Talk:Embedded system/Archive 2

Links deleted - Why?

This "59.93.95.186" removed almost all of the links in the body of the article with zero comment. Nobody noticed and there are now many revisions since then. This will require a serious effort to recover the lost information. Example: most of the examples are no longer linked. Some misguided attempt at improving style?

I have restored most of the links from an old version. And the nice photo of the Apollo guidance computer :) Aaron Lawrence 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

ICD vs ICE deleted why?

They are not essentially the same. One is an external device connected to the pins of the processor while the other uses internal logic to perform a similar task. The ICE does not give true access to internal memory mapped register of the processor, while the ICD does. They are quite different and should not be confused with each other. An ice does not connect via JTAG or NEXUS it connects via the address/data and control lines of the processor.

Please sign your discusion edits with 4 tildes so we know who you are. I deleted the ICD because from the description you gave, it seems FUNCTIONALLY very similar to an ICE and the differences are only minor technical differences. We don't need to have every detail about tools for embedded systems. There are doubtless hundreds of other tools with minor differences. Also, I could not find any entry on Wikipedia about ICD.Aaron Lawrence 09:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No idea what you mean by 4 tildes EM1SS&CSE 15:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC) does what?

Hey, you did it :) It puts your Wikipedia user name and the date in, as you can see now in the discussion page. See Sign your posts on talk pages for more info. Personally the wiki discussion process seems extremely clumsy but thats how it is for now...Aaron Lawrence 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Functionally the ICE and ICD are quite different.

OK. Lets try to clarify the clear distinction. An ICD connects to real hardware to run a debugger, while an ICE replaces the real CPU hardware - is that it? There should probably be some discussion of this elsewhere in WP - perhaps under ICE.Aaron Lawrence 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

After review, it seems to me an ICD is a special case of a debugger. Note that there is already a link to debugger in the first paragraph.Aaron Lawrence 22:51, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Perhaps ICD warrants a new section in debugger? What do you think?

In the tools section should list 'various debugging methods are available’. Then in the debug section cover ICD/ICE and software background debuggers (like remote GDB). This i think would make sense structurally. Your thoughts? EM1SS&CSE 20:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Considering how much of a challenge debugging embedded stuff can be, it needs it's own section. OK ... feel free or I will try later ... Thanks. And especially, thanks for opening a discussion ... a lot of this article has been edited without any discussion, which is why I reverted many things without much qualm. Aaron Lawrence 11:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have restored ICD as a separate entry and generally expanded debugging. Tried to describe the relative benefits as I understand them. OK? Aaron Lawrence 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Embedded System Scaling deleted why?

There are very different applications of embedded systems they can not and should not be treated the same. I’m unclear why this was deleted.

Your description was far too technical for a wikipedia article. I could barely understand the point you were trying to make, and I work with embedded systems (sometimes). In addition, it is obvious from the introductory section about different (physical) sizes and applications of ES that they are going to be different. Aaron Lawrence

Part of the problem is that this article is basically too long. It has a lot of technical detail and adding more will make it less useful. Possibly, slimming down some of the lengthy discussion about architectures would help.

Clean-up?

OK, maybe this article still needs clean up. However, the tag alone is not all that helpful without some specific suggestions. Please go ahead and make some, or I suggest we remove the tag.

I archived the talk page so we can start with a clean slate. Aaron Lawrence 11:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably a down to earth explanation would work better.

Specific ideas please. In general Wikipedia aims for "down to earth" explanations, but what's there seems reasonable. And please sign your discussion edits with four tildes so it shows your name. Aaron Lawrence 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Start with this Paragraph

Replace this paragraph: Programmable controllers do not always come is separate blocks. Very often they are build in, in some devices which can be classified as field devices. They can be integraded into the field devices "housing", and even to be a part of a circuit board of the field device. That is why such systems are called embeded device.

With this one: Programmable controllers do not always come is separate blocks. Very often they are built into field devices. For example, controllers can be integrated with the field device's "housing" or incorporated into the circuit board of the field device--giving rise to the designation, "embedded"

65.34.238.234 22:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Steve R.

I removed most of this hard-to-read sentence, since it doesn't explain it's terms and really duplicates text in other sections. Aaron Lawrence 15:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

External link: OK to post ESD magazine?

