lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRE: RT patch acceptance
    DateMon, 30 May 2005 12:16:34 +0200
    From"kus Kusche Klaus" <>
    > kus Kusche Klaus wrote:
    > > When I was told to analyze whether linux is suitable for our
    > > needs, any nanokernel or two-OS approaches were excluded from the
    > > beginning: Mgmt thought that due to their nature and complexity,
    > > such approaches are not able to offer any improvements w.r.t. what 
    > > we have now. Clearly, "one system and one source" is wanted!
    > 
    > You don't explain how making the Linux kernel hard-RT
    > will be so much simpler and more supportable!
    
    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 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...
    
    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.
    
    * If we go the "nanokernel plus guest linux" way, we will not get 
    support from the nanokernel company for general linux kernel issues, 
    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.
    
    Hence, w.r.t. support, the nanokernel approach looks much worse. 
    
    -- 
    Klaus Kusche                 (Software Development - Control Systems)
    KEBA AG             Gewerbepark Urfahr, A-4041 Linz, Austria (Europe)
    Tel: +43 / 732 / 7090-3120                 Fax: +43 / 732 / 7090-6301
    E-Mail: kus@keba.com                                WWW: www.keba.com
    -
    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/
    
    
    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-05-30 12:20    [from the cache]
    ©2003-2008