Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Hardware Software Linux

World's Smallest Linux Box Fits in RJ-45 Jack 347

Posted by timothy 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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

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

Comments Filter:

  • 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].

  • 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.
    • I, for one, welcome our ethernet-jack-sized Linux overlords.

      :-D

    • 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...

      • Re:Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)

        by getling ( 114602 )
        My favorite idea for this (which I pictured as wired, but wired wireless works too) is as a mini firewall. Get smoothwall or something lighter working on one of these, and you could drop a firewall anywhere you need in your network, just as easily as a cable extender!

  • Exoensive. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Oculus Habent ( 562837 ) * <oculus.habent@gm ... m minus caffeine> on Monday March 28, 2005 @06:10PM (#12071130) Journal
    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!

      • Re:Breaking the law, breaking the law (Score:4, Insightful)

        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.

    • Re:Exoensive. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by solios ( 53048 )
      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?
      • "....but can you fit that bang up your bung?"

        maybe you can, but I'm not fitting it anywhere and it doesn't matter how small it is!

      • Pulp Fiction (Score:5, Funny)

        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.

    • Re:Exoensive. (Score:3, Informative)

      by syukton ( 256348 ) *
      Actually, according to another slashdotter's comment [slashdot.org], gumstix is smaller by almost 3 cubic centimeters. 99 euro is $127. For $109 you can get a gumstix [gumstix.com] with a 200mhz processor, 4MB flash, and 64MB of RAM. Granted, the gumstix doesn't come with built-in ethernet. It does however have almost four times the processing power and eight times the RAM. A waysmall basix [gumstix.com] can be had for $139. Add the audiostix expansion board ($40) and you've got the beginnings of a portable media player, or the like.

    • 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...

    • Re:Exoensive. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ceeam ( 39911 )
      Forget desktop. I can buy plenty of beer for that! Who needs a desktop when they could buy _beer_!

      See the point?

  • imagine a cluster... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ack!

  • This isn't exactly a Blade server... (Score:5, Interesting)

    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?

    • Re:This isn't exactly a Blade server... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Martin Blank ( 154261 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @07:26PM (#12071868) Homepage 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.

  • Firewall in the port (Score:5, Insightful)

    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@NOspAM.gmail.com> on Monday March 28, 2005 @06:18PM (#12071219)
    Where is the LCD screen?!

  • Mirrordot link (Score:2, Insightful)

    by PxM ( 855264 )
    http://www.mirrordot.org/stories/7a619ff68b362814 4 0ce8c14d21197d5/index.html [mirrordot.org] IMO, the Wi-Fi model they have there looks more interesting than the wired one. Hopefully, they'll get picoTux to work on that and be able to make the antenna less clunky.

    --
    Want a free iPod? [freeipods.com]
    Or try a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox. [freegamingsystems.com] (you only need 4 referrals)
    Wired article as proof [wired.com]

  • Yet, that is not small enough. (Score:3, Interesting)

    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! ;)

  • Can you do the same with an Airport Express? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Rude Turnip ( 49495 ) <valuation@@@gmail...com> on Monday March 28, 2005 @06:20PM (#12071247)
    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) 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
      • These days you can program your switches to shut the port off if they detect an unauthorized device accessing the network.
        I'm sure there are ways around this, but it's much easier to configure at the switch level. Consider that the port itself is just a set of wires tracing back to the switch, it's not "live" unless you are plugged into a live switch. So rather than have lots of little microcomputers controlling the ports themselves (which increases installation and maintenance cost) you have an intelligent
    • This is *exactly* what I've been thinking of for a weather station. Add the processor to the sensor, place one on the anemometer at 10m, another on the temp sensor at 10m, but have it tightly networked to the 2m temp/humidity sensor. Presto! intelligent heat flux calculations. Tie the 10m anemometry to the 2m wind speed, voila`, 3d wind data.

      Lose a sensor, no problem. The rest of the site's up. Lose a data collector? No problem. It's the same as losing a sensor.

      Wow! This is great!

  • 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.
  • At last, someone is addressing the computer needs of a forgotten sector of society [bishops.org.za]. The insensitive clods: it's just damn unfair that Arietty, Pod, and the rest have been shut out of the information age! Now, Lexmark, where's cornflake sized printer?

  • Not new - Digi Connect ME (Score:5, Informative)

    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.
    • Except that it's $249 for the most basic kit sold to develop for the ME, and for about $120(99 Euro) you can have this unit, which is the same thing minus some of the cables/fanciness, and preflashed with uClinux. I say the Klienhenz device wins the value debate here(as a starter kit), and if you have a Klienhenz serial board you could purchase the DCMEs for $50 each giving you the best deal.

    • Re:Not new - Digi Connect ME (Score:5, Informative)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday March 28, 2005 @06:54PM (#12071584) Homepage Journal
      Lantronix also has a similar product called the XPort [lantronix.com]. It's an embedded system in an ethernet jack with a serial port out the other end. Doesn't run linux as far as I know, but it's x86-based so a port should be easy if you can get the necessary information out of them.

  • 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?

