lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2005]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread
    On Wed, Jun 08, 2005 at 12:51:05PM -0400, Karim Yaghmour wrote:
    >
    > 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 :)

    Thank you for the kind words! But who needs guts when you have
    senility? ;-)

    > 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.

    All good points! I added a few sentences encouraging realtime folks to
    participate in LKML discussions.

    Thanx, Paul

    > 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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-06-09 04:29    [W:4.290 / U:0.508 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site