In my opinion it seems like the *moderators* of these lists are 
passively attempting, or simply playing their respective roles, to keep 
members of the rtlinux community in the dark.

Until Richard Reeve's email earlier today, and consequential remarks, I had 
little clue, but certain suspicions, as to why current kernel patches were 
not being made publicly available.

Most of the rtlinux subscribers do not read the advocacy list, which should 
hopefully change after today, and were not completely aware of the wizardry going on 
behind the curtains.

sincerely,
brent ledvina

On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Keep this on the advocacy list.
> 
> } :-) Warning: advocacy coming! :-)
> } In my opinion, this is not going to work: for the GPL model to work, there 
> } needs to be not just a user community, but a centralized maintainer/developer 
> } (person or group) who is responsible for deciding what goes in, what doesn't, 
> } and who either does much of the work or distributes it out. That was the role 
> } that Victor et al. could be playing, but they don't want to because they are 
> } trying to make a business of it. I don't see anybody else playing that role, 
> } and I think that means the future of OpenRTLinux is bleak.
> } 
> } I would be interested in other people's opinions. I am crossposting to 
> } rtl-advocacy, and I think the discussion probably should move there.
> } 
> } Pablo Alvarez
> } 
> } On Thursday 28 March 2002 08:39, you wrote:
> } > Advocacy, especially advocacy constructed of nonsense is not
> } > acceptable on this list. 
> } > 
> } > On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:25:15AM +0000, Richard Reeve wrote:
> } > > I think RTAI is the solution really. I made the mistake of going with
> } > > RTLinux in the first place because it was better advertised, the only
> } > > problem is finding the time to deal with the changeover. As far as I
> } > > understand there are newer patches for the kernel that fsmlabs won't
> } > > release to us (I would have thought that that was explicitly illegal
> } > > under the kernel's gpl), as they want to make money off them, but I
> } > > may be way off there. Understandable, but the problem for me is as
> } > > that a university researcher trying to get one robot to talk to one
> } > > computer, the only way I could afford the paid version is out of my
> } > > own pocket - not very tempting.
> } > > 
> } > > Cheers,
> } > > 
> } > > Richard Reeve.
> } >
> } -- [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/
> -- [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/
> 
> 


-- [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/

Reply via email to