Guilherme,
Thank you for you thoughtful response. I respect your point of view,
but I completely disagree.
First and foremost, I don't think that the "wheel" analogy is sufficient
to convey the difference between RTL and RTAI. In my opinion, if you
really want to push the "wheel" analogy to it's limits and apply it to
the current example the story becomes different. In the beginning Michael
and Victor invented RTL, the wheel. Then came Paolo with a lot of good
ideas that he thought would not only make the "wheel" smoother, but
would also add to it a motor and maybe some comfortable seats. I won't
go in the details of what followed, but clearly the creators of the
wheel wanted to be revered and adored and Paolo was too much a free
mind to bow down and obey. So he went his way and taking parts of the
wheel invention, the motor idea and some comfortable seats he
had elaborated on, he created RTAI. With time, people joined in and
built wings around Paolo's frame and added interesting features like
power steering (LXRT) and cruise control (memory management). At the end
of the day, the best image that comes to mind is that RTAI is getting
more and more closer to a shuttle. Granted, it still has wheels, but
it has a couple of extra things ... if you see what I mean. Victor,
on the other hand, complains about the way the RTAI guys designed the
shuttle's wings while he's still designed a turbo-cart. It has turbo,
of course, nobody would deny that, but why would I use a cart when I
can drive a shuttle that will soon incorporate warp drive?
Second, I must admit that we won't even agree on your first wish. I
am extremely glad that there is more than a single RT project for Linux.
Why is that? Well, to be very honest, my reasons are mostly non-technical
(even though I do think that RTAI is technically superior to RTL).
Don't get me wrong, I do think that technical reasoning is important, but
I think that human factors outweigh technical factors when it comes to
discussing the future of a project. Remember, technology isn't made
to serve technology, technology is a tool made by humans to find solutions
to human problems. This is even more important in this case since we are
talking about open-source software distributed under licensees written
by the free software foundation who's founder, Richard Stallman, is an
adamant defender of human freedoms. Therefore, for me, the type of
discussion taking place has a very important place in this type of forum.
Third, comparing Victor to Linus is very unfair to Linus:
1) Linus never founded a company who's only goal was to sell commercially
closed versions of Linux.
2) Linus never acquired a patent for Linux.
3) Linus never attributed code to a company he had founded and has always
been very inclined to recognize that he hasn't done much of it, but that
most of the ideas come from outside.
Ergo, from my perspective, Linus and Victor are completely different in
their goals, motivations and methods.
Understand that this is my opinion, regardless of Paolo's public statements,
and anyone else's for that matter. But I think that if you look clearly
at the record, my version of things isn't that far off the mark. And, in
my not so humble opinion, I am certain that the future will confirm my view.
As they say, we are mature adults, and we agree to disagree.
Respectfully yours,
Karim Yaghmour
Guilherme Nelson F De Souza wrote:
>
> Karim,
>
> First, I want to apologize for keeping this discussion going on.
> I think the purpose of this list is not for people to do their laundry.
> However, if I insist on this and even brought it up again yesterday, is
> because I had hoped that we could have one single RT Linux by this
> time (it's been a while since this kind of "unification" was first
> suggested).
>
> Second, I never meant to say that the RTAI people, Paolo included,
> haven't contributed in spreading, improving, debugging, or even making
> smoother this "wheel". What I can't accept is his denial that he and
> the RTAI group based their system on Michael and Victor's RTLinux. Not
> to mention that they took advantage of RTLinux popularity to trail their
> system, which would initially "remain an in house effort based on our
> in house needs, and on our amusement in developing it" (in Paolo's own
> words), on the RTLinux's wagon. And now, they "spit on their own food".
> Have you ever seen the first version of Linux, by Linus? It could
> be printed out on a few sheets of paper. Have you seen how many lines of
> code the current kernel has? Nevertheless, the system is still called
> Linux, and there is no one that can go without recognizing the talent,
> intelligence, courage, open mind, and pioneer spirit of Linus.
>
> Unfortunately, I think that *you* got it upside down. Because you
> see it as "Paolo and all the other RTAI developers ... have been very
> keen to recognize the contributions of RTL", but what Paolo really says
> is "Clearly RTAI has reinvented the wheel as it was already in use with
> DOS, using APIs found elswhere, but not in RTL".
> I wish I had saved old emails from when Paolo's memory was actually
> keen and he admitted the contributions from RTLinux. It seems that a few
> things in life do have the power to erase our memories.
>
> Again, I apologize for this non-technical outburst. Maybe I was
> too naive to believe that the unification was possible and RT people
> could do the same that was done to Linux itself. After all, humans
> cannot overcome human nature. ;-)
>
> Hats on for all of us. ;-)
>
>
> gnd
>
>
>
> >From: Karim Yaghmour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Subject: Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux
> >Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 07:03:34 -0400
> >
> >
> >I'm sorry to say this, but you got this all upside down. Paolo and
> >all the other RTAI developers, for that matter, have been very keen to
> >recognize the contributions of RTL. The contrary, though, is not
> >true. RTL developers have strived very hard to demonstrate that RTAI
> >"features" are, at best, trivial to implement and, at worst, technically
> >deficient. Now, these guys can go on believing what they which, and so
> >can you, but from where I stand, I don't see any reason why anyone would
> >choose RTL over RTAI, because of the feature-rich nature of RTAI. By this
> >I mean that there are things possible in RTAI which aren't possible in RTL,
> >least of them enabling a normal Linux process to become hard-RT, which,
> >for me at least, deserves a Nobel by itself. Actually some of the
> >contributions of RTAI are so fundemental that it doesn't make sense to
> >see those as "small contributions". In that sense, having to state
> >the name of RTL as a mantra every time one writes new features for RTAI
> >would be like having to chant a song in recognition to the glories of Donald
> >Knuth every time you wrote an algorithm. Seriously, I applaud the wisdom of
> >the RTAI guys for having recognized that RTL was a dead-end and having the
> >guts to go against the wind, as you so well put it, to answer their true
> >calling, technical excellence.
> >
> >Hats off for the RTAI guys!
> >
> >Karim
>
> -------------< G. N. DeSouza >-------------
> ---------< [EMAIL PROTECTED]>---------
> --< http://rvl1.ecn.purdue.edu/~gnelson >--
--
===================================================
Karim Yaghmour
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Operating System Consultant
(Linux kernel, real-time and distributed systems)
===================================================
-- [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/
