Slashdot Log In
Japanese Auto Makers Teaming Up To Create Standard OS
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Jul 30, 2007 01:29 PM
from the specialized-mechanics-heard-weeping dept.
from the specialized-mechanics-heard-weeping dept.
CNet is reporting that Japanese car manufacturers are teaming up to develop a standard automotive operating system. "Just as computer operating systems [...] allow multiple applications to communicate with one another, an automotive operating system enables different driving systems to work together. The standard automotive operating system from Japan will include everything from fuel injection, brakes and power steering to power windows. Currently, certain mechanical car parts are interchangeable from model to model. Smart car parts that operate off a common software standard would enable that kind of convenience to continue, while allowing them to communicate more easily with other smart components in a car."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yeah? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
A day late and a dollar short... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A day late and a dollar short... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:A day late and a dollar short... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:A day late and a dollar short... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:A day late and a dollar short... (Score:5, Funny)
"Hi, I'm a Mercedes."
"And I'm a Toyota."
(And it's all downhill from here. Apologies to Mercedes. Honestly, I have no clue about anything automotive, I just felt it was a good name to use.)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't need to wait for the auto manufacturers -- simply replace the stock ECU with a MegaSquirt [megasquirt.info] ECU, for which source code and schematics are available. You can buy a kit with all of the parts and the pre-programmed EEPROM, or you can buy a pre-assembled and pre-programmed from here [diyautotune.com] -- even plug-and-play wiring harnesses are available.
Re:A day late and a dollar short... (Score:4, Interesting)
Some of the features are a pre-emptable time slicing OS. It defines a number of application slots or partitions which are completely isloated from one another. Each partition then is assigned a quota or multiple quotas of CPU time. For instance 7 ms out of every 200 ms. Each partition is given control of its own resources, a set amount of RAM and Memory, mostly flash based.
This development model allows multiple vendors to easily work together to provide industrial grade saftey critical systems. The OS and applications are independently certified for their class of application, and the OS would have a max level of certification allowed for it.
While the automotive industry does not have the same certification issues the avionics industry has, I think this is a long over step towards consolidating all the distributed systems within a car. This makes higher level applications possible which link to the microprocessors controlling the brakes, suspension, all-wheel drive, etc...
I don't think its out of the question to start seeing 3rd party software add-ons which can be installed on any car running this OS to provide enhanced capabilities like automatic parking like described in the article. It may even become possible to retrofit a car without one of these systems with the necessary sensors and equipment to add these new capabilities after market.
This is where the boating industry is going at the moment since boats have a much longer life expectancy than cars, but they use a lot of the same microprocessors and communications buses.
Needless to say, its going to be interesting to see what the hacking community can do with this.
Parent
Re:A day late and a dollar short... (Score:4, Informative)
This means that the newer ECUs have a throttle command which is part of a message packet transmitted over a bus rather than a mechanical push/pull cable controlling the throttle lever on an engine. Even the engines that still have throttle levers aren't mechanical anymore, the lever is connected to a potentiometer which then converts the lever position into an analog signal which feeds into the ECU.
Its the natural progression that distributed systems again become more consolidated. Remember that this network inside your car is going to be electrically isolated from other systems. The likelihood of anyone hacking your car without physical access to the microcontrollers is slim to none. Unless they do something stupid like try to network this OS with outside systems which aren't wired to it.
Parent
Re:A day late and a dollar short... (Score:5, Interesting)
The international version of this is called AUTOSAR and is a 2,000 page specification that details the communication interfaces between ECU's. The ideal is that you could take an AUTOSAR compliant ECU and plug it into an AUTOSAR enabled car, and magically things will just work. It's still at the early stages despite it being around for years, and most of the major manufacturers are involved. They fight like cats and dogs, so this could be a splinter group of OEM's doing their own thing because they're sick of AUTOSAR.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought that was why they had standards like J1939 for CAN bus communications.
