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).