Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux

[yodaiken@fsmlabs.com]

On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 03:54:08PM +0100, Stuart Hughes wrote:
> That's a little unfair.  The fact is that you have received significant
> funding from Zentropix;

Really?  Did the check get lost in the mail? I did consult for Zentropix
at one time, but you know very well the circumstances under which that
ended.

>Paolo and Pierre have never received funding. 
> Do you really that these people are lineo pupets ??? if so that really
> is insulting to them.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never called anyone a puppet.  I don't use
language like that. 


> > You know me and Michael, you have used RTLinux
> > and worked with us before there was an RTAI, you have had many technical
> > discussions with me and I've seen some of the ideas I suggested to you
> > appear, without credit, in Lineo/RTAI announcements. 
> 
> Like what. 

To pick one example: the Perl bindings. I remember quite clearly explaining this
idea to you in Virginia.

> >And yet, when, for
> > example, Karim sends in absolutely hateful posts, filled with material
> > that you know to be false, you have remained silent. 
> 
> I am not in control of Karim or anyone else.  He is free to speak for
> what he believes.  Is anything he has said untrue ??


Of course. And you know it.


> >In fact, you have
> > contributed to this absurd atmosphere yourself. You can't  even
> > disagree with our completely legit extensions to POSIX without asserting
> > that we are trying to deceive our users.
> 
> This is incorrect.  What is not legit about the extensions is that they
> appear to users under the banner of POSIX, which is supposed to be a
> portable API.  My objection is that these extensions have no change of
> being portable as they are not supported elsewhere.

This is entirely nonsense. POSIX defines what are permissable and impermissable
extensions. If you don't like this feature of POSIX, complain to POSIX. If you
don't like use making use of this, complain about that. But when your complaints
go from technical to "you're trying to fool users" you cross a line.


> > My impression is that there is a concerted attempt to
> > to damage my professional reputation and I take this quite seriously.
> > 
> 
> I think you are doing that for yourself.  You insult Lineo at every
> opportunity, calling us sleazy etc.  Also you try to belittle the

What I called sleazy, and I stand by this, is the attempt by Lineo/Zentropix
to trademark "RTLinux" when you and I both know that I used RTLinux as a mark
while you guys were still suffering from Mach.
Create your own products, market it, sell the hell out of it.
I don't care. But trying to take the RTLinux trademark was sleazy. I'm glad
someone there finally had enough sense to withdraw the application.


> progress that has been made technically in RTAI by dismissing it as
> trivial (e.g Dynamic memory: I could do that in half an hour).

Dynamic memory _is_ the work of a half hour in RTLinux: I showed the code for
doing it. Anyone who has seen the RTLinux printk function could figure out how
to call any linux function. Much of the technical disagreement between RTAI RTLinux
is on whether adding easy to add features is good or bad.  You are free to make
the argument that having all those extra features in RTAI is good, but please
don't try to argue that simple changes are deep technical advances. There is 
only one major technical novelty in RTLinux and that is the basic method. The rest
is incremental although we do have some surprises in store.


> BTW:  I think this new advocacy list is just an attempt to hide facts
> from the wider RTL users.  I think they have a right to listen to the
> information and make their own decisions.

Facts? "Facts" like "RTLinux is a dead end"? These are not "facts", they are
appropriate material for an advocacy list.  If you are not
capable of making technical arguments without insults, "humorous" or not, then
I don't need to see your posts on rtl.org.
The new advocacy list is an attempt to enforce what simple good manners and 
business ethics should have given automatically . We have been perfectly happy to allow RTAI posts
on the list, technical arguments, factual statements. What we are no longer
happy to allow is non-technical nonsense or attack posts.

> 1) extensive use of _np posix extensions which have no chance of being
> portable 

Please Stuart. This is a silly argument on many grounds.
       1. Every POSIX system has non portable extensions. Linux included. Some of the
          non-portable RTL extensions are in the X/OPEN extensions to threads which
          are widely used. 
       2. RTAI has a variant of the V1 RTLinux API that is totally 
          nonportable even to RTLinux.  So, obviously, portability is not
          a religious principle for you.
       3. RTLinux is not Chorus. Having a RT operating system send information to a 
          resident subthread that is a general purpose OS is something that cannot be
          portable between Chorus and RTLinux. Therefore,  any RTL API must either 
          give up this functionality or be non-portable. 
        4. We are engaged in the POSIX standards process and will try to get our
           extensions in upcoming standards.

> 2) your lack of clarity on GPL/Patents etc.

I don't know what could be clearer than our consistent use of GPL. 
Perhaps "clarity" is not the issue here. 



-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
Victor Yodaiken 
Finite State Machine Labs: The RTLinux Company.
 www.fsmlabs.com  www.rtlinux.com