I'm the managing editor of Embedded Systems Design magazine (formerly known as Embedded Systems Programming). The magazine has been around for 20 years and is a well-respected, popular trade journal devoted to technical articles on creating embedded systems. I'd like to post http://www.embedded.com in the external links section of the embedded system entry, but it's a conflict of interest for me to do so. That's why I'm asking you for permission. The magazine's web site is free (as is the print magazine, to qualified subscribers). The web site has a good search feature so users can look by topic or author. Most of our articles are archived there.

Also of interest is the Embedded Systems Dictionary by Jack Ganssle and Michael Barr (a columnist and a former editor in chief, respectively). Here's a link to it on Michael Barr's web site: http://www.netrino.com/Books/Dictionary/index.html CMP (the publisher of ESD magazine) no longer owns the rights to this book, so we have no connection with it other than Jack Ganssle is still one of our columnists.

Any thoughts? Srambo 22:58, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it seems to be there now. Unfortunately this article is getting too heavy on the links and indeed content (again). Remember, more is not always better! But I'm not going to attempt to tidy things up again. Aaron Lawrence 14:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

PDA's are (still) NOT Embedded Systems (discussion reloaded)

After sleeping over it several times I still don't see a single reasonable argument why a PDA (e.g. my old beloved Palm 505) should be an embedded system. OK, it was "embedded" in my life & in my left shirt pocket. But was it embedded in anything else? I don't think so. Also, the fact that in a PDA all components of a computer (CPU, Memory, I/O) are embedded in one box doesn't make it an embedded system. The external reference [1] cited by FrankB in the old discussion to support why PDA's should be embedded systems does in fact support the contrary. The definition there is pretty strait forward: "Hardware and software which forms a component of some larger system and which is expected to function without human intervention." Even if the second prong (human intervention) is debatable, a PDA (by itself, of course, we are not discussing PDAs integrated in a Robot...) - like it or not - is not a component physically integrated of some larger system. If we drop this requirement, the definition gets empty and any computer is an embedded system which is absurd. None of the earliest PDAs (Apple's Newton, Xerox's PARCTAB, Psion) or a OQO have ever been categorized as embedded systems except here. Check on the respective Wikipedia sites as well their producers websites. Other distinctions like "general- v. special-purpose", "components used", "software used" are not critical to draw the line. A cell phone whose cell phone features dominate function, design & use may just scrape through as an embedded system. However, newer cell phones which also can be used as MP3 player, E-Mail/www-client, games, calculator, calendar, adressbook, etc, like a Treo or other Smartphones are already over the edge. If the line gets blurry, it's here! Our friends in the German, Spanish, French and Italian edition of Wikipedia adhere - as I do - to a strait forward definition and don't mix things. Some other versions most likely - and sadly enough - just copied from the English version. Let's get out of the "group dynamics"-trap and delete para 2! Dugong 02:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I agree. Perhaps leave a short note saying something like: "Handheld computers may share some elements such as operating systems, microprocessors, and storage technologies, but are not truly embedded systems themselves.". Aaron Lawrence 09:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I have done this. Is it OK? Aaron Lawrence 09:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Embedded System Design in an FPGA

The article Embedded System Design in an FPGA appears to contain a mix of advocacy that is not appropriate for Wikipedia, and useful factual information which is (IMHO) better suited to being merged into this article. --Allan McInnes (talk) 01:57, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they should be merged. Embedded systems is a very large scope to start with, having FPGA related stuff in its own article reduces clutter. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 04:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

There's already a fairly comprehensive article on FPGAs, which has significant overlap with the Embedded System Design in an FPGA article. Once you eliminate that overlapping material, there's not much left of the original Embedded System Design in an FPGA article, and I don't think that what little is left would contribute much "clutter" to this article. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Secondary Pages should be created

This page is definately more organized than before, but the content is so superficial for many of the topics that it would not be a bad idea to link to secondary pages for many of them. For example, reliability in embedded systems could definately use its own page, as it is it gets a paragraph. Anyone with experience in ES will have to agree, the overall ES content in wikipedia is weak. While I don't advocate making this page into a WWII size megapage, I do think that many of the areas should have their own pages. Thomaslw 22:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Reliability has more than one paragraph now though. If you have the knowledge to write the page, go ahead and do so! I would guess that it is quite a niche area. Plus it's the old problem of finding engineers who can write well :) Aaron Lawrence 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there are many whole books dedicated to the subject of Embedded Systems. The majority of additional sub topics within Embedded Systems should probably be their own pages. See the discussion below on debugging. Are we really writing a book here? ;) EM1SS&CSE 15:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

