> Given the goal of World Domination(tm), it seems that we should look at
> significant markets where Linux fits or almost fits. Linux has several key
> advantages in a safety sensitive environment.
>
> Transparency: If cryptographic reliability only comes from peer review, I
> suggest that safety has the same characteristics.
> Robustness: Crash proof
> Dynamic Range: Lots of hardware and coding styles supported
>
> So given all these advantages, a feature allegedly needed in a potential
> market raises my curiosity.
Linux has one security disadvantage though: most of the
Linux distributions have really bad security... Maybe
Debian or SuSe are better, but RH and Slackware are mostly
very bad on security... I really don't know about the
other distributions...
> Recalling the questions: What cache control features do RTOS's have that
> Linux doesn't? Does Linux have another approach to achieve the benefits of
> cache control? Do applications really need cache control?
Linux has some cache controlling features, but they're not
application program tunable. All Linux machines are
automatically cache coherent, so programs don't really need
that kind of control anyway...
If memory is shared, you probably want to pay the price
for cache coherency, if memory is not shared, you're not
paying the price anyway...
Rik.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu