Hi All,
I think we all need to get it in perspective. The article may have been
misleading, but I don't think there was any foul by Cygnus.
EL/IX is merely an API specification, it has nothing to do with the
implementation of realtime. Basically it is a collection of standard
POSIX/ISO/BSD/SYSV standards and they say for a small system, set X
should apply and for a bigger system another set should apply. It is
similar in nature to the POSIX profiles, except you can get a copy free
(money).
At Vienna, I think we all agreed that it would be better if there was
some common API for realtime based on NMTv1/RTAI, which are very
similar. This is merely a mechanism that will help application
programmers maintain a common source tree for code that has its roots in
the original NMTv1/RTAI API. It is not meant to dictate how RTL/RTAI
implement their realtime extensions.
Also I think that there is no problem supporting EL/IX as *another* API
for systems that want to be portable although this will be a difficult
and longer term project. In no way should it be a replacement for what
has gone before, or what is currently available.
Regards, Stuart.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >From the EETimes article that started this thread......
>
> "Among the workshop's goals was to select one API for future real-time Linux
> efforts, hoping to preempt any fragmentation of the OS.
> But attendees were happy with presentations by representatives from Cygnus
> (Sunnyvale, Calif.),
> and gravitated toward EL/IX as the basis for such an API."
>
> What the hel_ is "fragmentation of the OS?"
>
> Victor, you can't get your patent soon enough!!!!!
>
> Ray Minich