hehe yeah I don't advocate making a book, but it would be nice to see ES having its own section of wikipedia so to speak! Plus all of us in ES know how misunderstood our domain is. I mean people use cell phones, Ipods, berries, video game systems, whatever, and think it's some magic box. And then when you go 'oh I work in embedded systems' they give you a blank stare. "What's that?" You guys know what I mean! Anyway I would definately like to expand this section to contain comprehensive content for the major sections, and perhaps just enough detail to give experienced engineers enough of a background where they can go 'oh okay." As it is the only other major subpage I can find is RTOSes, or embedded OS, but there is just so much in embedded systems! Thomaslw 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thomaslw (talk • contribs) 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm not opposed in making this into a 'book' per se, might actual be a career enhancement.  ;) I’m not sure we would all be able to agree on some of the terminology, as I’ve heard things differently in each industry involved with embedded systems. I think it might be an interesting collaborative effort. Plus having it in the open domain ensures it will be updated for more timely items as the industry changes. Who hates reading an outdated book? (raises hand). 199.64.0.252 19:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, looks like not too much interest in this regard. ;) How do you guys propose we break up the sections to more meaningful Wiki subjects? EM1SS&CSE 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. I'm not sure this is all fit content for WP. Bearing in mind WP:NOT#IINFO perhaps we don't need much more because it starts to stray into training manuals and such.Aaron Lawrence 09:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

B Class

How exciting! B class! Hm ... I wonder what it needs to be A class ... probably more references. "has some gaps or missing elements or references, needs editing for language usage and/or clarity, balance of content," Can't disagree with that. Aaron Lawrence 11:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in list of example embedded systems

The third paragraph explains that cell phones and handheld computers are not truly embedded systems, but the list of example embedded systems includes these items. Also, by the same explanation of being too general in purpose, game consoles and PDAs probably don't qualify as embedded systems.

Is it OK now? Please sign your discussion edits. Aaron Lawrence 15:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Software vs hardware

An "embedded system" is a bit of hardware that does something. A "virtual machine" is a software programming concept. Maybe Java virtual machines are used to program embvedded systems, but at most shoulnd't that be mentioned under "software architectures", if at all? And it needs a reference (and the rest of the article needs references). --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Computer system vs system with a computing function

I think it's more accurate to say that an embedded system is a computer embedded in a system or embedded computing function within a system. Saying it's a computing system sounds like computing is its primary function. It's a lot like calling a car a "motor." Oicumayberight (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a computer system (i.e., processor, memory, and I/O units, together with suitable software/firmware) that is embedded into some larger system, whose main purpose will usually be something other than computation. As far as I can tell, that's essentially what the current article lead is is saying. Note that the focus of the article is the embedded system itself, not on any larger system (such as a car) that it might be a part of. Hqb (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A general purpose computer is a computer system too, but it's distinguished from an embedded system. What's unique about an embedded system is that it's part of a larger system. Oicumayberight (talk) 06:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's arguably what "embedded" means. But it doesn't really have to be part of a larger system. For example, a typical small router is little more than a computer with a larger-than-usual number of network interfaces. What makes it an embedded system is not so much that it's part of a larger system. but that it's performing a very specialized function – even though the hardware is often perfectly capable of running a full general-purpose operating system like Linux and a complement of apps. Likewise, a typical consumer GPS navigation device is essentially also just a small tablet computer, only equipped with a GPS receiver, and constrained to run a particular map/navigation application. Again, I think the current version of the article lead explains the distinction quite well. Hqb (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

So if I were to designate a general purpose computer to serve only one function (like streaming music), would it be an embedded system? Oicumayberight (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Embedded Instrumentation

very closely related overlapping subjects., best handled together DGG ( talk ) 06:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Clearly different topics. Your hot tub controller is an embedded system, which might use a microprocessor with embedded self-test instrumentation in it - but that's on a chip scale, not on a system scale. Embedded instrumentation is for testing chips - embedded systems are computers that control devices. --Wtshymanski (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Strong Oppose It appears to be closer to Joint Test Action Group. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

More specific than title

Shouldn't this article be titled "embedded computer system?". I know there isn't much in the way of alternate usage of the term, but there's no point in the title being broader than what the article is discussing. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I decided to go for WP:BRD rename since I will be linking more pages to this article. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You could have waited more than a few minutes for a response. A day or two is customary.

