Showing posts with label Open Source OS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Open Source OS. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

Fedora 17 is now Available for Download


The Fedora Project has officially released version 17 of its leading-edge Linux distribution, adding the latest update to the OpenStack cloud computing platform, JBoss Application Server 7 and oVirt, a virtualisation management tool.

Available now, Fedora 17 is a free-to-download Linux distribution sponsored by Red Hat, where many cutting-edge technologies are given a shake-down before future inclusion into Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
OpenStack was first included in Fedora 16, but the new version updates this to the latest "Essex" build of the open-source cloud platform, which introduced the Dashboard user portal and OpenStack Identity authentication service as stable core modules.

Fedora 17 debuts oVirt, an open-source project designed to manage virtualised infrastructure, and focused on the KVM hypervisor that is integrated with the Linux kernel.

Also new in this version is JBoss Application Server 7, the latest release of the Java-based application server software, now owned by Red Hat.

On the desktop front, Fedora 17 comes with the Gnome 3.4 user interface, which features new search capabilities, improved themes and enhancements to the Documents and Contacts applications.

"The addition of projects such as oVirt and JBoss Application Server 7, enhancements in OpenStack and continued support for fresh releases of desktop environments demonstrate the Fedora Project's commitment to deliver rich features and capabilities," said Fedora project leader Robyn Bergeron.

Fedora is offered with no official technical support, with users relying on community forums to find a solution to any problems. The platform is a rapidly evolving one, with new releases roughly every six months.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Electronic Medical Systems now uses Linux


Linux is the operating system (OS) of choice for a wide range of medical devices, from vital sign monitors to hospital bedside 'infotainment' systems to complex imaging equipment. Yet not all Linux implementations are alike. Because patients' lives may be in the balance, software used in medical devices must meet stringent regulatory guidelines to ensure that it will perform as promised.

Trying to cobble together solutions from pure Linux without commercial support puts the burdens of testing, validation, documentation and compliance on the device manufacturers and software developers - an onerous, time consuming and complex process that can turn 'free' Linux into a very costly proposition.

There are, of course, commercial vendors of Linux who provide value-added stabilised versions of the open-source software, along with board support packages. Service, support and documentation levels, however, vary widely among them with some chip vendors providing software, but no real post-sales support.

The Advantages and Challenges of Open Source
Linux appears in various medical devices and as a general-purpose OS, it has all the advantages of open source. Free distributions are available and it can be modified and redistributed under the GNU General Public License (GPL).

Linux has been widely adopted and scrutinised by many experienced developers. Linux is also supported by all major hardware manufacturers and runs on virtually any processor. It also has a large ecosystem of board and software providers that use proven toolchains and application programming interfaces (APIs), and has exceptional graphics support, which is important for clear and readable device screens. The innovation and maturity of Linux has made it a mainstay in medical device development, but it also poses many challenges.

Medical devices marketed in the US are regulated by the Center for Device and Radiological Health (CDRH), a branch of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA is recognized globally as providing the leading guidance for medical devices, which European manufacturers need to follow to sell product in the US. Whether or not the device maker is claiming compliance to IEC 62304 for medical device software, it must follow several FDA guidance documents.

An OS may be treated as Software of Unknown Provenance (SOUP) or off-the-shelf (OTS) software. The FDA also makes it clear that the burden of ensuring safe and reliable performance does not end with product launch. So, when evaluating operating systems, it is necessary to plan for bug fixes and security updates for the entire product lifecycle.

Medical devices and their components must undergo a hazard analysis, typically performed by the device manufacturer - not to try and predict a likelihood of failure, but to analyse the effect on the patient in the event of failure. The FDA sets out full details in its "Guidance for Industry, FDA Reviewers and Compliance on Off-The-Shelf Software Use in Medical Devices". Choosing a commercial Linux vendor that can help a device maker satisfy these requirements is essential.

Cybersecurity: Assuring the Safety of Networked Devices
If Linux based medical device are being used in networks, then the FDA's guidance on cybersecurity applies: "Guidance for Industry - Cybersecurity for Networked Medical Devices Containing Off-the-Shelf (OTS) Software."   In basic terms, it states that networks are vulnerable to hacking and the manufacturer must have a software-maintenance plan to deal with networking vulnerabilities, specifying that formal business relationships should be maintained with OTS software vendors to ensure timely receipt of information concerning quality problems and recommended corrective and preventive actions.

If a commercial Linux vendor does not enter into formal support relationships with its customers or does not have an on-going cybersecurity plan in place, the burden falls upon the device manufacturer to monitor the Linux community, identify vulnerabilities and take necessary action - this requires a dedicated and highly specialised team.

