Re: a joint letter on low latency and Linux

[Stuart Lynne]

In article <[e-mail]>,
Larry McVoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> You should investigate the problem more deeply before saying
>> "we do not want to port our code" ..
>> 
>> Do you really think that the multimedia driver folks are willing to port
>> hundreds of thousand of lines to the RTLinux model and then mantain 2 sets of
>> APIs to satisfy the realtime multimedia folks ?
>
>This is the same crock of sh*t that MIS directors used against Linux
>itself: "How many machines from Compaq come with Linux installed?"
>
>Of course the standard distributions don't have it, there aren't apps that
>need it yet.  But you get busy and make some whizzy apps that work flawlessly
>under RTLinux to give you great sound and video and watch how fast Red Hat
>ships with RTLinux.  Using the "it isn't shipping yet" argument is wacko -
>the same can be said for every new idea.  If we used your logic, nothing
>new could _ever_ happen.

So in other words RTLinux or RTAI should become the main stream kernel?

>> So why should I use RTLinux which can do 20-50usec when 99.99% of cases can be
>> covered using and userspace app running SCHED_FIFO / mlock()  because most
>> apps do not need <5msec latencies. 
>
>Because RTLinux can give you what you need.
>
>Because it doesn't require you to hack up the kernel.

I guess the kernel is perfect now. We can all go home. 

-- 
                                            __O 
Fireplug - a Lineo company                _-\<,_ 
PGP Fingerprint: 28 E2 A0 15 99 62 9A 00 (_)/ (_) 88 EC A3 EE 2D 1C 15 68
Stuart Lynne <[e-mail]>       www.fireplug.net        604-461-7532