Linux job

A headhunter I know is looking for someone with experience
with Linux, 
kernel level coding, embedded work and such. The actually
deails are as 
follows. If you are itnerested, then send me an email and
I'll put you 
in touch with him.

The Candidate will be involved with embedded software and
application 
programs developed for Storage based products. The Candidate
will be 
involved with embedded software and application programs
developed for 
Storage based products.

Skills and Experience

* Must have experience with SAN, or NAS or SCSI, or RAID
technologies or 
products
* Must have knowledge of industry standard protocols ie
TCP/IP or PCI X 
(e) or SPI-4 Ethernet protocols.
* Experience with C Lang. or C++ Lang. and using RISC
processors such as 
MIPS, ARCs, ARM or PowerPC
* Understanding of real-time operating systems ie Microsoft
Windows 2000 
Advanced Server, Microsoft Server 2003 Enterprise Edition,
Microsoft 
Server XP professional, Redhat Linux 2.4
* Any exp with Iometer or Winthrax or iSWAT, very helpful
Minimum Qualifications
* BS degree in CS, EE or Equivalent.
* Must have programming experience in C and C++, and/or Perl
or Python


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:17 -0500, Vernard Martin wrote:
> Understanding of real-time operating systems ie
Microsoft Windows
> 2000 
> Advanced Server, Microsoft Server 2003 Enterprise
Edition, Microsoft 
> Server XP professional, Redhat Linux 2.4

pseudo real-time 


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

Christopher Fowler wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:17 -0500, Vernard Martin
wrote:
>> Understanding of real-time operating systems ie
Microsoft Windows
>> 2000 
>> Advanced Server, Microsoft Server 2003 Enterprise
Edition, Microsoft 
>> Server XP professional, Redhat Linux 2.4
> 
> pseudo real-time 

I was going to be good and not say it. 

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a
little
security will deserve neither and lose both.  - Benjamin
Franklin
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 20:33 -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> Christopher Fowler wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:17 -0500, Vernard Martin
wrote:
> >> Understanding of real-time operating systems
ie Microsoft Windows
> >> 2000 
> >> Advanced Server, Microsoft Server 2003
Enterprise Edition, Microsoft 
> >> Server XP professional, Redhat Linux 2.4
> > 
> > pseudo real-time 
> 
> I was going to be good and not say it. 

Glad someone did. I was really biting my tongue to hold the
diatribe
back :}
> 
-- 
James P. Kinney III          \Changing the mobile computing
world/
CEO & Director of Engineering \          one Linux user
        /
Local Net Solutions,LLC        \           at a time.      
   /
770-493-8244                   
\.___________________________./
http://www.localnets
olutions.com

GPG ID: 829C6CA7 James P. Kinney III (M.S. Physics)
<jkinneylocalnetsolutions.com>
Fingerprint = 3C9E 6366 54FC A3FE BA4D 0659 6190 ADC3 829C
6CA7
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 20:33, Geoffrey wrote:
> Christopher Fowler wrote:
> > On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:17 -0500, Vernard Martin
wrote:
> >> Understanding of real-time operating systems
ie Microsoft Windows
> >> 2000 
> >> Advanced Server, Microsoft Server 2003
Enterprise Edition, Microsoft 
> >> Server XP professional, Redhat Linux 2.4
> > 
> > pseudo real-time 
> 
> I was going to be good and not say it. 

The reality is that they are classified as real-time.  Non
real-time
would be mainframe system I guess like OS/390.  And others. 
In the
context of embedded systems those operating systems are no
where close
to real-time.  

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

Christopher Fowler wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 20:33, Geoffrey wrote:
>> Christopher Fowler wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2006-03-28 at 18:17 -0500, Vernard
Martin wrote:
>>>> Understanding of real-time operating
systems ie Microsoft Windows
>>>> 2000 
>>>> Advanced Server, Microsoft Server 2003
Enterprise Edition, Microsoft 
>>>> Server XP professional, Redhat Linux 2.4
>>> pseudo real-time 
>> I was going to be good and not say it. 
> 
> The reality is that they are classified as real-time. 
Non real-time
> would be mainframe system I guess like OS/390.  And
others.  In the
> context of embedded systems those operating systems are
no where close
> to real-time.

Classified by who?  Microsoft I'm sure.  Does anyone else
really 
consider these to be real time implementations?

-- 
Until later, Geoffrey

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a
little
security will deserve neither and lose both.  - Benjamin
Franklin
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

> 
> Classified by who?  Microsoft I'm sure.  Does anyone
else 
> really consider these to be real time implementations?

None of the mentioned are either hard or soft real time OS. 
Windows Embedded  / CE is the closest you'll get to a RTOS
in the Windows
world.

-Tony

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

On Wed, 2006-03-29 at 08:35 -0500, Geoffrey wrote:
> Classified by who?  Microsoft I'm sure.  Does anyone
else really 
> consider these to be real time implementations?

Years ago UNIX was considered a real-time system vs what the
main frame
is.  The MF is not real-time.  More like job oriented.  

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale

Rev. Johnny Healey wrote:

> I thought UNIX and Windows were considered
time-sharing.  They allow 
> multiple users/services to use the system at the same
time, but don't 
> offer the same performance guarantees that a RTOS
provides.

You're close.  "Time sharing" is a legacy term
that refers to the idea 
of multiple users running processes on the same computer at
the same 
time with no real sense of the other users' presence.  This
was an 
important conceptual leap from one computer per team of
people all 
working on the same task.  The term has fallen into disuse
but is closer 
in concept to "cooperative multitasking" in
which the processes must 
relinquish control without the use of a master scheduling
mechanism.

UNIX, WinNT and derivatives, VMS, and Linux are all
"pre-emptive 
multitasking;" the operating system handles the
scheduling.  Novell 
Netware, old MacOS, and old Windows were CM OSses.  See 
h
ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_multitasking.

Jeff


_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Aleale.org
http://www.al
e.org/mailman/listinfo/ale