Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)]

[Karim Yaghmour]

Kurt Wall wrote:
> Sorry, I must have lost track of this argument. I thought the point of
> contention was the RTLinux patent, which seems pretty clear on the key
> issue: if your stuff is GPL, we're GPL; if you make money, we want a slice
> of the pie. Now it almost sounds like you're telling us that the real
> issue is that you can't make your own Linux-as-nonfree-rtos. Well, I'm not
> very smart, so maybe I've misunderstood.

Don't take my word for it. Here's an article written by Jerry Epplin in
February 2001:
http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2094189920.html

He ends his article with the following:
"It seems to me, RTLinux is a fine system with great potential when thought
of as an open-source project. I'm not sure it will fare as well when looked
at as a commercial RTOS."

As for my own opinion, please reread my first post. It clearly says that
the current rtlinux patent situation (in its entirety) is a show-stopper
for Linux. Everything I said after that all boils down to explaining this
point of view.

> That dog won't hunt. There are more players in the Linux embedded/RT space
> than RTAI and RTLinux, which you have conveniently overlooked throughout
> this entire thread. Maybe at this time none of them are ready for $300
> IPO pops, but you can't make the argument that "RT is closed to Linux"
> when your only data points are RTAI and RTLinux.

Care to look at the VDC report conducted over 11,000 developers. Result:
the #1 fact inhibiting Linux's adoption in the embedded space is
"real-time limitations."

Don't listen to me, listen to 11,000 developers ...

Karim

===================================================
                 Karim Yaghmour
               [e-mail]
      Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert
===================================================