Linux is not reliable enough because ...

[Jerry Davis]

On Sunday 16 May 2004 10:52 am, Phil Mattison wrote:
> Alexander,
>   I also have worked on real-time redundant systems and I think you make
> a good point. But I would add that we really don't know what the user's
> strategy is in adopting Linux. Since the Linux kernel is pretty well
> documented
> you can take it apart and put it back together again with whatever
> improvements
> you want. Linux seems to have a fairly clean scheduler, which is the core
> of any real-time multi-task OS. For those reasons it could be preferable
> to a commercial OS such as WindRiver or the like since they have
> proprietary kernels. I don't think its necessarily a bad strategy if they
> have the right expertise.

The last time I worked with Real Time was in the 80's with RSX--11S and M
also RT-11 earlier than that.

These are the only real-time opsys's that I worked with. I remember being 
project lead on a RSX-11S project where I wrote an MS-1553B interface.
On a PDP-11/23+ after about 3 years, I got it to maintain 2500 interrupts per 
second. I can't imagine what Today's processors would do. Is the Linux kernel 
with today's processors really THAT bad? But again, the PDP-11 was designed 
with interrupts in mind. I don't know how latent the Intel processors are.

Jerry

>
> _snip_
> I know a bit about what he's talking about, as I programmed aviation
> systems for Honeywell's small jet autopilots.
> _snip_
> --
> Phil Mattison
> Ohmikron Corp.
> 480-722-9595 ext. 1
> 602-820-9452 mobile
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> PLUG-devel mailing list  -  PLUG-devel@lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-devel

-- 
Registered Linux User: 275424
Today's Fortune: Be valiant, but not too venturous.
Let thy attire be comely, but not costly.
		-- John Lyly