Re: ADA os talk

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

Just because a good example does not exist doesn't mean that it can't be
done. I don't really know of a good example or what constitutes "good". I
know that there are add-on products for WinNT that basically run WinNT as a
lower priority process, giving it whatever time is left over from the
realtime mode. I know that there are realtime versions of Linux that are
used in a variety of applications, but I don't know that they are
"Workstation" applications running with realtime Linux on them. I know there
were a variety of modified Unix implementations that claimed to be usable in
realtime. I know of apps built on top of those sorts of things that would
let you run some variety of user apps while the realtime process was
monitoring some time-sensitive devices. Maybe you got performance
degradation if the realtime app needed lots of time, but not any more so
than one would expect and when the realtime process was finished or wasn't
there at all, there was no perceivable hit.

So I know that it is possible to put something together that would
effectively say "If one or more processes have been started in 'Realtime'
mode, I'll give them top priority and guaranteed latency on things like
interrupts, etc. Everything else runs in 'User' mode and gets timesliced or
whatever other algorithm I feel like running." I think if an OS had that as
a built-in concept within its scheduler instead of some kind of add-on hack,
it might possibly find a whole class of developers who would be tempted to
use it because nothing else quite fits the niche as nicely. If it genuinely
had that versatility and an Ada-ish feel to everything down deep in the
bowels of the system, it would be offering something that just plain doesn't
exist now and might find a bunch of potential users as a result. Its bold.
Its daring. Its different. It might succeed.

As for standing around talking about it, I might agree to a point. Its
better to start down some line of inquiry and say "How about building
something that looks kind of like this..." with some concrete example or at
least a design to throw darts at. But it would be foolish to charge off and
start hacking some lines of code with no clue as to what the ultimate
objective is. I think the original post was throwing out an idea to see if
there was any interest in persuing it. Some interest has been registered.
Has there been enough discussion to see if there is any consensus as to what
ought to be the end product? Not sure yet. Maybe its just another debating
society. But there's nothing wrong with a little "Market Research" before
engaging in "Product Development".

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"David Starner" <dvdeug@x8b4e53cd.dhcp.okstate.edu> wrote in message
news:9me6q4$aai1@news.cis.okstate.edu...
>
> Are there any good examples of desktop OS's with good realtime
> capabilities? Hybrids always show favortism towards one side or the
> other, sometimes to the point of unusability to the stepchild.
>
> You know, if anyone of us were really serious about this, we probably
> could have taken the time wasted in this thread and actually wrote
> some code, or at least some detailed design outlines.
>