Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 08 Jun 2005 12:51:05 -0400 | From | Karim Yaghmour <> | Subject | Re: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread |
| |
Paul,
I've finished reading your summary and I must say that it's excellent. I don't remember ever reading a non-partisan comparison of this level on the issue of real-time and Linux. Thanks for writing _and_ having the guts to post it :)
There is only one issue I would like to further highlight.
Note: None of the following should be in any way controversial, I'm just providing further background.
Paul E. McKenney wrote: > the corresponding approach's strengths and weaknesses. I do not address > "strength of community", even though this may well be the decisive factor.
Indeed what you state here is entirely true. While Adeos and RTAI development has been very active for quite a few years now, it must be said that this development has largely gone unnoticed to LKML participants -- as was obvious by the amount of surprise caused by the realization of the existence of key Adeos and RTAI features.
Part of this is historical. 10 years ago, Linux's state was such that those who were interested in doing rt with it realized that it wasn't about to become rt-capable any time soon. Hence, they "went away" and did their own little thing. They had their mailing lists, their own flame-wars, their own conferences, and there was very little common shared with the mainstream LKML community.
In fact, for a very long time, most kernel developers I spoke to about real-time would refer back to a single project, RTLinux. To this day, actually, if you look in the MAINTAINERS file, it still says: > RTLINUX REALTIME LINUX > P: Victor Yodaiken > M: yodaiken@fsmlabs.com > L: rtl@rtlinux.org > W: www.rtlinux.org > S: Maintained Yet, the days where RTLinux was _the_ real-time Linux extension are long gone and www.rtlinux.org has been a redirect to a .com site for quite some time now -- I've suggested in the past that this entry be replaced by RTAI, but I was told that neither should in fact be in there, which is fair-enough, but nothing came of this suggestion and the entry is still in the maintainers file.
This state of things remained until May 2002 when I picked up on a post by Andrea to point out a "few" problems the RTAI community saw with the RTLinux project. The ensuing thread was remarkably intense -- not for the faint of heart. Here's the root of it if you're ever interested in reading a huge flame-fest: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=102227589127072&w=2 While that discussion did serve to put RTAI on the map for some developers, it also highlighted problems with the RTAI project that needed to be solved.
Part of the issues was the patent problem, and that was solved with the introduction of Adeos. However, with this and other problems solved, the RTAI developers went back the way they came from: to their own separate mailing lists.
In the past few years, though, a new bread of real-time developers have become interested in making Linux fit for real-time applications. Unlike the previous generation, though, these folks have concentrated their efforts on working within the framework already agreed upon by existing kernel developers: the LKML. And in that, they have achieved a level of awareness amongst the kernel crowd that I think RTAI and Adeos have not yet reached.
I've tried to remedy to this situation as best I can, by pointing out what was obvious to me when appropriate. However, it must be said that I haven't been actively involved with either Adeos or RTAI in quite some time. So while I did play a part in the history of both projects, there are others that are in a much better position than I am to present to the LKML the work done by the RTAI and Adeos communities.
In essence, therefore, what I have to say is this: - To those who are actively involved in the development of RTAI and Adeos, now is the time to drop the historical tendency of acting as an entirely separate community and to start sharing your work on the LKML. - To those who are actively involved in finding solutions to the real-time issues in Linux, do not be fooled by the apparent lack of activity in the Adeos or RTAI projects, they are both very active and warrant consideration.
As you correctly state, "strength of community" is likely a decisive factor. What is important here is not to confuse "apparent" strength of community -- or lack thereof -- with "actual" strength of community -- or lack thereof.
Thanks again for a great piece.
Karim Yaghmour -- Author, Speaker, Developer, Consultant Pushing Embedded and Real-Time Linux Systems Beyond the Limits http://www.opersys.com || karim@opersys.com || 1-866-677-4546 - 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/
| |