Mark Mielke wrote:
> I like the idea of Adeos, and nanokernels. I like the idea of RT, and
> I like the fact that the Open Source community is interested in all of
> these topics. It means that solutions such as VxWorks now have real
> competition, and they will be forced to make their large price tag
> purchase real value for customers, or customers will shop elsewhere.
>
I'm also not against such approaches.
As I worked for QNX I liked to provoke my Canadian coworkers
with arguments like: RTLinux is able to swap - not bad for a hack ;-)
http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=378b7d25%240%24199%40nntp1.ba.best.com&output=gplain
> Just... an .mp3 player for a desktop environment? This is a
> joke. Maybe the RTOS can perform my compiles too? That way will be
> able to accurately predict how long it will take to compile
> linux-2.4.18 each and every time.
When talking about hard realtime it's all about worst case
considerations. Average does not count (then you are talking about
*soft realtime* -> like multimedia apps, where only the quality counts).
So you could only tell how long your compile lasts at *maximum*
As I said before: the OS is only the foundation for realtime *systems*
>
> Summary: Linux + RTOS should never become VxWorks.
>
Yes, given that vxworks is more like a realtime executive
(but this seems to change: only true when running without VxVMI? )
http://www.windriver.com/products/html/vxwks5x_ds.html
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 07 2002 - 22:00:27 EST