Robin Reagan wrote:

> The "high level of support" is where the money can be made (See ACT).

I am assuming you are referring to the fact that ACT is not cheap.  I see this
as a dual edged sword.  The high cost can real turn people off.

> The support I have been getting from WindRiver is good technically but is not
> what I consider in a timely manner.

Amen to that!

> The "Killer app" part is unimportant. What is important is showing
> (the non-Ada community) that Ada can compete where it counts. If we can't
> show that Ada can compete in the area that is was designed for we have no
> hope in other areas.

I disagree.  Ada can compete anywhere, whether it was designed for
embedded software or not.  I convinced a down in the trenches C/C++
teacher in college when I did my graphics class that Ada really can do
graphics!  He didn't think it was possible.  I was even going against the
odds since I didn't have much in the way of supporting graphical libraries
to reuse.

> The problem with Linux is the GPL. I work in an area that giving away the
> source
> would not be acceptable to my employer (And I agree with this). Is there an
> RT/embedded BSD?

This giving away code or not giving away code is going to be a thorn.  True
we all benefit from free software, however, some of us like to earn money.
Call me crazy, however, I would hate to see my hard efforts go to a pirate
who makes money off my labor.  There may be some pieces of software
that is truly deserving of being free because of its common application or
lack of marketability.  These I don't have a problem with.  The other types
of software, well, needs to be determined if it is a give away or some other
form of licensing.

Chris Sparks