I've spent a lot of time (not as much as most) coming to grips with all the versions and changes of RTLinux from ver 0.9 to v3.1 and how it effects what I would like to develop (it in to something).
I would be dishearten to find the $165 I paid for RTLinux 3.0 meant nothing, and I was left out in the cold. Please tell me this is not so. On Thursday 28 March 2002 16:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > In my opinion it seems like the *moderators* of these lists are > passively attempting, or simply playing their respective roles, to keep > members of the rtlinux community in the dark. > > Until Richard Reeve's email earlier today, and consequential remarks, I had > little clue, but certain suspicions, as to why current kernel patches were > not being made publicly available. > > Most of the rtlinux subscribers do not read the advocacy list, which should > hopefully change after today, and were not completely aware of the wizardry > going on behind the curtains. > > sincerely, > brent ledvina > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Keep this on the advocacy list. > > > > } :-) Warning: advocacy coming! :-) > > } In my opinion, this is not going to work: for the GPL model to work, > > there } needs to be not just a user community, but a centralized > > maintainer/developer } (person or group) who is responsible for deciding > > what goes in, what doesn't, } and who either does much of the work or > > distributes it out. That was the role } that Victor et al. could be > > playing, but they don't want to because they are } trying to make a > > business of it. I don't see anybody else playing that role, } and I think > > that means the future of OpenRTLinux is bleak. > > } > > } I would be interested in other people's opinions. I am crossposting to > > } rtl-advocacy, and I think the discussion probably should move there. > > } > > } Pablo Alvarez > > } > > } On Thursday 28 March 2002 08:39, you wrote: > > } > Advocacy, especially advocacy constructed of nonsense is not > > } > acceptable on this list. > > } > > > } > On Thu, Mar 28, 2002 at 09:25:15AM +0000, Richard Reeve wrote: > > } > > I think RTAI is the solution really. I made the mistake of going > > with } > > RTLinux in the first place because it was better advertised, > > the only } > > problem is finding the time to deal with the changeover. > > As far as I } > > understand there are newer patches for the kernel that > > fsmlabs won't } > > release to us (I would have thought that that was > > explicitly illegal } > > under the kernel's gpl), as they want to make > > money off them, but I } > > may be way off there. Understandable, but the > > problem for me is as } > > that a university researcher trying to get one > > robot to talk to one } > > computer, the only way I could afford the paid > > version is out of my } > > own pocket - not very tempting. > > } > > > > } > > Cheers, > > } > > > > } > > Richard Reeve. > > } > > > } -- [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/ > > -- [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/ > > -- [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/ -- [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/
