More Tripoli hypocrisy?

Baudot

Phil Ste>>> OS9 the first multitasking OS? Don't think so.... There was this thing

Phil Stein

There's a big difference between real-time and multitasking. UNIX was never intended to be real-time. Nor Linux. You have to wrap it around a true real-time kernel. One difference being guaranteed latencies and characterized services.

-John

Somebody mark the calendar and break out that old scotch. Woody and I agree on something 100%. :)

There are some real-time Linux projects now. And several "POSIX-compliant" RTOS's. Good selection and many fast cheap platforms. But, very few colleges teach real-time programming. That equals lots of high-paying jobs out there that desktop jockies can't handle.

I spent several years writing 'C' for pSOS+, using their IP/sockets stack on 68K-family processors. My brain still hurts. ;)

-John DeMar NAR #52094

I used to play Star Trek on a Perkin -Elmer IR Spectrophotometer back in the late 70's - early 80's, IIRC. It was a small program that was loaded by the technician that installed the equipment.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

What's a "realtime OS"?? I've never heard of that before. I've heard "realtime" used in regard to other topics but not operating systems.

It is specifically designed to not have as many internal "holding patterns" which are not particularly harmful to such non-critical tasks as email, web, database, etc.

Real-time OS/apps have incoming signals that are processed as they arrive and loss of signal is defined as a "life threatening event", so the whole system is designed around not losing signal (or data packets).

Jerry

An OS that allows determinate response to external stimuli and internal events, and allows time-critical computation and control of external devices. It may be multitasking, or multithreaded, or a simple interrupt-driven single thread program. Processor size doesn't matter.

Some systems may only require 'soft' realtime, where an overall set of events needs to be acted upon within a finite interval but the absolute times they occur are not critical. In 'hard' realtime systems, both the response time and the scheduling are critical. In both cases, the way the system is designed to problems (unexpected events, low resources, failures) is another aspect of realtime system design. A good example is the systems inside the Galileo spacecraft (---> rocketry related content!).

Also, depending on the response time required, the rate at which the events occur, and the complexity of the application, it might not be obvious how to determine what is "good enough". Processor speed doesn't guarantee real-time response... for example, a Windoze OS on a 2GHz machine cannot control your car engine. Or an IP router. Or a heart-lung machine. Or a guided missile system (--> more rocketry related content!). Or a nuclear reactor. Maybe not even a toaster. ;)

-John DeMar NAR #52094

Flashbacks to a prior life. A major effort in real-time UNIX runs a lot of the phone network; LUCENT's RTR UNIX on the 5ESS series of digital switches. The switches have a lot of distributed intelligence to help out (some of those switches have over 100,000 customers on them), but the core OS is RTR UNIX with an interrupt driven "hard" task dispatcher. Call processing, database management, maintenance access; all running on a 68XXX microprocessor.

And the last I knew, Dennis Ritchie was still at Bell Labs.

It wasn't. I just got back from LDRS. The "From the Ground Up" challenge was held on the same range as the ex stuff.

Someone could argue that bank of pads was seperate, but all pads were controlled from the same controller and launched by the same LCO.

Brian Elfert

Hence calvinball. This is NOT about Discovery. it *is* about Tripoli NOT followiong rules it made up to avoid Jerry-factor.

Jerry

Most people are forgetting the reason for the rule about EX and commercial being separate, as far as TRA is concerned. It is for insurance purposes. To be properly covered by TRA's insurance carrier, it must be separate by 12 hours, or on a separate field/launch.

From what I understand, the First TV folks had their own insurance in effect so that they could pull this off for the competetion.

Mike Fisher Binder Design

But the mere fact of the event happening as it did invalidated the insurance at the main site simply because it violates the rule on which underwriting occured and the policy was issued (if any).

Jerry

Therefore all the insurance charges and surcharges should be refunded.

To assume that TRA ddin't cover their bases prior to this event is jumping to conclusions.

Mike F.

Likely true ones.

Jerry

As you already know, they did not violate TRA rules, because the TRA rules provide a means for making exceptions for specials circumstances.

The fact that the TV folks provided insurance means that TRA insurance was not put at risk.

A 5 bit code used in Teletype machines, such as the Model 19. Widely used for AP and the military during the 1930-1960 era. All mechanical, only electrical parts were a ac-dc motor, and a coupla selonoids (spi). May still have a Model 19, don't remember though. My first computer printer was a Model 19 hooked up to a TRS-80. Made a heck of a lot of noise, but it worked. If you ever watch a Bogey, or any other movie from the 30s, 40s, or early 50s showing a newsroom, the background is always a Model 19, clanking away.

Regards Ed

Fact.

Jerry

I disagree, Bob. Jerry could get his own insurance and hold 'a launch' near a Tripoli launch at the same time. This is a better comparison of the facts. What Jerry did would not invalidate the TRA insurance. Likewise, tripoli fliers could visit and fly Jerry motors with Jerry, and then in the same day go over to the TRA launch and abide by their rules and never be in violation of any rule.

steve