Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

World's Smallest Linux Box Fits in RJ-45 Jack

Posted by timothy on Mon Mar 28, 2005 06:09 PM
from the nearly-swallowable dept.
An anonymous reader writes "German electronics company Kleinhenz is shipping a network-enabled Linux system built into an RJ-45 Ethernet jack. "Picotux" has a 55MHz ARM processor, 2MB of Flash, 8MB of RAM, a serial port, and five lines of GPIO. It measures 0.75 x 0.75 x 1.4 inches (19 x 19 x 36mm), and weighs 0.64 ounces (18 grams), packaged in a metal housing. A wireless 802.11 version appears to be on the horizon, too. So, if you've ever wanted to network-enable, say, a robot, boombox, or model airplane, this could be the system for you." Is this really the world's smallest? It looks a bit chunkier than a tiny gumstix machine.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Thin Client PC Fits in Wall Socket 205 comments
ukhackster writes "Last year, there was a lot of excitement about a cut-down PC that fitted into a wall socket. Next month, the Jack PC will go on sale in the UK for just £209 ($390)." From the article: "At a low price and using low power, MacLellan believes the device is 'one of the biggest developments in PCs that we have seen' and is one of the 'ever-growing range of thin clients, which are rapidly replacing PCs as a more effective desktop computing solution for modern businesses'. The Jack PC runs Windows CE, is designed to connect to 'any terminal server-based environment' and has Citrix ICA and Microsoft RDP clients built in. It runs Internet Explorer 6.0 to connect to Web-driven applications, and runs an 'up to 500MHz' AMD RISC processor, which the company says is equivalent to a 1.2GHz x86. It can come with up to 64MB of flash memory and 128MB RAM."
This discussion has been archived.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
More
Loading... please wait.
  • it's all about size (Score:5, Informative)

    by tedtimmons (97599) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:10PM (#12071122) Homepage
    comparison:

    picotux: 19x19x36mm (12.996 cc), 18 grams
    gumstix: 20x6.3x80mm (10.080 cc), 12 grams?
    packaged gumstix: 36x15x83mm (44.820 cc), ?? grams

    Okay, so the gumstix is smaller. But the picotux has built-in eth [gumstix.org].
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2005, @06:13PM (#12071159)
      Please do not eat Picotux.
    • true.
      but a gumstix has bluetooth (which is IMO even cooler). Also a Gumstix has more RAM, more flash and is faster. And (as you point out with your link) you could always add the ethernet-board if you really need ethernet (and in some weeks the double-ethernet board).
    • by sytxr (704471) on Monday March 28 2005, @07:08PM (#12071716)
      The gumstix has a larger surface area, the gumstix has a larger average visual cross section when viewed from a random angle. German shipping services like to define the size of a packet, for the purpose of determining fees, as the sum of of its dimensions.

      Which is smaller - a gumstix or a sheet of paper ? If you say it's the gumstix, then the picotux is smaller.

      Otherwise it does not make sense! The german postal service says the picotux is smaller, so the picotux is smaller; but what do shipping fees in Germany, which are paid in Euro, have to do with the size of the gumstix in comparison to the picotux ? And why am I comparing it to mice which are mammals which are rodents of the genus Mus as computer input devices ? It does not make sense.
      Therefore you must admit the picotux is smaller.
    • I'm holding out for the Linux enabled dental crown -- with Bluetooth. /ducks
  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by gardyloo (512791) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:10PM (#12071123)
    The "nothing to see here, please move along" comment finally makes sense.
    • Re:Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Short Circuit (52384) * <mikemol@gmail.com> on Monday March 28 2005, @08:43PM (#12072413) Homepage Journal
      Wired ethernet exists. 802.11 version coming soon.

      And a combination of the two would make a great way to clandestinely introduce outside access to the corporate LAN. Especially if you can use power-over-ethernet.

