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 14:34:48 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 14:34:47 -0400 Received: from relay02.valueweb.net ([216.219.253.236]:56328 "EHLO relay02.valueweb.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Sat, 25 May 2002 14:34:45 -0400 Message-ID: <3CEFD8CE.37B28513@opersys.com> Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 14:32:46 -0400 From: Karim Yaghmour X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.75 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.16 i686) X-Accept-Language: en, French/Canada, French/France, fr-FR, fr-CA MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Kurt Wall CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] In-Reply-To: <20020524223950.D22643@work.bitmover.com> <20020525091444.H28795@work.bitmover.com> <3CEFB9C6.FC21D7CB@opersys.com> <20020525134709.L405@marta> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Kurt Wall wrote: > Sorry, I must have lost track of this argument. I thought the point of > contention was the RTLinux patent, which seems pretty clear on the key > issue: if your stuff is GPL, we're GPL; if you make money, we want a slice > of the pie. Now it almost sounds like you're telling us that the real > issue is that you can't make your own Linux-as-nonfree-rtos. Well, I'm not > very smart, so maybe I've misunderstood. Don't take my word for it. Here's an article written by Jerry Epplin in February 2001: http://www.linuxdevices.com/articles/AT2094189920.html He ends his article with the following: "It seems to me, RTLinux is a fine system with great potential when thought of as an open-source project. I'm not sure it will fare as well when looked at as a commercial RTOS." As for my own opinion, please reread my first post. It clearly says that the current rtlinux patent situation (in its entirety) is a show-stopper for Linux. Everything I said after that all boils down to explaining this point of view. > That dog won't hunt. There are more players in the Linux embedded/RT space > than RTAI and RTLinux, which you have conveniently overlooked throughout > this entire thread. Maybe at this time none of them are ready for $300 > IPO pops, but you can't make the argument that "RT is closed to Linux" > when your only data points are RTAI and RTLinux. Care to look at the VDC report conducted over 11,000 developers. Result: the #1 fact inhibiting Linux's adoption in the embedded space is "real-time limitations." Don't listen to me, listen to 11,000 developers ... Karim =================================================== Karim Yaghmour karim@opersys.com Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert ===================================================