Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux

[Stuart Hughes <stuarth@lineo.com>]

yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 07:18:40PM +0100, Stuart Hughes wrote:
> > 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 ??
> 
> I'd hardly call it significant.

So now that you acknowledge this, why were you just trying to mislead
people by saying 'did the check get lost in the mail', it is not nice to
do this, it is clearly an attempt to slur our company's name.  

> 
> > > >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
> 
> The fact is that all the posters who have sent in abusive posts are either
> directly receiving money from Lineo or depend on Lineo funding of their
> projects.
> 

Again, this is *not* true.  Where are you getting your information ??? 
Either produce the information or retract the allegation.


> > > > > 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
> 
> Do you want me to dig up emails?

What does that prove ? as you well know we didn't use email to talk to
eachother during meetings.  This is not a productive point as it is
clear that no one can prove it either way.  Lets mutually feel aggrieved
and leave it at that.

> >
> > 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 ???
> 
> As I've said many times, our goal is not portability, it is clarity and
> ease of use. That's why Linux has "writev" a non POSIX extensions, HP has
> the X/OPen extensions ...
> We strive for portability wherever possible, but it's not the totality or
> even the primary interest of POSIX.

OK, at least this is clear.


> > Personally I think RTL has improved a lot over the last 6 months and
> > I've never belittled your work.
> 
> Non fact:
>         > I understand the reason for these non-portable extensions, but they
>         > unique features to RTLinux that lock-in users under the mask of
>         > perceived portability.
> Alternate wording:
>         > I understand the reason for these non-portable extensions, but they
>           have unique features and are not portable.
>           POSIX implies portability.
> or something.

How is this belittling you ?? Now you're putting words into my mouth, I
still maintain that use of the term POSIX (Portable Operating System
Interface X) does imply portability, this has always been my point.  I
do not and will not belittle what you have done, as I have said before I
admire what you and your team have done.


> > The question is what percentage.  In RTL they make up a significant
> > proportion and so porting to another system would be very tough.
> 
> Not tough, impossible. Other systems don't support our programming model. However,
> pthreads programs that don't use our extensions will be portable. To me it's obvious
> that if you use a RTLinux specific feature, you won't be portable.

Great, that is finally what I wanted people to know.  There is
absolutely no problem with this, it just needs to be clear.

Regards, Stuart