      Just find a windowed office with a network hidden behind the credenza...
  • Exoensive. (Score:3, Interesting)

    99€?! Okay, so it's not that expensive. 55Mhz processor, 2MB flash, 8MB RAM, serial port, 10/100 Ethernet... but I can go buy a cheap desktop for that. I hope it gets substantially cheaper with volume. If not, they're making a killer profit.

    Note the article doesn't tout it as world's smallest, but it is smaller than the gumstix
    • True, it's no workstation, but still the specs are enough to leak trade secrets across the Internet, and the size is such that the bug may go unnoticed by your employer's IT maintenance department. So if you are infiltrating an "evil" company and you value your afterlife more than you value your life, go for it!

      • by rudeboy1 (516023) on Tuesday March 29 2005, @09:13AM (#12075514)
        The security implications for this are mind boggling. Especially a wireless version. Add in a second female jack, or a punch board, and you have a device that can be installed in a local network wall jack without detection. If one were to load in a proprietary (non-802.11)wireless protocol, like K2 or a Mesh variant, (which won't take up a whole lot more space on a ROM chip than a standard 802.11 protocol) the wireless signal would not show up on most wireless detection software, (netstumbler, etc.) You got yourself a pretty scary little device there, or a fun one, depending on what end of this thing you're looking at.
    • Yeah, you can get a hell of a lot more bang for that buck, but can you fit that bang up your bung?

      I doubt it. You're paying for the size here, and if you don't need the size, then who cares what the price is?
      • by djdavetrouble (442175) on Monday March 28 2005, @07:28PM (#12071887) Homepage
        but can you fit that bang up your bung?

        "This picotux. This picotux was in your Daddy's pocket when he was shot down over Hanoi. He was captured and put in a Vietnamese prison camp. Now he knew if the gooks ever saw the picotux it'd be confiscated. The way your Daddy looked at it, that picotux was your birthright. And he'd be damned if and slopeheads were gonna put their greasy yella hands on his boy's birthright. So he hid it in the one place he knew he could hide somethin'. His ass. Five long years, he wore this picotux up his ass. Then when he died of dysentery, he gave me the picotux. I hid with uncomfortable hunk of metal up my ass for two years. Then, after seven years, I was sent home to my family. And now, little man, I give the picotux to you."
    • Re:Expensive. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by WebCowboy (196209) on Monday March 28 2005, @07:08PM (#12071713)
      but I can go buy a cheap desktop for that

      Just because you can doesn't mean you should. This is an embedded systems solution, not a desktop replacement. If you play in that world than you knwo 100 euros is quite inexpensive.

      The PC is just too big, too fragile, too power-hungry and too unreliable for a lot of tasks where these tiny machines could be used--even if the computational power-to-price ratio is so much larger for the PC. People in the automation world probably remember a few years ago how the PC-based "soft PLC" would reduce costs and replace all those proprietary, expensive traditional PLCs. Never happened and never will because PCs are too general purpose and inefficient. To this day all I've ever used software-based PLCs for is simulation.

      For those who are unaware, PLCs, or Programmable Logic Controllers, are esentially purpose-built embedded computer systems used to monitor and control industrial equipment. The bulk of them today are about as powerful as a 286 PC or even less and they cost as much as or more than a high-end PC. Despite that, the hardware and firmware/software in a PLC is designed from the ground up for deterministic, hard-real-time operation and I/O intensive applications. They also do not have processor fans, hard drives and other unreliable mechanical parts.

      That is why these tiny Linux machines are so interesting--even if they cannot do as much as a PC or are more expensive. They could be the beginning of a standard, truly open platform for embedded systems. If the processor unit can fit in an RJ45 jack, then in the future we could do away with racks of PLCs and make field equipment control itself. The stuff I can imagine is mind boggling to say the least.
    • small == expensive (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Mr. Underbridge (666784) on Monday March 28 2005, @08:36PM (#12072356)
      99?! Okay, so it's not that expensive. 55Mhz processor, 2MB flash, 8MB RAM, serial port, 10/100 Ethernet... but I can go buy a cheap desktop for that. I hope it gets substantially cheaper with volume. If not, they're making a killer profit.

