurally unsound.
| bornelsewhere wrote:
| After build you have bare metal, no rust remains.
| runjake wrote:
| As far as I can tell from their website, this isn't related to
| Oxide Computer and I'd guess there's going to be a cease and
| desist real soon now.
| Kluggy wrote:
| Based in Romania might make that hard to do
| vineyardmike wrote:
| Until they try to expand outside the Romanian car market...
| steveklabnik wrote:
| You're right that the names are similar, but we aren't
| litigious like that. This is a different thing, even though it
| has a similar name. This isn't the first time I'm hearing about
| this OS :)
|
| Heck, there's even Oxidize, a Rust conference for
| embedded/industrial Rust users.
|
| Nobody would reasonably confuse these products.
| Kluggy wrote:
| > 100 Times safer cars
|
| I wish companies would back up numbers like this. Are they really
| going to reduce the number of accidents on the road by a factor
| of 100 due to a better os? I really struggle to believe that.
| jadengeller wrote:
| it may be about safety against cyberattacks
| Kluggy wrote:
| I can't think of a single case of cyberattacks against cars.
| Do you know of any?
| UnitOfMeasure wrote:
| What is the unit of measure for "safeness," anyway? And how
| will we know if they reach 101 "safety units?"
| Veserv wrote:
| If they had to back it up then they would not be able to say
| it. Are you really trying to infringe on their rights to
| endanger lives by fraudulently claiming suitability for safety-
| critical applications without any evidence beyond their
| imaginations?
|
| If we demanded evidence from everybody then people would not be
| able to sell their sub-standard and inadequate systems. Think
| about how much less money they would make, or god forbid go out
| of business, if we demanded evidence before risking human
| lives. No, better to just let them make unqualified, extremely
| strong claims with no supporting evidence or audit to protect
| their business. I mean, it is what we let every other company
| like Microsoft, Apple, and Google do, so why not?
| CharlesW wrote:
| The actual open source OS (OxidOS is proprietary):
| https://tockos.org/
| IshKebab wrote:
| They're pretty open about that in fairness. Doesn't look like
| there's any overlap between the TockOS developers and this
| team.
| CharlesW wrote:
| We can't know the intent, but I called it out because the
| "Based on open source" on the front page and even the name
| (since OxidOS is not the OS) seems designed to mislead.
| IshKebab wrote:
| I don't think that's fair. They explicitly name Tock in
| literally the second sentence on their front page.
|
| I'm not sure what you mean about OxidOS not being the OS?
| It's still an OS even if it is heavily based on an existing
| OS. Is Android not an OS? Fuchsia?
| NoahKAndrews wrote:
| Fuschia literally is a ground-up OS with its own kernel
| (your point is well-made with regards to Android though)
| danielwrosner wrote:
| Hi! This is Daniel from OxidOS Automotive (stating this for
| disclaimer purposes).
|
| Yes, our OS is based on TockOS, and our CEO (Alexandru
| Radovici) is #7 in the contributors list
| (https://github.com/tock/tock/graphs/contributors), with
| other colleagues contributing in the past years. Of course,
| we also push anything that we fix / that is useful for the
| general Tockos community upstream.
| pxmpxm wrote:
| The number one real world use case of Rust is making these sorts
| of example real world use cases of Rust ...
|
| https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/66/Ascending_and...
| TheCapeGreek wrote:
| For a layperson, is this just for older style ECUs controlling
| various car functions, instead of e.g. electronic dashboards?
|
| Basically, will this be also usable for more modern vehicles (say
| 2015+) that have been highly digitized, or is the project scope
| much smaller?
|
| My understanding is that beyond the rise of EVs, the longevity of
| vehicles of the last decades is in question as they use more and
| more computerised controls, and their parts becoming rarer on top
| of the proprietary software controls. So beyond replacing just
| the ECU, keeping modern cars alive as they age and even become
| classics is a valuable task.
|
| I believe the concerns of the digital era losing historicity due
| to the ease of bitrot translate to vehicles as well.
| RadVl wrote:
| It won't be something you as a layperson can just take and run
| in your car, like you would Linux on an old laptop. The HW is
| pretty diverse and is tightly coupled with the car. It's more
| like something car makers can use to build on top of in order
| to quickly and safely bring up an ECU. People who worked with,
| for example, AUTOSAR stacks on modern ECU's know how much of a
| pain bringing up even just CAN communication can be.
