Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux

[Stuart Hughes <stuarth@lineo.com>]

Guilherme Nelson F De Souza wrote:
> 
> >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.
> 

No this is not correct.  Paolo had a version for real-time in DOS, later
when Linux came along, he wanted to use it, but did not know the
kernel.  He found RTLinux,  which he freely admits showed him how to do
the kernel patch.  He began using RTLinux and only started his own
project when he found that the features he *needed* to get his projects
work done were not getting into RTL fast enough.  What Paolo is saying
now is that the current RTAI has almost nothing left of the original
RTL, he is not trying to RTL's influence.  



> >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.

See 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'll have to let Paolo answer, but in all the conversations I've had,
he's always said that he owes a lot to Victor.  If you don't believe it,
look at the final comment from his Vienna workshop presentation.


> >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

Fair enough.

> 
> >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?


Why be so emotive.  It is not hard to start another list, but this would
be a pain for the current RTL subscribers as they would have to join
another list to make sure they weren't missing out on important
information about real time and Linux.  

> 
> >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.     :-)
> 

I live in hope that they can merge.  If this were to happen everyone
would benefit.  If we all agree to 'kiss and makeup' I promise to buy
the first round for everyone.

Regards, Stuart