Forums

OSS or Free RTOS recommendations?

Started by Marco October 15, 2006
I would like to see recommendations on existing OSS or free RTOS (with
32 bit ARM, PowerPC and x86  targets).   I think it is important to
have a free-as-in-beer license for training/trial purposes as well as
possibly a commercial version to actually ship products and get
support.  Please discuss "performance" and ease of use. Not really
interested in Linux (too big).

 1) RTEMS       http://www.rtems.org/
 2) FreeRTOS  http://www.freertos.org/
 3) eCos  http://www.ecoscentric.com/


   any others? 

   (duplicate of post at comp.realtime)

Marco wrote:
> I would like to see recommendations on existing OSS or free RTOS (with > 32 bit ARM, PowerPC and x86 targets). I think it is important to > have a free-as-in-beer license for training/trial purposes as well as > possibly a commercial version to actually ship products and get > support. Please discuss "performance" and ease of use. Not really > interested in Linux (too big). > > 1) RTEMS http://www.rtems.org/ > 2) FreeRTOS http://www.freertos.org/ > 3) eCos http://www.ecoscentric.com/ > > > any others? > > (duplicate of post at comp.realtime) >
The linux 2.6 series just got the real-time patch incorporated into the standard kernel, so I guess linux can be included now as well. -Dave -- David Ashley http://www.xdr.com/dash Embedded linux, device drivers, system architecture
Marco wrote:
> I would like to see recommendations on existing OSS or free RTOS (with > 32 bit ARM, PowerPC and x86 targets). I think it is important to > have a free-as-in-beer license for training/trial purposes as well as > possibly a commercial version to actually ship products and get > support. Please discuss "performance" and ease of use. Not really > interested in Linux (too big).
There are a number of packages purporting to be RTOS's. I won't get into a discussion of which truly fit *my* expectations of an RTOS -- your expectations may be entirely different. Having said that, make sure you know *what* your expectations actually are -- what guarantees you expect from the OS -- and make sure the offering(s) you evaluate truly *have* those features. Also, make sure you understand what an RTOS *is* (hint: it is not "just a fast MTOS") as well as what RT actually is! (I won't get drawn into *that* discussion, either :> ) You also have to decide what level of expertise *you* have with these concepts and how much hand-holding you'll need from the "vendor"/community. Many of the "full-featured" RTOS's have very little outright support -- though a great deal of licensing freedom! (if you are willing to "own it") Amusingly, the "toy" RTOS/MTOS's seem to have bigger followings (perhaps because they require less from their users?) You may even opt for a "free for noncommercial use" package to cut your teeth on and then buy-in to a regular commercial license to get the level of support you desire. There are several web sites/pages devoted to cataloging OS's of various types. I suggest spending a bit of time digging through these before fishing for suggestions. There is a LOT of information about a LOT of different offerings out there to browse. (been there, done that, T-shirt to prove it) It's easier if you can ask specific questions about a particular RTOS/MTOS that you have in mind instead of looking for broad-brush summaries -- since everyone's experiences, expectations, etc. vary widely. --don
In article <kPmdnUysudtk5K_YnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@adelphia.com>, David Ashley <dash@nowhere.net.dont.email.me> writes:
> Marco wrote: >> >> 1) RTEMS http://www.rtems.org/ >> 2) FreeRTOS http://www.freertos.org/ >> 3) eCos http://www.ecoscentric.com/ >> > > The linux 2.6 series just got the real-time patch incorporated > into the standard kernel, so I guess linux can be included > now as well. >
I also noticed that, but doesn't Linux have a much larger RAM and storage footprint compared to the options listed above ? Simon. -- Simon Clubley, clubley@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP If Google's motto is "don't be evil", then how did we get Google Groups 2 ?
Marco wrote:
> I would like to see recommendations on existing OSS or free RTOS (with > 32 bit ARM, PowerPC and x86 targets). I think it is important to > have a free-as-in-beer license for training/trial purposes as well as > possibly a commercial version to actually ship products and get > support. Please discuss "performance" and ease of use. Not really > interested in Linux (too big). > > 1) RTEMS http://www.rtems.org/ > 2) FreeRTOS http://www.freertos.org/ > 3) eCos http://www.ecoscentric.com/ > > > any others? > > (duplicate of post at comp.realtime) >
4) mircoC OS II
Neil a &#2013265929;crit :
> Marco wrote: >> I would like to see recommendations on existing OSS or free RTOS (with >> 32 bit ARM, PowerPC and x86 targets). I think it is important to >> have a free-as-in-beer license for training/trial purposes as well as >> possibly a commercial version to actually ship products and get >> support. Please discuss "performance" and ease of use. Not really >> interested in Linux (too big). >> >> 1) RTEMS http://www.rtems.org/ >> 2) FreeRTOS http://www.freertos.org/ >> 3) eCos http://www.ecoscentric.com/ >> >> >> any others? >> (duplicate of post at comp.realtime) >> > > 4) mircoC OS II
5) Prex at http://prex.sourceforge.net/index.html
Bugman wrote:
> Neil a =E9crit : > 5) Prex at http://prex.sourceforge.net/index.html
looks very interesting BUT: "Q. What is required to build Prex? GCC, GNU binutils and GNU Make. Since the source codes depend on GCC extension, it is difficult to use another compiler to build Prex." Why use GCC extensions?
On 16 Oct 2006 12:47:20 -0700, "Marco" <prenom_nomus@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> 5) Prex at http://prex.sourceforge.net/index.html > > looks very interesting BUT: > >"Q. What is required to build Prex? >GCC, GNU binutils and GNU Make. Since the source codes depend on GCC >extension, it is difficult to use another compiler to build Prex." > > Why use GCC extensions?
Why not ? GCC is the natural compiler for open source software. BTW: difficult != impossible -- 42Bastian Do not email to bastian42@yahoo.com, it's a spam-only account :-) Use <same-name>@monlynx.de instead !
Marco wrote:
> Bugman wrote: >> Neil a &#2013265929;crit : >> 5) Prex at http://prex.sourceforge.net/index.html > > looks very interesting BUT: > > "Q. What is required to build Prex? > GCC, GNU binutils and GNU Make. Since the source codes depend on GCC > extension, it is difficult to use another compiler to build Prex." > > Why use GCC extensions? >
Why not use them, if people are going to use gcc as their compiler? After all, there is a reason these extensions were added - they make the compiler more powerful, more flexible, and let you (in some cases) write more elegant code. Sometimes it's important to write your code as portable as possible, other times it's fine to decide to use extensions. For example, you might want to code to C99 standards, while many existing compilers don't support it. Note also that many of the gcc extensions are precursors to future C standards, or inclusions of C++ features in C (or vice versa), and that other compilers often support at least some of the gcc extensions.
David Brown wrote:
> Marco wrote: >> Bugman wrote: >>> Neil a &#2013265929;crit : >>> 5) Prex at http://prex.sourceforge.net/index.html >> >> looks very interesting BUT: >> >> "Q. What is required to build Prex? >> GCC, GNU binutils and GNU Make. Since the source codes depend on GCC >> extension, it is difficult to use another compiler to build Prex." >> >> Why use GCC extensions?
Are, perhaps, those "extensions" things as non-portable as .asm? (likely to use in writing an OS)
> Why not use them, if people are going to use gcc as their compiler? > After all, there is a reason these extensions were added - they make the > compiler more powerful, more flexible, and let you (in some cases) write > more elegant code. Sometimes it's important to write your code as > portable as possible, other times it's fine to decide to use extensions. > For example, you might want to code to C99 standards, while many > existing compilers don't support it. > > Note also that many of the gcc extensions are precursors to future C > standards, or inclusions of C++ features in C (or vice versa), and that > other compilers often support at least some of the gcc extensions.