Per WP:NAME the appropriate article title is the most commonly known name, not necessarily the most technically correct name. If you can present evidence that embedded computer system is widely used, then the rename can remain. Otherwise, it should be changed back. —EncMstr (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no evidence that either is the most commonly used. I don't know how to change it back. I know how to change it forward. Might I suggest "Embedded systems (computing)" ? Oicumayberight (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction: It wouldn't need to be plural. The primary link could be "Embedded system (computing)" and the plural can direct to it. Oicumayberight (talk) 07:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Embedded system (computing) might be appropriate if we had other articles about non-computing "embedded systems". (But even then, the computing sense would probably qualify as the primary topic, with no disambiguation phrase required.) I have moved the page back to the more common name for now. Hqb (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Both points seem relevant here, but apparently not yet fully resolved. I would propose the introduction begin by indicating that: an embedded system refers to something that is complete in itself (the system) which monitors and can act upon its environment (embedded). The term is used predominantly in engineering, most frequently to refer to a controller inside.... Just a side note, but the term embedded system is also applied to eg. autonomous car, aircraft, satellites, etc. Ultimâ (talk) 16:11, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

No, the title of the article looks to be resolved. Embedded system is the recognised term used by people who practice in this field and there is apparently no other kind of system competing for this term. Go ahead and make any changes that you think would improve the introduction. ~Kvng (talk) 13:58, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The original concern here was not about the title, but that the content was more specific - which is correct, but it's also true that the main usage of the term relates to the controller. Ok, I'll make the change soon. Ultimâ (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, update provided. A last change I would suggest here relates to: "It is embedded as part of a complete device often including hardware and mechanical parts" - while 'complete' is not incorrect, it gives the idea that the controller is incomplete - I would propose replacing that word with 'larger, multi-functional' device. Ultimâ (talk) 10:11, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed that again, for now. The first sentence should be a concise definition of the topic - your version was confusing, with dependent clauses and parentheticals. That much detail might be appropriate later in the introduction, not but not in the very first sentence. See MOS:LEADSENTENCE. - MrOllie (talk) 10:38, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

And again, the first sentence has to be simple and understandable. We should not be adding hair splitting and fussy details straight away, that is what the body of the article is for. - MrOllie (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I will move part down to the characteristics, but the opening paragraph should still be sufficiently precise and clarifying the specific usage. Ultimâ (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Your latest version still doesn't comply with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. The first sentence of the article needs to be a simple definition so non-experts have context for the rest of the article. - MrOllie (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Responding to" "X has the role to" is not an appropriate lead sentence" - there are different types of embedded systems, so one defines by the common purpose.

Responding to "the text added elsewhere seems to rely on an incorrect definition of embedded" - ST47 is only familiar with embedded control systems. There are many types so characterising means defining by common properties. Please see https://www.controleng.com/articles/what-is-an-embedded-system/ Ultimâ (talk) 14:10, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead section is to summarize the article. Your version fails to do that. The purpose of the lead sentence is to clearly define the subject, your version also fails to do that. You should respect that your proposed changes lack WP:CONSENSUS and stop making them unless and until agreement is arrived at on this talk page. - MrOllie (talk) 14:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

The lead provides a concise overview of the article's topic. If you read your reference to WP:CONSENSUS you would not be reverting. Ultimâ (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

It provides a concise overview of some topic, but not this article's topic. If you read consensus, you'd realize that it is not a license to crowbar in whatever you like and then claim no one can go back to the settled version. Consensus is required to get your new changes in, not the opposite. In this case, you're reverting multiple other editors to keep your changes in. If anything consensus is squarely against you. - MrOllie (talk) 15:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie, my perspective is legitimate with provided references. Simply reverting each time is harassment and is WP:Disruptive editing.Ultimâ (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

MrOllie is not being disruptive, neither is ST47 or Wtshymanski who have also reverted your proposed changes. It does not help your case to accuse the others of disruption (see WP:BOOMERANG). You need to make a case for why these changes are an improvement and get the other editors here to agree that they are an improvement. I think that will be a tall order; I am an embedded systems expert and experienced wikipedia editor and I find the current lead sentence to be very well done. ~Kvng (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

