On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 18:13:14 +0000 "Saxena, Sunil" <[email protected]> said:
> Agreed that IoT will require us to add to existing Tizen Common for > discovering, communicating, security, services of these devices. > > I wanted to highlight a different point below. > > When we defined TIzen Common, it was defined to be constrained as a base for > devices that required a minimum of 256 Mbytes and more likely 512Mbyte > device, which are IVI, Mobile, Phone, TV, Camera etc. This is where all the > work on Tizen.org is focused on and let’s call it Tizen Common Full for > discussion sake. > > Going forward you may want to create another Tizen Common Micro that may be > constrained for devices that require 64 Mbytes or less which may be for > devices like thermostats, wearables etc with almost no display. This profile > would contain minimum core packages and functionality and would be subset of > Tizen Common Full. > > Of course, you can go down further to 4 Mbyte or less devices and possibly > create Tizen Common Nano – terms for discussion sake. at this point it's basically not tizen anymore. to run in 4m of ram we're looking at mcu's and these have (except for the higher end a5 ones in the arm world) no mmu at all. a linux kernel alone is going to eat up all if not most of that ram these days, and since there is no mmu, there is zero security as well. i suspect a lower bounds for tizen to be even recognizable and able to be called tizen would be maybe about 16-32m with an mmu. anything else is "some other custom os thing". this os may work WITH other tizen devices. be able to speak common protocols, but it wouldn't be tizen - not in a sufficiently technical enough sense to go slapping the tizen name on it. > Thanks > Sunil > From: General [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Schaufler, Casey Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 10:42 AM > To: Olivier Nyssen; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Tizen General] Tizen Tablet > > > Tizen Common is useful for many things. One of the reasons it is valuable is > that it is not excessively constrained to a particular platform or purpose. > Thus, when IOT infrastructure is available it can be included in Common even > though that may not make a lot of sense to the people who want to use Tizen > Common on their laptops. On the other hand, if you want to use a tablet as > the controller for your smart house, it had better include the IOT > infrastructure. The Common profile needs to be flexible to be generally > useful. If you want a tablet profile that excludes IOT it needs to be > defined. If you want a Home Controller profile that requires IOT, then that > needs to be defined. Over specification of the Common profile would interfere > with progress of Tizen. > > > > From: General [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Olivier > Nyssen Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 9:37 AM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Tizen General] Tizen Tablet > > Before we go any further, I would like to know if you guys agree with this > basic logic: > 1) Tizen Common is a common development / build / test platform for any > upcoming features that may be needed by mobile, IVI, wearables, and other > profiles. > 2) IoT is an upcoming feature that may be needed by mobile, IVI, wearables, > and other profiles. so: Tizen Common is a common development / build / test > platform for IoT -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ General mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/general
