Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux

[Stuart Hughes <stuarth@lineo.com>]

yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 

Are you denying that you worked with us and were paid ??


> >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.

But you say all posters have been receiving funding from Lineo.  This is
not true and needs rebutting.  The implication by you is that funding is
their motivation for posting, and the Lineo have been inciting them to
make them.  This is untrue.  If I'm putting words into your mouth I
apologies, but please state what you mean by the posters are all funded
by lineo (is it just your imagination).

> 
> > > 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.
> 

No, we demonstrated a Perl application that interfaced to RTlinux, the
first time we met.  It seems to me that you have a very intermittent
memory.  Like I said before, the one thing I find particularly silly
about this thread is the 'who did what first' content, I have never
participated in that.  As I said before I expect that OSS projects
should use the best of eachothers ideas and code, isn't that what it is
all about (see Linux/freebsd).


> > >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.

What precisely I'd like to know.  


> 
> > >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.
> 

That is not the point.  Of course _np is permissible, but how does that
help in what is supposed to be a portable interface specification ???


> > > 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.

Not true, we dropped mach very early (at least 6 months before we met
you).  Nobody is denying that you used RTLinux as your project name
before we did ??  What happened as I have explained before (when you
took it off list) is that while we were working with you we decided to
make a CD and we all agreed that it would be a good idea to get a
trademark.  We probably did you a favour educating you in the practice
of business, as to my knowledge you had not even thought about tradmarks
at that point.   What I object to is the term sleazy, this implies that
we did something underhand, when you well know that we did it with your
knowledge.


> 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.

Which says something about our integrity, hardly the act of a sleazy
company.

> 
> > 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.

Typical, nobody is claiming any world changing breakthroughs in the
dynamic memory management, but as usual you choose to belittle the work
of others.  How does this help ?? the code you posted is not anything
like the same level of sophistication as that which has been offered by
the dyn_mem package.  At least have the curtesy to acknowledge that it
is a reasonable piece of work, but you just don't agree with it
philosophically, that way nobody has to feel wounded.

> 
> > 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

I agree that was unfair, but you need to take it up with Karim not me. 
Personally I think RTL has improved a lot over the last 6 months and
I've never belittled your work.


> 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.

Who decides ?? I guess you are the judge and jury.

> 
> > 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.

The question is what percentage.  In RTL they make up a significant
proportion and so porting to another system would be very tough.


>        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.

Not true, it is very similar, and porting between the two is simple.  I
agree that it could be useful to make them make completely the same. 
You are right that portability is not a religious issue for me, but
remember the intrinsic RTLinux and RTAI API's never made any claims of
portability.  This meant that somebody could make a clear choice whether
or not they wanted to use them, understanding this limitation.  With the
RTLinux 'POSIX' API, they are let to the belief that it should be
portable and will find out after committing time and resources that
infact the system is no more portable than the original RTL/RTAI API's.


>        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.

That's okay, but it seems misleading to call what you have 'POSIX like',
why not just say that it is composed of some POSIX comformant API's and
some native ?? At least this makes it clear to those who are not that
knowlegeable about POSIX.  I guess that we just have to agree to differ.


>         4. We are engaged in the POSIX standards process and will try to get our
>            extensions in upcoming standards.

That's good news, I hope that you get it in.

> 
> > 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.

What is your implication when you say 'Perhaps "clarity" is not the
issue here', if you think I am hinting about something just ask.  My
meaning is clear,  the point about clarity is whether you are trying to
place further restrictions on GPL code.  Are you or are you not placing
further restrictions on the GPL code ??  

When I have repeatedly asked if your patent was defensive only, I have
never gotten a clear answer, I think people have the right to know what
they are getting into.


Regards, Stuart