From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from starfish.geekisp.com (starfish.geekisp.com [216.168.135.166]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64D49E004D2 for ; Thu, 9 Feb 2012 08:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: (qmail 10227 invoked by uid 1003); 9 Feb 2012 16:53:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ?192.168.0.140?) (philip@opensdr.com@12.207.17.2) by mail.geekisp.com with (DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted) SMTP; 9 Feb 2012 16:53:43 -0000 Message-ID: <4F33FA16.4060402@balister.org> Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 08:53:42 -0800 From: Philip Balister User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.24) Gecko/20111108 Fedora/3.1.16-1.fc14 Thunderbird/3.1.16 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jfabernathy References: <4F32F016.4020008@gmail.com> <4F32F1B3.8090000@mlbassoc.com> <4F32F31B.2000303@gmail.com> <59EDC5ED-F339-48E8-8C4D-7137C23927CD@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F32F59B.7010804@mlbassoc.com> <8EA0B5D5-4DC5-4F48-83E6-B019862BD57F@dominion.thruhere.net> <4F32F87E.2070907@mlbassoc.com> <38997C75-E36D-4A49-96D0-FB5E8A52817D@gmail.com> <7D46E86EC0A8354091174257B2FED10127667EB8@DLEE12.ent.ti.com> <4F33C61E.5080505@gmail.com> <4C3F7029-4844-4BA7-B378-BC30E27660F0@dominion.thruhere.net> <1328801627.9968.32.camel@ted> <4F33F4A0.6010303@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F33F4A0.6010303@gmail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2 Cc: "meta-ti@yoctoproject.org" Subject: Re: building Yocto for Pandaboard X-BeenThere: meta-ti@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Mailing list for the meta-ti layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Feb 2012 16:53:44 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 02/09/2012 08:30 AM, jfabernathy wrote: ... >> Richard >> > When you look at Yocto project from a marketing point of view, which is > not something the open source community usually concentrates on for > obvious reasons, it would be a very positive message to be able to talk > about, and demonstrate with examples of taking the same project and > moving it from one architecture to another with minimal effort, as long > as both architectures supported the key features like media playback > acceleration, 3D, sound, HDMI, etc. > Actually, at least some of us in the open source community pay close attention to marketing. > While hardware companies tend to cringe when you make it too easy to > move back and forth, the reality is, if you have a high volume product > you can't justify or afford to throw excess performance, thermals, > power, and cost where it is not needed. For example a cheap digital > signage application that just throws advertisement, or menu data on the > screen could be done with an ARM processor like OMP3/4, but if you had a > higher end product that needed to do extensive video analytics for > customer profiling and advertising effectiveness, you're going to want a > Core i5/i7. It would be of great benefit to take the Yocto project that > did the digital sign on the ARM and quickly get it up and running on the > Core i5 and then concentrate on the analytics application. > > I think this portability is a better sell, if it's all Yocto. We all > know that really smart people can move around from different Linux > versions and development methods, but it's an easier sale to a customer > management when you say it can all be done on Yocto and that it's easily > demonstrated. Yocto is becoming a very overloaded word at the moment. But the key idea is that we can focus on building out from oe-core to support our products using the same tools, no matter what the product scale. From very simple devices to products that resemble their desktop brothers. Philip > > JIm A > >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > meta-ti mailing list > meta-ti@yoctoproject.org > https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/meta-ti >