Re: [rtl-advocacy] Re: [rtl] RTAI and RTLinux

[Stuart Hughes <stuarth@lineo.com>]

yodaiken@fsmlabs.com wrote:
> 
> 
> > > > > >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.
> 
> So tell me: Lineo is not funding RTAI development? When Steve worked with
> Pierre, as recounted recently by our friend Paolo, he was doing this
> on his own time? If not, then: Pierre and Paolo's projects
> depend on Lineo funding, Karim gets funding , ...

Believe it or not not everyone insists on payment for GPL work.  Paolo
and Pierre have not been paid by Lineo.  They have not been hired to
work on RTAI, it is Paolo's project and for many reasons we, other
companies and individuals have decided to work with him to improve it.

As far as Karim goes, if you go to his web site and look at the press
release for LTT, you will see that he says that the RTAI-LTT version was
sponsored by Lineo.  This is no secret, Karim is a world class developer
and if we are fortunate we'll get to work with him on more projects.

If we do choose in the future to fund any individual in the future, I'd
be grateful if you wouldn't question their integrity by trying to
correlate the fact that they post information to to the lists you don't
like with the fact they are associated with Lineo.  It is a cheap shot
and not what I'd expect from you.  These guys speak for themselves and I
have no control over what they say.  


> 
> > still maintain that use of the term POSIX (Portable Operating System
> > Interface X) does imply portability, this has always been my point.  I
> 
> I think you are being mislead by the name.

Possibly, but my understand was that POSIX came into existence to solve
the fragmentation of the various flavours of UNIX (SunOS, Ultrix, HPUX
etc) by providing common portable API for UNIX.  It seems to me that
portability is one of the main goals of POSIX.

> 
> > > > 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.
> 
> Agreement is not allowed on this list.
> 

Does this mean I'm back on your Christmas card list again ???

Regards, Stuart.