Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 30 May 2005 10:33:14 -0600 (MDT) | From | Zwane Mwaikambo <> | Subject | RE: RT patch acceptance |
| |
On Mon, 30 May 2005, kus Kusche Klaus wrote:
> I didn't state that a hard-RT linux is simpler, technically > (however, personally, I believe that once RT linux is there, *our* > job of writing RT applications, device drivers, ... will be simpler > compared to a nanokernel approach).
I can't quite see how, in my experience they involve the same effort, but i guess that's personal opinion.
> I just stated that for the management, with its limited interest and > understanding of deep technical details (and, in our case, with bad > experiences with RT plus non-RT OS solutions), a one-system solution > *sounds* much simpler, easier to understand, and easier to manage. > > Decisions in companies aren't based on purely technical facts, > sometimes not even on rational arguments...
But decisions for the Linux kernel must always be rational and technical. Regarding ease of maintenance, debugging/maintaining an application on a nanokernel (ie isolated) is a lot easier than something as large and complex as the Linux kernel. This also applies for QA and general verification.
> And concerning support: > > * If we go the "pure linux" way, we may (or may not) get help from > the community for our problems (it did work quite well up to now), > or we could buy commercial linux support.
Considering how controlling your management is, i'm surprised you'd stake your business on something as non deterministic as the Linux kernel mailing list.
> * If we go the "nanokernel plus guest linux" way, we will not get > support from the nanokernel company for general linux kernel issues,
I find that hard to believe literally any company which sells you operating system software will be more than willing to provide you support for the supplied components, obviously at a price but they are after all in the business of making money.
> the community help will also be close to zero, because we no > longer have a pure linux system, and the community is not able to > reproduce and analyze our problems any longer (in the same way lkml > is rather unable to help on vendor linux kernels or on tainted > kernels), and the same holds for most companies offering commercial > linux support.
A volunteer supported public forum as a means of handling technical issues for a company doesn't sound like a good idea.
> Hence, w.r.t. support, the nanokernel approach looks much worse.
I can't quite see how you drew that conclusion. The fact is, pay someone and they'll resolve your problems.
Regards, Zwane - 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/
| |