Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!rutgers!gauss.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber From: webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) Newsgroups: comp.os.misc Subject: why rare? [was: Re: Realtime OS's] Keywords: Realtime Message-ID:Date: 4 Jul 88 10:44:42 GMT References: <10450@udenva.cair.du.edu> <8411@pur-ee.UUCP> <797@taux01.UUCP> <11053@sol.ARPA> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 24 In article <11053@sol.ARPA>, ken@cs.rochester.edu (Ken Yap) writes: > Well look, the traffic in this newsgroup is so underwhelming so why not > post the realtime OS stuff here? I guess the first question is: why are realtime OS's rare. Is it really so difficult to modify schedulers to give a certain process a guarenteed slice of cpu, guarenteed memory residence, and perhaps even priority on disk fetches? Of course, my own interests are in being able to do on a Sun the kind of graphics you can do on an IBM PC. This basically means being able to guarentee that certain things will get done in a given 60th of a second time slice. Is this the same neighborhood the ``real'' realtime people are interested in, or do they want finer grain control? --- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) p.s., > I would read it. If there is enough > traffic you can justify another newsgroup. This "we need a newsgroup > before we can have a discussion" is a stale argument. Look what > happened to comp.std.internat and comp.fonts. comp.fonts is a perfectly fine comp.* group. comp.std.internat is as good as any comp.std.* group (definitely a weak branch in the tree).