> I really Really REALLY would like to see RTL become something other
> than a labratory curiosity. This statement is NOT an insult. It
> is rather a statement of present reality.
I second this idea. I've got an interesting application in mind for RTL in
the avionics department _but_ a cleaner implementation of RTL would make
selling it easier. By cleaner I mean:
1) Documentation.
2) Less like a patch, more like a distribution
3) Debugging tools.
4) Device support (including access to kernel level devices)
5) Better methods of integration between RT and userland code
It doesn't have to be as polished as RTOS's like pSOS, but it does need to
address each of these areas.
>From my perspective it is a catch 22: I could advance some of these
issues, but would have a hard time doing so unless I could sell RTL for a
project, which I can't do until some of these issues are addressed.
Suggestion: Call a period of requirements definition. Appoint a leader,
accept requirement suggestions, settle on a small set of feasable
requirements. Then go after them in a finite (preferably short) period of
time.
Brad
--
Brad Dixon
Georgia Tech Research Institute -- Atlanta, GA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/~rtlinux/