      Wow, I guess every laptop in the world is also overpriced, being less powerful and more expensive than a similar desktop.

      Mods are sniffing glue today...

  • by georgewilliamherbert (211790) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:14PM (#12071164)
    ...more like a Needle.


    For only Eur 99, though, a fair deal if you need a whole lot of tiny servers for something. Who needs virtual servers, when you can stick real ones at the end of each ethernet cable?

    • by Martin Blank (154261) on Monday March 28 2005, @07:26PM (#12071868) Journal
      The first thing I thought of was an expandable, self-switching/routing patch panel architecture. I haven't put a great deal of thought into it (and maybe it shows :) ), but perhaps some sort of distributed computing architecture could help make that a reality for smaller implementations.

      The other thought that I had was per-port firewalls, but security maintenance is complex enough as it is without tracking things per interface.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 28 2005, @06:15PM (#12071193)
    Sounds like a cool way to firewall individual rooms or areas.
  • What?! (Score:4, Funny)

    by mschoolbus (627182) <travisriley@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Monday March 28 2005, @06:18PM (#12071219)
    Where is the LCD screen?!
  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:19PM (#12071233)
    Good going. However, can't you get it as small as an RFID chip? The average sweater section in a Wal-Mart containing 300 Linux servers. Now, that's cool.
  • This could be... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by SlashThat (859697) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:19PM (#12071238)
    Great as a wiretapping device! ;)
  • I wonder if the Airport Express is hackable enough to give you similar results.
  • Power (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BrookHarty (9119) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:22PM (#12071263) Homepage Journal
    First thing I thought, if you could power it with ethernet, you could put this in remote locations for sensors. But 250mA is pretty efficient.

    I could see a use for the wifi+serial setup, you could put this on older serial based nodes and remotely access them. Big market for HVAC when everyone wants them to replace hardware. Our schools here in the Washington state is saving millions by using linux and other technology than going with Honeywell or some other company to rip out the entire system and replace with modern (aka expensive) controls.

    A wifi serial setup would be cool, to pop in a router, and then access via my laptop, so I dont have to run a wire when I'm testing or racking it up.

    Lots of uses. Very cool idea.

    • My first thought is that this could do something for infrastructures security and control. Years ago when I was in the IT department, we occasionally had rogue computers on the Intranet. I thought having an intelligent panel in each cubicle could reduce the cable-chasing in the partitions and other places.

      I realize that others by now may have made products to do what I figured would be the smarter way to deal with massive amounts of wired hardware. But, since many companies and individuals are not encrypt
  • Cool, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nweaver (113078) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:22PM (#12071267) Homepage
    The wireless version is cool as well, but the systems need two more things:

    a: For the wired version: Support for Power over Ethernet. This way, separate power isn't needed in many installations.

    b: A single USB port for both versions.

    Do those both and you now have a general purpose wired and wireless glue for attaching pretty much arbitrary devices to the network.
  • by Amgine007 (88004) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:22PM (#12071275)
    This is a Digi Connect ME [digi.com], which has been around for a while. I have one, and it runs uClinux nicely.

    Dunno what Kleinhenz is shipping, but I'm gussing it's just the DCME with uClinux flashed onto it. Nothing new here.

    IIRC, old newsgroup threads when these came out suggest the quantity cost is ~$50/ea, so this product's convenience comes at a bit of a premium.
  • Bump in the Cable (Score:4, Interesting)

    by saccade.com (771661) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:25PM (#12071301) Homepage Journal
    Somebody (Gordon Bell?) predicted that in the future the computer will be "just a bump in the cable". Looks like we're there. Can anybody find the original quote?
  • Battery? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Speare (84249) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:33PM (#12071396) Homepage
    It says it draws 3.3v 250mA power. It would be an excellent design if it could get its own power needs from the Cat5 cable itself. Just plug a personal key fob into your network, let it dhcp itself, and do whatever else from there.

    As it is, it looks like you'd have to provide power to the unit from other means?

