> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ about RTLinux's POSIX compliance...]
On Thu, 31 Aug 2000, Paolo Mantegazza wrote:
[ about RTAI's POSIX compliance...]
> Apart from the fact that Steve's package cannot run with RTL, but only
> with RTAI, from my limited tests experience with Steve's POSIX the above
> seems a quite unfair statement.
> In fact thank to Steve's package RTAI has POSIX, for those that needs
> and wants to use it, with as much determinism as RTL, along with
> "simplicity, coherence, programmer familiarity", to say the least.
This thread is very interesting: under ``pressure'' of the news group
both Victor and Paolo seem to release much more information than I
could find on the webpages or in the source of both real-time Linux
forks :-)
However, the discussion reminds me of some other holy wars (KDE-GNOME;
NT-Linux; vi(m)-emacs; ...), which means that they focus on the
differences, instead of on the commonalities. I would say the current
POSIX-efforts of both projects bring them closer together again. After
all, the major aim of POSIX was to bring ``simplicity, coherence,
programmer familiarity'', wasn't it? :-)
But do these POSIX efforts achieve what the common API initiative
wanted to achieve in the first place, or is this something completely
different?
Another thing: if Victor is right about the fact that POSIX doesn't
specify which signals can or should be used, then (i) we cannot blame
him for using this option, (ii) the ``error'' lies with the POSIX
organisation, (iii) both RTAI and RTLinux are POSIX compliant.
Or am I overlooking some facts here...
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ph.D.) Fax: +32-(0)16-32 29 87
Dept. Mechanical Eng., Div. PMA, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium
Real Time and Embedded HOWTO:
<http://www.mech.kuleuven.ac.be/~bruyninc/rthowto>
-- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/rtlinux/
