From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 12:30:35 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 12:30:34 -0400 Received: from mailout10.sul.t-online.com ([194.25.134.21]:38098 "EHLO mailout10.sul.t-online.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 12:30:33 -0400 Subject: Re: RTAI/RtLinux From: Erwin Rol To: Larry McVoy Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, RTAI users In-Reply-To: <20020525090537.G28795@work.bitmover.com> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-0/bN7KDIfxqAdRrAEote" X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.5 Date: 25 May 2002 18:30:29 +0200 Message-Id: <1022344229.29849.301.camel@rawpower> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-0/bN7KDIfxqAdRrAEote Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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.=20 >=20 > I'm interested in hard realtime. I'm extremely uninterested in changes=20 > 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. >=20 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. =20 > If people were to learn that real time and multi-user throughput are=20 > 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=20 > like ever other OS in the history of our field. >=20 > > 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.=20 >=20 > 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 =20 > --=20 > --- > Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover= .com/lm=20 --=-0/bN7KDIfxqAdRrAEote Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQA877wlILu3T9PlUj8RAi2qAJ9vptl13cjFhqFMOfZ5SYcIqmfoJQCeNkCU 68D0wbDRQIHK1gZev5So1vI= =WAj2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-0/bN7KDIfxqAdRrAEote--