[lkml]   [2002]   [May]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: RTAI/RtLinux
    On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 18:05, 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 you take a look at RTAI's history you will see that RTAI has been
    using a HAL and a very small kernel patch long before RTLinux started
    using that.

    > 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
    > 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.
    > > Also apparently there is the idea that all RTAI developers want to
    > > become rich by getting the patent out of the way and sell RTAI.
    > So the thing I have a problem with is that Victor says that all GPL
    > is fine. You say you are all GPL. So far, no problem. Yet you keep
    > coming back and saying there is a problem, that Linux is going to
    > be out of the running as a real time platform because of the patent.
    > I don't get it, why should the patent prevent Linux from being used?
    > All it does is say "if you aren't making money, we aren't making money,
    > if you are making money, we want a cut". That seems OK to me, in fact,
    > it seems more than OK. It seems like someone who is trying to help
    > those who are helping others and charge those who are charging others.
    > That's smart, that's good. It means that FSMlabs will be here 20 years
    > from now, still supporting this stuff, whereas all the "we'll survive
    > off of support" people will have long since gone under.

    It is not so OK if you keep in mind that this "if you make money, we
    want a part of it" is backed by a questionable patent. And if FSMLAbs
    still will be there in 20 years is not something you or I can predict,
    they might be bought by some large embedded firm tomorrow and the patent
    with it, and as far as i understand the patent license this means it is
    void when that happens.

    - Erwin

    > --
    > ---
    > Larry McVoy lm at

    [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:26    [W:0.025 / U:6.328 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site