Re: [ANNOUNCE] Adeos nanokernel for Linux kernel

["Peter Wächtler" <pwaechtler@loewe-komp.de>]

Mark Mielke wrote:
> I like the idea of Adeos, and nanokernels. I like the idea of RT, and
> I like the fact that the Open Source community is interested in all of
> these topics. It means that solutions such as VxWorks now have real
> competition, and they will be forced to make their large price tag
> purchase real value for customers, or customers will shop elsewhere.
> 

I'm also not against such approaches.
As I worked for QNX I liked to provoke my Canadian coworkers
with arguments like: RTLinux is able to swap - not bad for a hack ;-)

http://groups.google.de/groups?selm=378b7d25%240%24199%40nntp1.ba.best.com&output=gplain

> Just... an .mp3 player for a desktop environment? This is a
> joke. Maybe the RTOS can perform my compiles too? That way will be
> able to accurately predict how long it will take to compile
> linux-2.4.18 each and every time.

When talking about hard realtime it's all about worst case
considerations. Average does not count (then you are talking about
*soft realtime* -> like multimedia apps, where only the quality counts).
So you could only tell how long your compile lasts at *maximum*

As I said before: the OS is only the foundation for realtime *systems*
> 
> Summary: Linux + RTOS should never become VxWorks.
> 

Yes, given that vxworks is more like a realtime executive
(but this seems to change: only true when running without VxVMI? )

http://www.windriver.com/products/html/vxwks5x_ds.html