  • by Bifurcati (699683) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:33PM (#12071403) Homepage
    My, we've come a long way from the Maxwell Smart shoe-phone, haven't we? Now you can have a mobile in one shoe, and a computer in the other. Brilliant!

    Me, I'm hanging out for the mobile phone in a ring (perferably one which sends its audio signals through bone, so you literally stick your finger in your ear, talk into your ring, and away you go!)

  • by ageforce_ (719072) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:35PM (#12071426)
    We are currently using a Gumstix for a robotics-project, and eventhough the size is amazing, the really big advantage of Gumstix' are their build-environment, and a really efficient and responsive support there.
    In addition they have a Wiki-page which has a nice tutorial (I must know it, I wrote it;) and other helpful tips.
    Add to that: cutting edge software (latest Linux kernel and gcc) and bluetooth (do you remember the bluetooth-sniper from some days ago? It was based on a Gumstix).
    Really cool!
  • Cool Idea. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigattichouse (527527) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:38PM (#12071451) Homepage
    Now, take two and put them back to back running a variant of iptables/whatever to build a "on the cable" firewall.
    • Re:Cool Idea. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Inigo Montoya (31674) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:49PM (#12071546) Journal
      No, what's needed is an advancement in the chip at the center of this device. Currently it only has one MAC and PHY for ethernet. The next evolution of this chip should have 2 MAC/PHY. Package it in a metal case with RJ-45 at *both* ends and flash a minimal Linux+FW into it.


      Then it truly will be a "bump in the cable" as one person said.

  • by AtariAmarok (451306) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:42PM (#12071482)
    Witherworth: "Jenkins!!!!"
    Jenkins: "Yes Boss?"
    Witherworth: "The server is DOWN. Your department spent our good money on that "Luxux" or whatever you call it. What the hell can be wrong with it?"
    Jenkins: "Ermmm. sorry, sir. I sneezed and it blew out the window."
    • by fishbowl (7759) <nethack.cox@net> on Monday March 28 2005, @06:56PM (#12071591)
      My company was an early adopter of Linux for core tech infrastructure.

      Once, one of the finance people asked me, half jokingly, "So is this Linux a piece of shit or what?"

      I replied: It is. we use it for the fertilizer your paycheck grows in.

      I mark that moment as the turning point when linux went from skepticism to aceeptance in my company.

  • Digi already makes a wireless version too:

    http://www.digi.com/products/embeddeddeviceservers /digiconnectwime.jsp [digi.com]

    A common application for this sort of device is that you can just plug it into an existing device that doesn't have ethernet or wireless ethernet and voila! Ethernet connected device!

    For example, say your company makes heart monitors with an RS-232 interface or some other serial or GPIO controllable bus. You can just sit this device in your design and instantly have an Ethernet-enabled heart monitor running with a command line or a web-interface, etc. It's a pretty cool way to upgrade old hardware designs cheaply.

    -AP

  • Dual-End it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by chill (34294) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:58PM (#12071610) Homepage Journal
    I mean 2 ethernet ports, making it look like a cross-over connector, and you've have a great firewall gizmo.

    -Charles
  • How about... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by brsmith4 (567390) <brsmith4 AT gmail DOT com> on Monday March 28 2005, @07:10PM (#12071737)
    Imagine a beowulf cluster of those! No, really. All you'd need is a switch and some ethernet cables and you could have yourself a nifty 8 node cluster for under a grand... and bragging rights for probably having one of the worlds smallest clusters.
  • Mac Mini (Score:4, Funny)

    by Umbral Blot (737704) on Monday March 28 2005, @07:50PM (#12072061) Homepage
    Take that Mac Mini!!
  • A quote posted to Usenet, in 1995.

      • Re:Oh, quite cool! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by idontgno (624372) on Monday March 28 2005, @06:26PM (#12071321) Journal
        This was my first thought when looking at it, but with only 8MB of RAM and 2-4MB flash, I'm not sure how useful it would be for stealing big secrets.

        It doesn't have to store much if it can open an outbound network connection to something with logging.