HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
zephyrproject-rtos
zephyr
C2018–2026
zephyrproject-rtos / zephyr

zephyr

Primary Git Repository for the Zephyr Project. Zephyr is a new generation, scalable, optimized, secure RTOS for multiple hardware architectures.

Developer ToolsSecurity & PrivacyHardware & EmbeddedRobotics & IoT
Explore on GitHubRead Hacker News discussions
11Distinct people
13Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
17.1KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Primary Git Repository for the Zephyr Project. Zephyr is a new generation, scalable, optimized, secure RTOS for multiple hardware architectures.

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 8–Nov 15 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/15/2026, 4:00:59 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year13 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2018-05-28 18:48:06 UTC to 2026-03-01 16:52:56 UTC.

012342018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 2 mentions; 1 submissions, 1 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments20222023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 4 mentions; 1 submissions, 3 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC211
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC000
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC413
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

4 sources
jauntywundrkind·Dec 16, 2023Submission

Ask HN: Anyone Waiting on BT Auracast?

Hey folks. Anyone out there waiting for BT Auracast? It was announced June 2022, and immediately struck me as must have. I lost my earbuds, but it seems ridiculous to get a replacement without Auracast, seems like surely if I'm going to make a decent sized purchase like that it needs to support group playing. I want to tune into the radios of other people on the metro or on the bus, want to be able to watch a movie on the plane with someone. Having been announced so far back now, I've been struggling with expectations. I keep assuming this has to be happening someday soon! I'm really hoping the product announcement season that's right around the corner had a good number of Auracast announcements. Has anyone else been struggling with expectations here? Side note, a ton of it is over my head but it's been so so fun tuning in every once and
Read the rest
again to see how Zephyr's Bluetooth Audio work is going. Just wild now much has gone into this! https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/commits/main/subsys/bluetooth/audio
4 points · Open discussion
kenmacd·Jun 22, 2023
Zephyr has a lot of good points, but I really wish it didn't use Kconfig. Getting a working config seems to be mostly a matter of copying an already working example. It might be okay for hardware side of things, but it's a really bad at software/feature dependency. Set https://docs.zephyrproject.org/latest/build/kconfig/tips.htm... and the issue: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/issues/52575. And don't even get me started on trying anything to group options together.
In Arduino Joins Zephyr Project
ajross·Feb 2, 2023
I think that's uncharitable. Almost no one realized these things were being generated. We all assumed that links to github's "releases" were just links to files because they look like links to files! Here's one to Zephyr 3.2.0: https://github.com/zephyrproject-rtos/zephyr/archive/refs/ta... You pull that and get a tarball that is presented to the world as an "official release". Looks like a file. Acts like a file. It's a file. So now your package manager or reproducible build engine or whatever needs a reference to the "official source code release", and what do you point it to? That file, obviously. It's right there on the "release" page for the download. And of course you checksum it for security, because duh. Then last week all of a sudden that file changed! Sure, it has the same contents. But the checksum that you computed
Read the rest
in good faith based on the official release tarball doesn't match! If there's a misunderstanding here, it's on github and not the users. They can't be providing official release tarballs if they won't guarantee consistency. "As documented", this feature was a huge footgun[1]. That's bad. [1] Actually it's worse: as documented it's basically useless. If you can't externally validate the results of that archive file, then the only way to use it is to tell your users that they have to trust Microsoft not to do anything bad, because you can't make any promise about the file that they can verify!
In Git archive generation meets Hyrum's law

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.