Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!lll-lcc!ptsfa!ihnp4!cbosgd!cwruecmp!hal!oxtrap!rich
From: rich@oxtrap.UUCP (K. Richard Magill)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: real-time Unix Systems
Message-ID: <318@oxtrap.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Aug-87 20:35:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: oxtrap.318
Posted: Fri Aug 21 20:35:23 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 11:38:51 EDT
References: <2663@bobkat.UUCP> <1678@leadsv.UUCP> <8050@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: rich@oxtrap.UUCP (K. Richard Magill)
Distribution: na
Organization: Oxford TP, Ann Arbor
Lines: 16

In article <8050@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>In article <1678@leadsv.UUCP> rick@leadsv.UUCP (Rick Schneider) writes:
>>Real-time and Unix are, like army and intellegence, mutually exclusive
>>terms!
>A base canard.
>Seriously, real-time and full-blown-operating-system have a tendency
>to be, at least, mutually combative, but like most operating systems,
>if you work at it, you can get Unix out of the way, too.

I beg to differ.

On our Sequent Balance 8000 (with 6 nsc32032's (@10Mhz)), I can lock a
process on a processor and tell the scheduler to leave me alone.  What
can be more real-time?

K. Richard Magill	"lies keep people happy" - I94 west of detroit