Path: utzoo!attcan!telly!lethe!torsqnt!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!gem.mps.ohio-state.edu!apple!motcsd!hpda!hpcuhb!hp-ses!hpcea!hpldsla!cjames
From: cjames@hpldsla.HP.COM (Craig James)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.hp
Subject: Re: rtprio for X
Message-ID: <3140004@hpldsla.HP.COM>
Date: 20 Sep 89 17:54:59 GMT
References: <5283@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>
Lines: 19

>	Sounds like we come from real time system environments that
>	must have different architectures.  ...
>
> 	Given a good kernel architecture, it's been easy to get real time...
> 	applications to work, even running ALL processes with preemptive
> 	scheduling.  
>
> Paul Raveling
> Raveling@isi.edu

It's hard to see how that is possible with real-time capabilities.
After all, if I start up a process that runs until it explicitely gives up
the CPU, and that process goes into an infinite loop, there is no escape but
to reboot.

Perhaps the system you described didn't provide such abilities?

Craig James, HP Labs
"These are my opinions, not HP's"