From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,be0ffa00e7ee1ac6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-05-06 19:22:45 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!opentransit.net!proxad.net!news-hub.cableinet.net!blueyonder!internal-news-hub.cableinet.net!news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail From: Nick Roberts Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why not MaRTE was Re: An OS in Ada, why not RTEMS ? Message-ID: <1103_1020738153@news.blueyonder.co.uk> References: <3CCE5AB0.D02EA0A4@icn.siemens.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" User-Agent: Opera/6.01 (Windows 95; U) [en] Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 02:22:33 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 62.30.113.100 X-Complaints-To: abuse@blueyonder.co.uk X-Trace: news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk 1020738163 62.30.113.100 (Tue, 07 May 2002 03:22:43 BST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 03:22:43 BST Organization: blueyonder (post doesn't reflect views of blueyonder) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:23613 Date: 2002-05-07T02:22:33+00:00 List-Id: On Tue, 30 Apr 2002 10:49:52 +0200, Alfred Hilscher wrote: > > I have had time to "revisit" the EduOs-Ada > > project and during much needed research run > > accross RTEMS. > > > > A brief look at the RTEMS specs would suggest > > that RTEMS either meets most of the needs > > discussed in 2 or 3 years (at least) of threads > > in cla or is capable of supporting those needs. > > > > I am wondering why the contributors to the said > > threads do not regard RTEMS as a suitable OS to > > adopt as a platform for playing with ? > > > > Any insights appreciated, thanks. Alfred, If you are talking about the requirements for AdaOS (and I'm not at all sure you are), then (to my mind) RTEMS falls short of far too many of our requirements. Chiefly, RTEMS has absoloutely no security provision. Following from that, it has no provision for (enforced) resource management, and all the many concomitant facilities. In my detailed evaluation of RTEMS, I didn't get much further than that. There did appear to be a number of other flaws and deficiencies. RTEMS may be excellent as a real-time OS/RTS, but I think for AdaOS purposes, it's a dead duck. There are some requirements of the AdaOS kernel which, it needs to be appreciated, all or most existing microkernels/RTOSes will not vaguely meet. For example, AdaOS will be distributed, supporting the arbitrary migration of most processes between workstations; that requires a very special set of kernel characteristics for a start. I repeat, all the foregoing applies ONLY IF Alfred was referring to AdaOS at all. -- Nick Roberts