The article mentions an OS, but it doesn't clarify how it will be used. It may just be an RTOS with standardized protocol stacks. Or it could be some sort of object engine considering how all those communications standards are object oriented. But if it's a centralized
I thought this was what TRON was for? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.tron.org/index-e.html [tron.org]
Or is this an extension to TRON? (The article is really slim), though it seems to be about OSEK:
http://www.osek-vdx.org/ [osek-vdx.org]
William
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
News of the Day (Score:3, Funny)
In other news, family of 4 dies as their Japanese car careens off of a cliff after experiencing a BSOD in their Microsoft Windows Vista Auto Edition software.
Re:News of the Day (Score:5, Funny)
Then again there was the other news piece where the driver was asked to authorize or deny the deployment of the air-bag, when he crashed into the lamp-post.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:News of the Day (Score:4, Funny)
"Igor!" he yelled, "Raise the table into position so we may begin the final stage!" His trusty yet somewhat dimwitted hunchback assistant complied, and slowly turned the crank that moved the operating table into a vertical position.
The creature would stand seven feet tall and was stronger than an ox. His heart and lungs twice that of a normal man's allowing him to carry his massive size as if he were a sprinter. Lifting a cart above his head would be no difficult feat, and his advanced nervous system made him impervious to the jabs and barbs only his future profession could dish out.
His physical prowess was outmatched only by his mental faculties. Dr. Sierpinski had spent years designing and building the biomechanic wonder (some would call monstrosity) that sat inside the creature's over sized skull. In it he had placed the knowledge and experience of all the worlds greats - Igor had been most helpful at gathering the necessary remains, scouring the globe and riding coach to boot. Burns, Marx, Pryor - almost every comedian who'd ever gotten a laugh was represented in the devilish clockwork of the creatures mind. Here truly would be someone that would show the world. Dr. Abraham "Giggles" Sierpinski would be laughed at no more...yes, truly, his creature...would be laughed _with_!
The table clicked into place with a final clash. Far above the castle's dungeon laboratory thunder cracked from the approaching storm. "Now Igor, Now! Quickly, throw the switch!" Igor shuffled to the table and pulled the lever. A bright flash erupted as lighting struck the castle's tower and traveled through a series of wires to the creatures base.
"Yes....Yes...YES! LIVE MY CREATURE! LIVE! LIVE AND MAKE THEM LAUGH!!!!"
The lighting subsided, and the laboratory was suddenly quiet. The doctor held his breath. Quietly, almost a murmur escaped from the creatures lips.
"...bsod..."
"He speaks Igor, he speaks! Quickly! Release the straps! My creature, tell me, what are you trying to say?"
"...mmmmrrchhc.......bsod....mrrrrrghhh.......mmm
"What?"
"mrrrgh...mrrrrrrgh....In other news, family of 4 dies as their Japanese car careens off of a cliff after experiencing a BSOD in their Microsoft Windows Vista Auto Edition software."
Igor helpfully chimed in with a boom-tsk from his laboratory drum set.
"WHAT! What was that? That...that...that wasn't even funny! How...how could this be? My creature, the reanimated flesh of dead humor itself...its not even funny!" He sank to the ground in despair. "How...how could I have been so wrong! Where did I fail? Where did I fail?"
The creature lifted its massive head, "I for one welcome...mrrrrgh...I for one welcome our failed humor overlord....ggggggahhahghg"
Dr. Sierpinksi ran from the laboratory, from his monster, clawing his eyes and hair, and wailing into the depths of the night.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
But what they really mean... (Score:2)
Oblig. (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand (Score:2, Funny)
car os != desktop os (Score:4, Interesting)
as an aside-- please don't critize my suggestion without at least first reading up on functional lambda calculus based programming languages and COSA.
Its been done (Score:3, Insightful)
A group of engineers... (Score:5, Funny)
With the car stopped, the engineers all get out and discuss what must have gone wrong.
The mechanical engineer says "we must have lost a brake line or something."
