| ??? 01/13/11 19:06 Read: times |
#180565 - Two Camps Here Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I think there are two camps here.
One group has limited real platform implementation experience and thinks of I/O synchronization as a "real time activity" and thus immediately thinks RTOS (real time operating system). It is also common that members of this class are recently from the academic community and have taken course work in real time computing and application of RTOS implementations. Another group works at a "larger" company where the structure of a project is decided more by managers and architects. These folks very often do not have practical implementation experience and thus immediately leap onto the RTOS bandwagon when any real time computing presents itself. These larger organizations often have the additional budget money to be able to afford to deploy an RTOS such as embedded Linux, VX-Works or others. Michael Karas |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| it just struck me, is this why RTOS 'need' is so prevalent? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Two Camps Here | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Best Practice | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| a similar discussion... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I have always maintained the belief... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "non-arbitrary" ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| "Real" Processing exposed | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Too Specific | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| sweeping generalisation | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| RTOS are very useful | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I think this got away ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Blocking/nonblocking I/O | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Not The only reason | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I considered developer effort | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| code generator | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Another neat feature | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| there is such an attachment ... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lots of tools available | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| not really | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Lots of C tools | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| widespread | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Missed the point! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
Ecosystem | 01/01/70 00:00 |