If security functionality is not a core competency of the device manufacturer, it is critical to have an OS vendor to assist with the configuration of the security components of the network stack. Manufacturers need to be especially vigilant in the face of growing malware attacks such as the Stuxnet worm.

Device manufacturers have to decide what level of security is appropriate. In devices where prevention of any kind of breach is mission critical, manufacturers may want the added assurance of security functionality built into the OS.

Support for Implementation
There are also practical concerns of building a device that is reliable in performance and successful in meeting market needs:
• High-quality test tools are crucial and being able to show validation artifacts for those tools is also a requirement. Using an automated testing system that automatically creates the documentation of the testing performed may deliver time-to-market advantages over manual systems, while reducing the likelihood of human error and increasing confidence in the results.
• It is also essential to comply with the requirements of the GPL and other applicable open-source licenses.  
• Board Support Packages (BSPs) are essential in implementing embedded operating systems, including Linux. Few manufacturers are equipped to develop BSPs in-house and creating customised BSPs can be extremely costly.

In multicore system development, simplifying the design while still gaining the performance advantages of multiple processors and operating systems presents new challenges. Developers using advanced analysis tools in a Linux environment may encounter many new obstacles in a multicore or multithreaded environment. Using tools from a commercial OS provider reduces burden for developers.

Increasingly developers are using embedded hypervisors to leverage virtualisation and enable multiple operating systems to run on a single board. An embedded hypervisor can configure the multicore environment, boot several cores, allocate hardware resources, provide access to and protect memory (for safety and security), and monitor system health.

To successfully manage all these regulatory, safety, security, design and implementation issues, it is important to have a commercial OTS Linux partner with the resources, expertise and long-term support to help device makers deliver effective products that will not only win regulatory approval, but also perform reliably for many years.

Sunday, April 29, 2012

BeOS is now Haiku




It was the summer of 2001, and computer programmer Michael Phipps had a problem: His favorite operating system, BeOS, was about to go extinct. Having an emotional attachment to a piece of software may strike you as odd, but to Phipps and many others (including me), BeOS deserved it. It ran amazingly fast on the hardware of its day; it had a clean, intuitive user interface; and it offered a rich, fun, and modern programming environment. In short, we found it vastly superior to every other computer operating system available. But the company that had created BeOS couldn’t cut it in the marketplace, and its assets, including BeOS, were being sold to a competitor.

Worried that under a new owner BeOS would die a slow, unsupported death, Phipps did the only logical thing he could think of: He decided to re-create BeOS completely from scratch, but as open-source code. An open-source system, he reasoned, isn’t owned by any one company or person, and so it can’t disappear just because a business goes belly-up or key developers leave.
Now if you’ve ever done any programming, you’ll know that creating an operating system is a huge job. And expecting people to do that without paying them is a little nuts. But for the dozens of volunteer developers who have worked on Haiku, it has been a labor of love. In the 11 years since the project began, we’ve released three alpha versions of the software, and this month we expect to release the fourth and final alpha. After that we’ll move to the beta stage, which we hope to get out by the end of the year, followed by the first official release, known as R1, in early 2013.

Even now, anybody can install and run the operating system on an Intel x86-based computer. Many of those who have done so comment that even the alpha releases of Haiku feel as stable as the final release of some other software. Indeed, of all the many alternative operating systems now in the works, Haiku is probably the best positioned to challenge the mainstream operating systems like Microsoft Windows and Mac OS. For both users and developers, the experience of running Haiku is incredibly consistent, and like BeOS, it is fast, responsive, and efficient. What’s more, Haiku, unlike its more established competitors, is exceedingly good at tackling one of the toughest challenges of modern computing: multicore microprocessors. Let’s take a look at why that is, how Haiku came to be, and whether the operating system running on your computer really performs as well as it should.

First, a little history. In 1991, a Frenchman named Jean-Louis Gassée and several other former Apple employees founded Be Inc. because they wanted to create a new kind of computer. In particular, they sought to escape the backward-compatibility trap they’d witnessed at Apple, where every new version of hardware and software had to take into account years of legacy systems, warts and all. The company’s first product was a desktop computer called the BeBox. Finding no other operating system that met their needs, the Be engineers wrote their own.

Released in October 1995, the BeBox didn’t last long. BeOS, on the other hand, quickly found a small yet loyal following, and it was soon running on Intel x86-based PCs and Macintosh PowerPC clones. At one point Apple even considered BeOS as a replacement for its own operating system. The company eventually released a stripped-down version of BeOS for Internet appliances, but it wasn’t enough. In 2001, Palm acquired Be for a reported US $11 million.