Re: Wanting opinions->uController OS

[NZG <ngustavson@emacinc.com>]

> Yes, much, but not to the level you are comparing against.
The level? You said 
> Linux does _not_ support MMUless CPUs.
I'm just rebuking your absolute.

> I'm not insulting you.  
> >You are apparently very narrow-minded in your comparisons.
> >But given how you lacked some knowledge, history and options,
> >I can't blame why you came to your conclusions.
I very much doubt anyone would not be insulted by that, it was clearly your 
intention.

> - You totally missed Theo's points on the AT&T v. UCB lawsuit
I didn't miss it. I was just pointing out that it's not as well known as the 
SCO lawsuit.
I am well aware that the SCO lawsuit severely lacking in merit. But it was 
higher profile, and scared more people, even if it lacked merit.
My point was that Linux has also undergone it's share of attacks. 

> - You simplified and played a "don't question me" card
When did I say that? I said I welcome controversy as long as we can do it 
without insulting one another.

> RT/Linux is GPL, and it's patent from Finite State Machine (FSM)
> Labs is licensed for use as GPL under an FSF-approved "Open
> Patent."  No matter what RTAI does, it's still based on a similar
> approach with clear lineage.
I'll grant that it's similar, but they have clearly crawled out from under FSM 
lab's patent, no-one is challenging the new 3.0 distro.

> Linux's design cannot scale, let alone for real-time, unlike those
> other alternatives.
What do you mean by "scale"?
Up to high end SMP systems? It can do that.

> At the "commodity 2-4 way" hard real-time, Opteron/Solaris is
> really starting to give Linux a butt whipping 
Do you have any numbers on this? Or evidence to back this up?

> But I _will_ see you in the fact that RTAI gives "near hard"
> real-time for the "development buck."  Try not to throw up
> absolutes and narrow-focus because you never know who might
> be listening.  ;->
What absolutes are you referring too?

> > and can be used without patching the Linux kernel,
>
> That's the problem.  I'd rather maintain a strict separation between
> a "real-time" kernel and a "monolithic" kernel that runs as a non-
> real-time process above it.
>
> RTAI is a nice option, but not good enough for many applications
> IMHO.
RTAI has gone through some major changes since it adopted Adeos. This is 
actually the "patchless" approach I am referring too.
Also it's Fusion branch provides the API VxWorks.

To be honest, I'm a little scared of the RT preempt patch myself, as it will 
fundamentally change the kernel, but I don't know that I'm really qualified 
to argue one way or the other as I don't understand it very well yet. 

> > but I agree, we are quickly moving off track, this is an thread
> > for rtai.org/vxworks lists
>
> You introduced it.  It's still Linux, so I have no issue discussing the
> technical merits of embedded and/or soft-to-hard real-time.
I agree it's valid, but I think more people would be interested, and have more 
interesting opinions about it, on a dedicated list.

NZG.

-
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo@silug.org with
"unsubscribe silug-discuss" in the body.