Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: RTAI/RtLinux | From | Erwin Rol <> | Date | 25 May 2002 18:30:29 +0200 |
| |
On Sat, 2002-05-25 at 18:05, Larry McVoy wrote: > On Sat, May 25, 2002 at 11:05:32AM +0200, Erwin Rol wrote: > > Both Linus and Larry seem to be not very interested in hard-realtime > > Linux additions, this is OK. > > I'm interested in hard realtime. I'm extremely uninterested in changes > to the mainline source base in order to get them. That's exactly why > I like the RT/Linux approach so much, it is the least invasive to the > kernel and - surprise - also has the best performance. >
If you take a look at RTAI's history you will see that RTAI has been using a HAL and a very small kernel patch long before RTLinux started using that.
> If people were to learn that real time and multi-user throughput are > by definition mutually exclusive, I'd be a lot happier. As it is, > we have the SGI/Montevista crowd cramming their stuff into the kernel > and each "little" thing makes the kernel a less pleasant place to be > and brings it one step closer to the point when it gets abandoned > like ever other OS in the history of our field. > > > Also apparently there is the idea that all RTAI developers want to > > become rich by getting the patent out of the way and sell RTAI. > > So the thing I have a problem with is that Victor says that all GPL > is fine. You say you are all GPL. So far, no problem. Yet you keep > coming back and saying there is a problem, that Linux is going to > be out of the running as a real time platform because of the patent. > I don't get it, why should the patent prevent Linux from being used? > All it does is say "if you aren't making money, we aren't making money, > if you are making money, we want a cut". That seems OK to me, in fact, > it seems more than OK. It seems like someone who is trying to help > those who are helping others and charge those who are charging others. > That's smart, that's good. It means that FSMlabs will be here 20 years > from now, still supporting this stuff, whereas all the "we'll survive > off of support" people will have long since gone under.
It is not so OK if you keep in mind that this "if you make money, we want a part of it" is backed by a questionable patent. And if FSMLAbs still will be there in 20 years is not something you or I can predict, they might be bought by some large embedded firm tomorrow and the patent with it, and as far as i understand the patent license this means it is void when that happens.
- Erwin
> -- > --- > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |