BOUNCE rtl@rtlinux.org: Approval required: (fwd)

[Der Herr Hofrat <der.herr@hofr.at>]

>From owner-rtl Mon Aug  6 01:56:15 2001
Received: from thunderbolt.ee.itb.ac.id (thunderbolt.ee.itb.ac.id [167.205.48.115])
	by hq.fsmlabs.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with SMTP id f767rLs11424
	for <rtl@fsmlabs.com>; Mon, 6 Aug 2001 01:53:22 -0600
Received: (qmail 27541 invoked by uid 1433); 6 Aug 2001 07:51:47 -0000
Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1)
  by localhost with SMTP; 6 Aug 2001 07:51:47 -0000
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2001 14:51:47 +0700 (JAVT)
From: Handy Madinata <handy@thunderbolt.ee.itb.ac.id>
To: rtl@fsmlabs.com
Subject: dedicated rtos and coexist kernel realtimelinux
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0108061450520.27501-100000@thunderbolt.ee.itb.ac.id>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

hi all, forgive me for my stupid questions..

does anyone can mention some items that differ an rt system that built
together with a general-purpose host OS (like rtlinux, rtai) with a
dedicated rtos (like qnx, vxworks, spring, maruti, yartos), in case that
now:

- some dedicated rtos can implement a posix compliant environment and they
built their own services (file system, networking, gui) from scratch

- some of them also used microkernel approach that separate
interupt-processing, scheduling, and message-passing development from
other services

more of them, they used 'the safe' MMU memory-protecting mechanism that
can't be found at rtlinux or rtai realtime module-task

and also, I've heard that qnx services except of the microkernel is stayed
at user-space (user-level file-system, drivers) , how could they do that..

thanks beforeward for your kindness..

-=/Handy Madinata\=-

----- End of forwarded message from owner-rtl@fsmlabs.com -----