|
| I share your concern about bitrot and longevity in modern cars,
| and this could help, but it would still not be something
| someone could just do in their garage, you'd likely need more
| resources than that.
| danielwrosner wrote:
| Yes, new cars are evolving in terms of ECU architecture, and we
| are targeting small chips for two use cases:
|
| First - as "edge components" get smarter - you still have small
| microcontrollers all over the car (for example - you need a
| local MCU and a complex PCB for running a headlight with dozens
| of LEDs with minimum wiring to a central command unit);
|
| Secondly - you now have multi-core, multi-arhitecture
| controllers - and you need small OSs for some of these cores in
| order to run embedded apps efficiently.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| When it says "based on open source" does that mean that they used
| open-source tools (in part) to build a close sourced proprietary
| operating system?
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| I am always excited to hear about new operating systems because
| we desperately need to move on from where we are stuck now.
|
| Just the other day we had several stories about a new interesting
| operating system DBOS that was closed source proprietary for
| profit.
|
| This also seems to be closed source proprietary for profit.
|
| Nothing inherently wrong with it, but I wish i could play with
| them at home. Opens sourced operating systems seem t obe losing
| ground.
| petabyt wrote:
| They might be able to find a niche in industrial equipment. But
| for regular cars it will be hard to compete with QNX.
| RadVl wrote:
| Disclaimer: I work at OxidOs.
|
| Regular cars have a lot of OS'es in them that are not QNX. I'd
| say OSEK derived OS'es are much more common than QNX. And I
| believe there is quite a bit of space for alternatives.
| foundry27 wrote:
| You're right, they do have lots of OSes. But most of them are
| for lower-ASIL elements where the functional safety and SOTIF
| requirements are less strict. I'd be very surprised if there
| was quite as much diversity at ASIL D.
|
| Edit: Usually good form to point out your affiliation when
| you're commenting on your own company's announcements. Unless
| I'm very much mistaken, RadVl sounds a lot like a portmanteau
| of Vlad Radulescu, FSM at OxidOS. It's a great looking
| product, don't get me wrong!
| RadVl wrote:
| There are 2 ASIL-D OSEK implementations off the top of my
| head, Tasking, the EB one ( I think they actually have _2_
| variants here, the normal one and a microkernel) and I'm
| sure there are others, these being just the ones I saw on
| projects I worked on before Oxidos.
|
| I'm sure Vector has one as well.
|
| Edit: You are right, that was poor form, I added the
| disclaimer.
| sedatk wrote:
| "Written in Rust" is quickly turning into the programming
| equivalent of "This web site is secure" badge.
|
| Yes, Rust can eliminate a significant portion of memory-safety
| related bugs. But it doesn't eliminate all bugs, or all security
| bugs, or all memory-safety related bugs for that matter.
|
| We need better metrics for safety than "Manufactured in Sweden"
| of programming in marketing copy. Perhaps certifications and
| compliance programs similar to FCC, TUV. Maybe like PCI but with
| an expanded scope.
|
| It's only a matter of time a significant memory-safety related
| vulnerability is found in a Rust program and everyone will start
| saying "see? Rust has as many safety problems as C" and use it as
| an excuse not to use it if we lean too much on "Rust = safety"
| false equivalence.
| Veserv wrote:
| We already have that. It is the Common Criteria for Information
| Technology Security Evaluation, ISO 15408. Most large software
| developers already certify products against it such as Windows
| [1], iOS [2], Android, Linux, etc. It is the primary
| certification presented in "About Security" and "Certification"
| pages by almost every company if they have any certifications
| at all.
|
| The thing is that they all certify at the lowest possible
| levels which certify that the systems ensure no meaningful
| security because they are unable to certify the presence of any
| meaningful security in those products even after decades of
| attempts. You do not establish any audited security until you
| reach a level comparable to EAL5, and most companies opt for
| EAL1 with all of the big names maxing out at EAL4 historically.
| For some reason, people are happy using products that are
| certified to be insecure and inadequate which is why we are in
| this insecure hellscape.
|
| [1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-
| us/windows/security/security-...
|
| [2] https://support.apple.com/en-
| my/guide/certifications/apc3fa9...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-17 23:01 UTC)