[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)