Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux

[Guilherme Nelson F De Souza <gnelson@ecn.purdue.edu>]

>Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 16:13:48 +0100
>From: Stuart Hughes <stuarth@lineo.com>
>Subject: Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux
>
>...
>
>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.


  Maybe you didn't follow this thread from the beginning, because
Paolo's very first reponse to all this was:
   "Clearly RTAI has reinvented the wheel as it was already in use 
    with DOS, using APIs found elswhere, but not in RTL."
  If he thinks that RTAI was in use with DOS, it's obvious his denial
that RTAI was at all originated from RTL. Unless, maybe, people in 
this list are getting used too much to say things and later try to 
make it look as if they didn't.


>He has never said that.
>...
>Like I said before, nobody is trying to deny the past.


   So you should try to explain to me what he meant by what he said 
above.


>It has been recognised and continues to be recognised.


   We are definitely reading two different threads. You may have
recognized, Karim may have recognized, but not those who should.
At least, not anymore. Their pride grew too big.


>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.


   Well, what one defines as junk may not be the same for everyone.
I, for one, would rather seeing only technical discussions going on in 
rtl@rtlinux


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


   Again, I disagree. I believe that some people don't want the list
separated because they would miss the wagon that they have been using
to promote their own system. In other words, if RTAI is so much better
than RTLinux, and so much different (from its birth), why don't they
create (or maintain, since it already exists) their own list? Why do 
they need to submit themselves (and all of us) to all this trouble if 
their system is so much supperior? It could survive by its own, couldn't
it?


>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.


   Stuart, I certainly agree with "there is no absolute truth". As
I agree when you said above that each side thinks that it's right.
As I said before, I prefer RTLinux way, but as you also said, this is
not important. What is important is that people need to realize that
there is and there will never be consensus. So why bother keeping this
list together? Let's respect each other's point of view, let's go on 
with our developments (applications or system), but let's get "divorced".
It's only hurting the kids.     :-)    


>Regards, Stuart

  
   best,

       guilherme




           -------------< G. N. DeSouza >-------------
           ---------< gnelson@ecn.purdue.edu>---------
           --< http://rvl1.ecn.purdue.edu/~gnelson >--