The electrical engineer suggests there was a problem with the ABS system.
The software engineer suggests they all drive back up the hill and go back down to see if it happens again.
The Slashdotter tied up in the trunk mumbles "I, for one, eagerly await our new standard OS overlords."
Currently? (Score:5, Informative)
Currently? Back in my teens, in the 80s, I hung out with a family that built street machines. There used to be this company called GMC and it had others called Chevrolet and Pontiac, et al. We could take a bell housing off a 66 Pontiac whatever and fit it perfectly to a 68 Chevrolet whatever. ALL water thermostat housings between all of these makes were the same. I can remember helping my dad with his 69 Ford Bronco to replace a cracked thermostat housing, and when we went to the junkyard the dude pulls out a huge box of ford thermostat housings -- even between Ford cars they were different. You could fit a Nova front-end to a Ventura and all the bolts matched. Anyone toying around with American cars from the 60s learned to love the GMs, especially Chevys....
GMCs, and especially Chevys, from the 60s, were God's gift to cars and auto mechanics and it was all interchangeable. Couple this with the raw power of those cars (yes yes, environment concerns and all that) and those are some of the best memories of my life....
Hehe, currently.... Reminds me of my daughter saying, "way back in the 90s...."
Re:Currently? (Score:5, Interesting)
It's why HPA motorports was able to create a 500 Hp Beetle [motortrend.com] using nothing more than common VW Parts.
With minor work for engine bay space and engine mounts, you can bolt up a brand new Audi TT engine to a '79 Rabbit. I can't even begin to name all the parts that are common between my '98 Jetta and my '86 Jetta. Heck, 10 minutes with the engine blocks and you'll start to see similarities between the 1.8L Gasser and my 1.9 TDI.
Furthermore, every single part in my VW has a part number. Every one. I'm doing some custom wiring for rear fogs, even a wire has a VW part number. I walked into the dealer and told him I wanted XXX-YYY-ZZZZ and he told me it'd be a few days and $3. If anyone gets a chance to look in ETKA, there is an option to "see what all vehicles this part number fits". It's absolutely mind boggling.
Parent
Re:Currently? (Score:4, Interesting)
That's not unique to VW. Practically every automaker today has a part number for every last component in their cars. Among other things I can find out which components are shared with previous generations of my Honda, other Honda models and even Japanese domestic models by looking at part numbers. The same applies to my father's Buick.
Secondly, an Audi TT engine isn't just going to "bolt" into a 1979 Rabbit. Today's Rabbit follows a very similar layout to a '79 Rabbit and a TT is essentially a Golf/Rabbit with different body panels. I'll grant you that, but internally the cars are quite different. Nevermind that the chassis has been revised numerous times to meet exceedingly strict safety standards. There are changing emissions regulations which have necessitated the addition of various components and movement of others. Then there's the modernization of a multitude of other components, like the braking system and it's anti-lock brakes. Then there's the ECU and all the electrical wiring the old Rabbit didn't have. And then on the simplest level there's the fact that the '79 engine block and transmission are considerably different from what's used today.
I know some guys tend to stretch the meaning of "bolt-on" modifications but this is really pushing it. There are guys who do engine swaps between cars based on the same platform and for the same year and even then they can't just drop in the new engine. If any automakers allow for easy swapping of components I'd argue it's the Americans. And that's only because they have the habit of releasing the same exact vehicle under multiple brands with minor cosmetic differences.
I expect to see a similar outcome from a "standardized" OS. The system may be based on a standard base, but every model and generation will be different to the point that they won't work with anyone else. There's the risk, of course, of this sort of technology locking out the owner from being able to do anything to the car. With a sophisticated system it could check to see if modifications have been made, for example, and perhaps render the vehicle inoperable because it's been deemed a violation of the warranty. On the other hand, these systems may make the car easier to hack and allow the owner more control in adjusting how the car operates.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's fascinating that you start out raving how 'common' things are, but when you get down to cases... engine mounts need 'minor' work and engine blocks have 'similarities'. Niether
Goddamn, you people are clever. (Score:4, Insightful)
Could make a better OBD2 (Score:3, Informative)
I support this product and/or service... (Score:5, Funny)
The Toyota Unicron. Yeah, yeah, gimme some of that.
