Re: RTAI/RtLinux

[Randy.Dunlap]

On Sat, 25 May 2002, Larry McVoy wrote:

| On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 11:05:32AM +0200, Erwin Rol wrote:
| > Both Linus and Larry seem to be not very interested in hard-realtime
| > Linux additions, this is OK.
|
| I'm interested in hard realtime.  I'm extremely uninterested in changes
| to the mainline source base in order to get them.  That's exactly why
| I like the RT/Linux approach so much, it is the least invasive to the
| kernel and - surprise - also has the best performance.
|
| If people were to learn that real time and multi-user throughput are
| by definition mutually exclusive, I'd be a lot happier.  As it is,
| we have the SGI/Montevista crowd cramming their stuff into the kernel

In this example, SGI and MV are at opposite ends of the
spectrum, right?  High-end servers vs. embedded (and maybe RT).

I expect that most of the continued growth of Linux will be
in these 2 areas (servers and embedded) -- but we can't just
abondon the desktop/workstation space either.
Having 1 person say that Linux has problems in the embedded space
doesn't carry much weight with me, but having 2-3 other people
confirm it does start to concern me.

| and each "little" thing makes the kernel a less pleasant place to be
| and brings it one step closer to the point when it gets abandoned
| like ever other OS in the history of our field.

What I'd like to see/hear is a discussion about how to
accommodate all of these OS spaces (servers, workstations,
mobile, embedded) without making Linux ugly (or uglier in a
few cases).  Maybe a good topic for discussion in Canada...
in a hallway or a bar or a BOF.

Maybe the embedded/RT space is always maintained outside of
the kernel.org kernel tree; I don't know.
But certainly parts of the high-end server space want to be
included in the mainstream kernel.org tree.

Sorry about adding something non-legal to the discussion.
Not.

-- 
~Randy