RE: Attempted summary of "RT patch acceptance" thread

["Saksena, Manas" <Manas.Saksena@timesys.com>]

Bill Huey (hui) wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 06:20:10PM -0400, Saksena, Manas wrote:
>> Keep in mind that Linux has been making inroads into traditional RTOS
>> markets for 4+ years. RTOSes have been used in many devices and
>> systems -- many of which do not need the "ruby/diamond" hard variety
>> of real-time -- preempt-rt would be hard-enough for a very large
>> number of devices/systems that currently use an RTOS (or non mainline
>> Linux kernel).
> 
> It's better to use different terminology. The notion of real time is
> *not* a single dimensional vector that is either "more" or "less"
> than of any particular thing. It's much more complicated than that.  

I agree. But, I thought that it is better than soft/hard dichotomy
of real-time, which makes even less sense in reality. Or, worse the
dichotomy of non real-time and real-time -- which is the point I was
trying to make. And, even though, in practice we talk about real-time
operating systems vs non real-time operating systems -- the difference
is not that fundamental as some would like to believe. 

Manas
-
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/