  • wireless? (Score:2, Informative)

    by mschoolbus ( 627182 )
    When you lose the network cable, you also lose the power source. It will get much heavier than current weight.

  • overheard at gumstix.org today: (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Tech 1: "Hey super, we're all done replacing the melted server components after the Slashdot horde raped and pillaged us last January."

    Tech 2: "It's smoking again."

  • Battery? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Speare ( 84249 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @06:33PM (#12071396) Homepage Journal
    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?

  • Get Smart...er! (Score:3, Funny)

    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!)

    • One ring (Score:2, Funny)

      by AtariAmarok ( 451306 )
      "Me, I'm hanging out for the mobile phone in a ring (perferably one which sends its audio signals through bone"

      If you have a ring-phone that makes you turn invisible, crawl underground, and eat raw fish for 700 years, let me know.

  • OK so with suitable codec interface, plant it in a wall jack (take your pick, ether, rj-11, wallplug). Wallplug would be best for the power, anyway, the unit upon power up, scans for open AP's if it finds one, it tries to get out, if it can get out, it sends voice activated audio to an embedded ip addr (or via some ip discovery protocol). If it cannot find an AP its useless. If it finds one with WEP, it will begin a slow patient crack on the WEP key. Let it sit there for weeks working to crack it, it succes
    • Everyone's ignoring the important fact that you don't NEED an AP. You just need a sympathetic individual to plug this in at your target, and the device will transmit to YOUR AP, attached to the roof of your car outside. :-)

      No AP, nothing to see in the logs, no firewalls/proxies to deal with, no ip addresses to be consumed... a stealth tap. Perfect. Insidious.

  • Great build-environment for Gumstix' (Score:5, Informative)

    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!
  • And if its too small you can just "click to enlarge". That's a handy feature!
  • Just the little tool I need to setup a wireless router into some corperate network...

    And corperate security folks were worried about usb drives.

  • 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.

      • Re:Cool Idea. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by niteice ( 793961 )
        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.
        I smell best damn firewall ever.
        • >>>> Package it in a metal case with RJ-45 at *both* ends and flash a minimal Linux+FW into it.

          >> I smell best damn firewall ever.

          better yet, stick it in a cheap beige plastic case.
          It would look just like a crossover or cable extender and no one would pay it any attention...

      • Re:Cool Idea. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Cougar_ ( 92354 )
        No need for a second RJ-45, that'd just waste space. There's enough connectors in a single RJ-45 to run 2 ethernet cables out of it. On the other hand, having two separate connectors would probably be easier to manage (physically) and would allow those spare wires to be used for power over ethernet, which this thing is just screaming out for.

  • New IT problems (Score:3, Funny)

    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."

    • Re:New IT problems (Score:5, Funny)

      by fishbowl ( 7759 ) 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.

  • Finally! (Score:2, Funny)

    by _Hellfire_ ( 170113 )
    The Linux powered asschip is a reality!

  • 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) Journal
    I mean 2 ethernet ports, making it look like a cross-over connector, and you've have a great firewall gizmo.

    -Charles

  • Uh oh watch out! (Score:3, Funny)

    by null etc. ( 524767 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @07:00PM (#12071636)
    Michael Crichton is currently writing a book about a handful of these devices that start talking to each other and manage to take over the world.
  • Do not eat Picotux.
  • Doesn't run Windows. No market.

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

    by brsmith4 ( 567390 ) <brsmith4&gmail,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.
  • There are several companies doing this...like Lantronix's Xport (which are less powerful, but much cheaper)-

    LosT
  • Finally, I can put goatse.cx and tubgirl in the flash memory and set up a tiny httpd. I believe that I can put one of these into the professor's office and sustain the goatse.cx community indefinitely. My life is complete.

  • This isn't computer in a plug, its just easy TCPIP (Score:3, Interesting)

    by L0stb0Y ( 108220 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @07:25PM (#12071861) Journal
    (With a few exceptions) I think most of the comments made are missing the point...generally is type of device is for TCP/IP enabling- existing hardware for example...and that's about it. To build a 'device' around it you still need 'control' (read: uController, processor, etc, etc)-

    As a previous poster pointed out to take something that already can communicate via serial this just webenables quickly and easily for you...(or even I2C, 1-wire, etc)- this is just communications on a chip, not computer in a plug.

    You have to look at what these types of devices are designed for...

  • ack! the days when you can use the excuse "sorry I ate my server" is drawing closer..

  • Mac Mini (Score:4, Funny)

    by Umbral Blot ( 737704 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @07:50PM (#12072061) Homepage
    Take that Mac Mini!!

  • Line Sniffer (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EEPS ( 829675 ) on Monday March 28, 2005 @08:02PM (#12072132)
    Anyone ever think to maby put a second RJ-45 jack on the other side? it would still be small enough that it looks like a simple coupler, while you could haqve it sniffing network traffic, and if a internet connection is availible, it could send data back to you!

  • "Computers will just be lumps in cables" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jamie ( 78724 ) * <jamie@slashdot.org> on Monday March 28, 2005 @09:56PM (#12072823) Journal

    A quote posted to Usenet, in 1995.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computer programmers do it byte by byte.

Close