As you say it's complicated. The BDR is a basic approach to finding consensus, working best for small changes. For this particular change it's refining the concept - so everyone should have a chance to see it to consider it to arrive at a consensus. I assume everyone agrees currently that the page is more specific than the title, because it has not been provided as a reason for undoing the changes. I mentioned disruptive editing because it seems we haven't made progress on this point. I'm assuming we all work in this domain - the page is more specifically about embedded control systems. The majority of us engineers use embedded system and control system as synonyms, which is not incorrect except, to use an analogy, fruit is a higher abstraction than orange. Ultimâ (talk) 19:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't agree that the page is more specific than the title. 'Embedded system' is understood to mean what the article describes by all the sources we have. IMO the more pressing issue, though, is that the lead section is for summarzing the article and your proposed changes do not properly summarize the article. - MrOllie (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

*Consensus on discussion point*: Ok, so my changes in response to your comments MrOllie, were made under the assumption we all agreed on the baseline discussion thread. I wish you had indicated this first which might have saved some of our time. Embedded System is a concept and both the lead and main body should evolve to reflect the best definition. Indicating one should be changed before the other is a logical fallacy. In this particular case the proposed evolution (shown below) is meant to justify the content of the body. Do you believe an embedded system and embedded control system are exactly the same thing? Also 'Embedded' & 'System' have a general meaning which contribute to the origin of the term - why should this not be considered?

• Implementation of discussion point*: Using a style seen on another page to find consensus on implementation, please amend where you think suitable:

Lead section :

Within engineering an embedded system has the role to influence a physical environment in which it is placed. While applicable to systems such as autonomous cars and aircraft, it is most frequently applied to the control system (or controller) within these larger systems. A controller has a dedicated function within a larger mechanical or electrical system, often with real-time computing constraints...

Characteristics Section (bold shows update):

Embedded systems are designed to do some specific task, rather than be a general-purpose computer for multiple tasks. They are complete in themselves (a system) and placed inside an environment to exert some influence (embedded). In this context embedded includes the ability to monitor and exert action externally, similarly to embedded intelligence, embedded software and embedded analytics. Some also have real-time performance constraints that must be met, for reasons such as safety and usability; others may have low or no performance requirements, allowing the system hardware to be simplified to reduce costs.

Ultimâ (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

This continues to fail to summarize the article and continues to fail to agree with MOS:LEADSENTENCE. I would simply continue using the current article lead. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand the Lead section proposal. Your Characteristics Section proposal is not an improvement as this addition is difficult to read, doesn't offer any critical information or clarification and is uncited. ~Kvng (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello MrOllie, while you are unconvinced by the discussion subject, discussing implementation is moot. I proposed some questions to you on 6th Jan. to help understand your perspective. Could you please respond to them? Ultimâ (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Kvng, discussing implementation doesn't make sense if you are not yet convinced about the discussion topic, or it isn't clear to you. To advance please consider the questions from my entry on Jan 6th. Ultimâ (talk) 13:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Rereading didn't help me understand what your proposing any better. I can, however, answer one of your 6 January questions: all embedded control systems are embedded systems. There are some embedded systems that arguably don't have control system aspects. By control system I mean that which is described in Control system. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't really think going down a tangent about our personal beliefs is relevant. Wikipedia works by summarizing sources. Which sources do you think are being used improperly? Or which new sources do you propose we start using?- MrOllie (talk) 01:39, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello @Kvng: ok, so we made some headway, you agree that the content is more specific than the title because you acknowledge there can be embedded systems without the control aspects. The purpose of my contribution to the lead noted above, is to acknowledge these exceptions but without us needing to go into the details (in the main content). (The leading section is not just a summary, but also an introduction to the reader.)Ultimâ (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello @MrOllie: finding consensus, I'm sure we'll agree is about updating personal beliefs. Thus I asked why you think a definition of 'embedded' and 'system' in themselves are irrelevant origins? My understanding of sources is that they are used for something that is not common knowledge, if you look up embedded intelligence, embedded software and embedded analytics you will see they have the characteristic that is not yet mentioned in the article. There are plenty of sources, but here's one from Britannica in the context of social science (influence on an environment) https://www.britannica.com/topic/embeddedness. Ultimâ (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I think I see the problem. Wikipedia articles are not pages of a dictionary listing definitions, a single wikipedia article is not going go over usage of the term in other fields. When word choices overlap, we have separate, disambiguated article titles. For example we have Vector (mathematics and physics) and Vector (epidemiology), not one article that tries to cover dissimilar uses. - MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)