Main competitor? The Kia GoBot.
Ha ha ha ha! Go-bots....
Re:I support this product and/or service... (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
What about the stereo? (Score:5, Insightful)
This means you're stuck with the limited quality and features of the headunit, and adding things like an amplifier, CD changer, MP3 player and extra speakers (e.g. a subwoofer) are hard or impossible.
With a standard OS, it should be possible to separate the head unit from the rest of the car, and still use the HU to interface with the car.
It's not all bad (Score:4, Interesting)
I, for one, welcome our new fully integrated un-steal-able car stereo overlords!
Parent
How about a standard driving UI (Score:4, Insightful)
I drive different rental cars every week and I am amazed at how dissimilar the controls are.
I suggest that the automakers, or our government, make the controls and indicators for:
gear shifter, emergency brake, lights, turn signals, wipers, speedometer, fuel gauge, pedals, gas cap, side mirrors, window controls, emergency flasher, panel dimmer, power locks and cruise control, standardized on all cars.
How many accidents have occurred because the driver was looking for or trying to use a control incorrectly.
Sounds good, but in the real world (Score:3, Interesting)
By law, they have to support OBD2 diagnostics; this spec provides a limited number of diagnostic indicators that (theoretically) can be accessed and interpreted the same on all vehicles. The OBD2 spec is even available - not officially, but Google is your friend.
So far so good - some standardization, albeit government enforced. But there's more; there's a lot more useful diagnostic information available from the vehicle systems than OBD2 shows. So the manufacturers extend the protocol and define other trouble codes and ways of accessing them. These extensions aren't documented, and they're often designed to be as obscure and impenetrable as possible. Every manufacturer has different proprietary extensions and they change them at whim.
The dealership service departments have the dedicated computer that talks to that manufacturer's cars; it knows all the codes. But independent service shops don't have those dedicated machines or any information about how to read the extended codes from a vehicle. The manufacturers refuse to provide any information to anyone at any price; you can't even buy the diagnostic machine from them unless you're one of their dealers.
They've been doing this for years; various lawsuits have come and gone but the manufacturers still won't share the information that mechanics need to service their cars effectively. The manufacturers like it this way; it drives more business to the dealership service departments and prevents third-party parts companies from making less-expensive replacement parts. This is the status quo; even the Japanese manufacturers play the same game.
So let's consider the possibility of a standardized automotive operating system or architecture. Would the manufacturers use it? If it offered greater reliability or reduced build costs they'd go for it. But before it hit the dealers they'd "fix" it so that their parts and service divisions would continue to enjoy their competitive advantages...
Why do this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, if your car has EFI, it has an OS. If it has a carburetor, maybe not.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no, I know they're there....but, I'm just that comfortable with it frankly. I was a little weird on my Vette when they came out with the C5. The salesman was taunting that the accelerator was 'drive by wire'. Frankly, I'm just a bit more comfy with mechanical control...I know how computers can blow up and be buggy.
My car after that, was an '86 911 Turbo...not a lot of computer on that one, and I really enjoyed it. It just felt
Emission controls imposed for good reason (Score:3, Interesting)
So, I'm sorry, but your desire to tweak your car comes a very distant second to my desire to have safer air.
Re:Oh, yeah, I love the idea of an OS on my car. (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Real-time, also. (Score:3, Informative)
I mean, sure, there are plenty of so-called "real-time" applications that these OSes work perfectly well for. Audio, for instance -- Protools, Ardour, etc. But it's a bit like Java -- while on average, you know how long something is going to take to process, you don't have any guarantees. (In Java's case, the
Re: (Score:3, Informative)