Talk:FreeRTOS

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Mid-importance).

".org" should be removed from the name[edit]

I think the ".org" should be removed from the name "FreeRTOS.org". The name of the operating system is FreeRTOS, the internet domain is FreeRTOS.org. Look at their website [1] to see that they call it "FreeRTOS" themself. 86.84.145.232 12:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any SSL port for Free RTOS[edit]

Hi

  I would like to know that is there any SSL port available for FreeRTOS.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.147.22 (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that maybe you should try asking the FreeRTOS team, rather than the internet in general, and wikipedians specifically. Jimadilo (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coldfire Support[edit]

So... it says "Supported OSes" and lists Coldfire. But beside Coldfire is a parenthesized "not supported". So, which is it? Is it no longer supported? Was it ever supported? -Fuzzy (talk) 20:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Assembler Functions"[edit]

The language is called "assembly". The program which translates it to binary is an "assembler". 24.1.252.60 (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OpenRTOS[edit]

Do we really need a complete sales pitch for this operating system? According to the SafeRTOS website itself:

"However, SAFERTOS is not FreeRTOS. It has been completely redesigned by our team of safety experts. Our engineers took the FreeRTOS functional model..."

This should be moved to it's own page, which is linked to from the FreeRTOS page, and the very obvious bias should be corrected . I may do some of this myself if I find the time. Jimadilo (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't confuse OPENRTOS and SafeRTOS. You have a section with one name and then talk about the other. But to your point, SafeRTOS is a variation of FreeRTOS. But if you want to move that to a new page and have a link to it, I'd be fine with that. Nerfer (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Modified GPL to allow commercial use[edit]

GPL donesn't forbid commercial use, so this sentence should be rephrased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.150.224.69 (talk) 10:23, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GPL effectively does that - you typically have to provide your customers with the entire source code, including derived works (including company IP). I think FreeRTOS modified the GPL so only the source for FreeRTOS needed to be supplied, not proprietary stuff that built onto it. But when Amazon took over in 2017, they switched to the friendlier MIT license, so this whole point is moot now. Nerfer (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FreeRTOS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SafeRTOS in ROM?[edit]

The article says "SafeRTOS is included in the ROM of some Stellaris Microcontrollers from Texas Instruments", a claim that is also found here:[2]

Looking at section 1.3.2 of the TI Stellaris LM3S9B96 Microcontroller datsheet[3] this chip has SafeRTOS in ROM,

But according to Digikey[4] and Mouser[5] it is an obsolete item, no longer available.

So is there a currently available chip with SafeRTOS in ROM, or should I edit the page to say "SafeRTOS was included in the ROM of some now-obsolete Stellaris Microcontrollers from Texas Instruments"? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:20, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, you might want to ask an official at the company that supports SafeRTOS to clarify it. Numerous unique chips from Asia are never sold by Mouser or Digikey. There are so darn many chips in this world, it's hard to know if something doesn't exist, thus sometimes better to ask an official source. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FreeRTOS Security Flaws Reported[edit]

Nichols, Shaun (October 22, 2018). "Patch me, if you can: Grave TCP/IP flaws in FreeRTOS leave IoT gear open to mass hijacking". The Register.

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That should be put in the article someplace, but I'm not sure where. That only affects the variations of FreeRTOS that have a TCP/IP stack (Amazon, SAFERTOS, OPENRTOS). The basic kernel doesn't come with that capability/vulnerability. Nerfer (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Issues, Jan 2019[edit]

User Stesmo added multiple issues in Jan. 2019: "Added {\{advert}}, {\{original research}} and {\{peacock}} tags (within {\{multiple issues}}) to article (TW))". I can agree with advert, but it would be nice to know more specifically what all of that is about. If Stesmo decided so much is wrong with the article, you would think he/she would put something on the talk page. Nerfer (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to delete the tags. If he want to discuss what he thinks is wrong, that's fine, but things like "This article contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner without imparting real information." are nonsense. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

History: Derived From?[edit]

The article seems to say that FreeRTOS was developed from scratch. But it doesn't say so explicitly. Since few common OSs come out of nowhere these days, some clarity on this detail would be good. --Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 02:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple and has been in development for 18 years. It can be completely original. --Amakuha (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that few few common OSs come out of nowhere real times are almost always built from scratch. The basic principles go back to the mainframe era, and back in 2003 dozens of companies rolled their own RTOS; it was common knowledge how to do that. What makes FreeRTOS special (besides not being proprietary) is that pretty much everyone else stopped developing their RTOS once the device they were working on worked. FreeRTOS kept improving. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kernel Type : Microkernel[edit]

Why does freeRTOS qualify as a microkernel ? It is not described as such in it's documentation. 77.193.137.82 (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]