Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux

[Stuart Hughes <stuarth@lineo.com>]

Guilherme Nelson F De Souza wrote:
> 
> >Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 01:48:04 +0100
> >From: Stuart Hughes <stuarth@lineo.com>
> >Subject: Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux
> >
> >I would agree except for the fact that discussion that start in public
> >should stay in public.  It seems a common tactic to take a discussion
> >off the list when things start going away from the protagonists.
> 
>   Stuart, I have to disagree. Some times, people want to take it to
> the private side just because they think that this kind of discussion
> doesn't belong in the list (I've just done that, this message is just
> for those more active in this thread and for rtl-advocacy).
>   Most times, it's much better if people do all their laundry priva-
> tely, "kill" each other, and settle down their differences for later
> on, go back to the list with a consensus that would strengthen the
> community, rather than create divisions.
>   For that, and for many other reasons that don't matter now, I still
> think that a private email is private.


I think that your position is valid, but I don't agree.  A private email
to me is one that starts and continues in a private context.  The reason
I don't like discussions starting public and ending private is that many
people may be actively folloing the thread and then wonder if there was
any conclusion to the discussion.  This to me seems to be unfairly
excluding.  Anyhow, I guess we just have to agree to differ on this one.


> 
> >Go to http://www.rtai.org/ and read the history of RTAI.  You'll find
> >that you're wrong.  It is clear that RTAI was inspired by RTLinux, but
> >as time has gone on, the approaches have differed.  Personally I think
> >both approaches are valid and it's up to users to decide which one they
> >want to use.
> 
>    But that's exactly my point since the beginning. But it seems that
> Paolo don't want to admit that anymore. 

I think you're mistaken.  Paolo would be the first to acknowledge the
origins and debt that he owes to the RTL team.  What he is saying now is
that there remains almost nothing of the original RTL code.  This is
more a process of parallel evolution rather than any subversive attempt
to re-write history.


>That is what upsets me, and that
> is what I meant by "spitting in the wind, or on his own plate(food)".
>    I never met Victor or Michael, and exchange only two or three private
> emails with Victor, all yesterday. But I believe that most of their
> indignation towards Paolo comes from Paolo's attempt to deny that fact. I
> would be furious too if someone took my idea, used it, and later, said
> that it was his idea.

He has never said that.

> Even if the idea was improved and implemented in
> a different way as you say. It's still MY idea. (look at the airplanes.
> Do they resemble the first one by the Wright brothers? 

There is nothing new in software.  That is why in most places in the
world they do not allow software patents.  By the same token of your
argument Victor should continually refer to MERT and the other
influences that let him and Michael to their project.  I don't think so,
it has been acknowledged and that is enough.

Like I said before, nobody is trying to deny the past.

>Yet, everyone
> recognizes them as the fathers of the airplane).  (I am not trying to
> compare Victor and Michael to the Wright brothers or to Linus, as I was
> accused of. But an idea is an idea. And if it was good enough for one to
> copy it, it should be good enough for one to recognize its parenthood).

It has been recognised and continues to be recognised.

> 
> >Let's not do that or we'll end up with endless cross-posts.  Anyone who
> >doesn't like a message should just get heavy with the delete button.
> 
>    I've heard that kind of argument about junk email many times, but I
> still can't agree with it. 

I don't think this discussion falls into the category of junk.  The fact
that people seem to have reacted so violently means that it is probably
an issue that RTL/RTAI people care about.


> 
> >So people know what's available.  Even if you don't believe it, I
> >suspect both sides take code from each other, which is actually what GPL
> >is supposed to be about.  If there had not been this rivalry, do you
> >think that either projects would have progressed as fast in the last
> >year ???
> 
>    I believe that the progress comes from the simple existance of both
> systems. Not from the endless discussion of who did what. RTAI is a
> "threat" and a stimulus to RTLinux as much as the other way around. And
> that won't end if the lists are separated.

I agree that it is pointless to argue who did what, because I truely
believe that both sides think they are right.  Also I suspect that if
you look into it, you'll find that every single 'new feature' has been
done before in one for or another.

I do think that separating the lists would be a mistake as there is a
lot of common ground e.g:

COMEDI
common_api
rtai_rtl_fifos
rtnet
rt-com


>    I prefer RTLinux for I recognize a greater authority by Victor and
> Michael when it comes to formal computer science concepts and unders-
> tanding, but other people prefer RTAI for its populistic approach to
> attack every problem that the user requests from within the OS. (Ok,
> that last sentence was biased, but that's still the truth) The fact
> is that separating the lists won't make people change their minds, but
> will focus the discussions to what really matter.
> 

There is no absolute truth and your perception is as valid as anyone
elses.  I happen to disagree, but that is not important.  I respect that
your view is different to mine.


> >Too many list...
> 
>    You can always hit the delete buttom. Remember?   ;-)

got me there :-)

Regards, Stuart