Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread | Date | Mon, 13 Jun 2005 18:43:18 -0400 | From | "Saksena, Manas" <> |
| |
Bill Huey (hui) wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:20:10PM -0400, Saksena, Manas wrote: >> Keep in mind that Linux has been making inroads into traditional RTOS >> markets for 4+ years. RTOSes have been used in many devices and >> systems -- many of which do not need the "ruby/diamond" hard variety >> of real-time -- preempt-rt would be hard-enough for a very large >> number of devices/systems that currently use an RTOS (or non mainline >> Linux kernel). > > It's better to use different terminology. The notion of real time is > *not* a single dimensional vector that is either "more" or "less" > than of any particular thing. It's much more complicated than that.
I agree. But, I thought that it is better than soft/hard dichotomy of real-time, which makes even less sense in reality. Or, worse the dichotomy of non real-time and real-time -- which is the point I was trying to make. And, even though, in practice we talk about real-time operating systems vs non real-time operating systems -- the difference is not that fundamental as some would like to believe.
Manas - 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/
| |