meta questions ...

[g4 at novadsp.com]

I'm particularly interested in the embedded space but am not quite sure how
Snappy is going to empower me on (say) the Bone. And I've not yet been able
to discover enough background to dissuade me from feeling we might be
getting close to a Windows 'signed driver' ecosystem (?)

 

Although I can see how to build Ubuntu for the Pi (for example) , there does
not yet seem to be analogous open access to the Snappy kernel repo, indeed
any clear idea of what/what is not configured. Is this going to be pattern
moving forward?

 

There was a comment from Mark yesterday: 

 

"* create your own kernel snap, with the modules you want, for your own
devices, or

* convince us to stick that module in the standard kernel snap"

 

Which makes me feel like I've desperately missed something. 

 

As  a practical example, how would I get a specialist kernel mode driver
into the mix? Where, in this case, the B3 is a USB device interfaced to a
plurality (as the patent lawyers like to say) of audio codecs and other bits
and pieces? It strikes me as unlikely that Canonical would necessarily want
to have my driver 'in-box'. So does that mean I now miss out on regular
updates and all the other goodies? 

 

And this sort of use case raises another question: how does  a Windows/Mac
user of a Ubuntu powered USB device actually access the Snappy eco-system if
they have a headless board with (potentially) only Ethernet over USB for
connection to the wider world . ? I'm feeling like there might have to be a
degree of host side infrastructure to support the update process?

 

Let me emphasize that this is all friendly questioning too. The embedded
Linux space really, desperately, needs something to prevent fragmentation
and duplication of effort, *especially* for the Bone et al.. 

 

Thanks for listening.

 

BR

 

Jerry.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/snappy-devel/attachments/20150805/d059cd66/attachment.html>