Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Amiga

Explaining The Symbiosis Between QNX RtP & Linux 121

Posted by Hemos
from the what's-going-on-there dept.
Thanks to Mike Bouma who put together a paper with the help from a number of the Phoenix project members which gives more information regarding what's going on with QNX and why it matters.

Explaining the Symbiosis between QNX RtP and Linux

The Linux community and its open source approach has huge potential and helps us greatly to realize our goal to make the QNX Realtime Platform a superior general purpose desktop and developer operating system. QNX RtP is fully compliant with the latest POSIX standards. This, together with a X11 compatibility layer for the Photon MicroGUI, means most Linux/Unix applications only need simple recompiles and modifications to be ported to this new platform. So whatever Linux/Unix gains the OS will gain as well! Currently QNXStart.com already has a nice software library and Tucows is busy building one. The freely available award winning Voyager browser is excellent and plug-ins like Flash 4 and RealPlayer 7 are already available. Also Amiga`s Digital Environment is being developed to support the QNX RtP and will not only provide us with a common binary identical application layer for Linux but most other operating systems as well. The Tao Group (Amiga`s OS partner) already provided QSSL with a wonderfully small and efficient Java VM implementation for its predecessor QNX4. In addition QSSL and IBM are working together on a real-time technology for Java applications under the QNX Realtime Platform.

Giving source code away freely for everyone to use does not make sense for everybody. Especially commercial companies would not be motivated to spend years on OS development and make the fruits of their work freely available for rival companies. With QSSL being the owner of this OS and offering all the relevant source code to developers, developers can invest their resources while still being protected from competitors. So QSSL offers prime advantages of both the open-source and commercial worlds! !

One month ago the pre-release developer version of the QNX Realtime Platform was freely released for public download freely for non-commercial use. Since its launch more than 400,000 downloads at http://get.qnx.com followed, while bringing even Tucow's servers to their knees. Additionally, QSSL has set up a developer's support network with weekly articles by QNX experts giving their insights on programming under the QNX Realtime Platform. There are very ambitious projects for this new OS and many exciting new developments will be announced when the time is right.

But what makes QNX RtP so special, you may ask?

QNX RtP is an excellent realtime operating system, which means that all programs are smoothly given CPU time (according to the priority they are given in the Scheduler). This gives developers or users the option to set high priorities for certain tasks, so that for instance a multimedia player will be quaranteed to respond and function optimally in any given situation. The stability and realtime abilities of QSSL`s OSs resulted in them being used heavily in fault intolerant and response critical systems, for instance nuclear reactors, medical equipment, space craft, traffic control systems , etc.

Within the embedded market, a small memory footprint and optimal efficiency are very important issues. QNX RtP is based on the modern and optimised QNX Neutrino microkernel. OS modules such as file systems, TCP/IP and even drivers run as normal memory protected user processes, allowing them to be plugged in and removed at any time without a reboot. This allows QNX RtP to be scaled down or up very easily for use in compact Internet Appliances as well as in full blown multi-processor servers (3Com`s Audrey IA has just been released and uses the QNX RtP at its core.). It also eliminates the need for special kernel APIs and debuggers, greatly simplifying driver development and debugging.

Although I could continue for hours telling you endlessly about other benefits I will end this by highlighting one other great feature which impressed most developers involved instantly, when we started our relationship with QSSL a couple of years ago. It truly offers superior flexible and transparent networking abilities. As an example of its flexibility; you could have a game running on one computer in a network, while it is being controlled by a joystick on another computer within the network, and its graphical output being displayed on a monitor of another machine again! One demonstration was of Doom running on two connected machines to begin with; it was running on one machine, then the window it was running in was dragged onto the display of the second machine, then it was partially dragged back, so the game was running synchronic and seamlessly with half a window on each screen!

Something wonderful is coming. Do you want to join the exciting battle to change computing and topple the choking monopolies within the industry? :)

Sincerely, Mike Bouma.

AmigaRing http://www.stormloader.com/amiga
Phoenix Developer Consortium http://www.phinixi.com

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Explaining The Symbiosis Between QNX RtP & Linux

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Too bad BeOS is turning out to be more of a successor to Amiga then originally touted.

    They're hemorrhaging developers and users like there's no tomorrow. beusertalk is 75% "why Be no longer rules" posts, and 20% "what the HELL are they doing?" posts, and then that last miniscule 5% is "c'mon guys, give them a chance!".

    It's too late for Be, they've already screwed up. They had their chance even as recently as a year ago, but now what little momentum they had left is long gone.
  • QNX's definition of the Neutrino microkernel(from the QNX Neutrino System Architecture Guide):

    Neutrino is a microkernel implementation of the core POSIX features used in embedded realtime systems, along with the fundamental QNX message-passing services. The POSIX features that aren't implemented in the microkernel(file and device I/O, for example) are provided by optional processes and shared libraries.

    What this means is the architecture is such that you do not have to worry about what the kernel does, it is like a police officer at an intersection directing traffic, it controls the interaction of the process's and applications which are running on your system.

    The Neutrino microkernel has kernel calls to support threads, message passing, signals, clocks, timers, interrupt handlers, semaphores, mutexes and condvars.
    Everything your OS needs...

    QNX Software systems has been in the embedded world for 20 years, it's kernel technology and architecture is second to none. This is what they do, and they do it very very very well. That is not going to change, no matter what anybody says. Especially people who make generalizations, claiming to know what/how/who the embedded market is and needs. Here is a company who specializes in realtime kernels, supporting/developing/fixing/optimizing/designing. By the mere architecture which they have chosen/developed, they allow you to tailor and customize the rest of the OS to YOUR needs, without having to worry about the kernel(foundation) because YOU know(or should) that there is a company who has 20 years of expertise behind it. This allows you to concentrate ALL your efforts on YOUR applications and drivers for YOUR custom devices. The most amazing thing here is that QNX will be releasing source code for many QNX applications, drivers and libraries, to help you on your way. Here is a press release from the end of April,from their site:
    [qnx.com]
    http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr24_00-openpl.html

    Not to mention much of the Linux/Unix open source base is easily portable to QNX!!!!!!!

    Using resources in this way in my opinion is the BEST way to use and develop a product. STOP trying to re-invent the WHEEL!!! It is you with the narrow-minded opinions, who will be left behind, when YOUR managers finally realize the HUGE potential available to them with QNX, watch out!

    To find out for yourself what QNX and the QNX Neutrino OS is all about go to the online docs and read the first couple of chapters on the System Architecture, this will clear up some of the confusion posted here by the realtime OS-challenged...

    The link is [qnx.com]
    http://qdn.qnx.com/support/docs/neutrino_qrp/ind ex.html

    Long time QNX/Linux/Microsoft(ya,ya) user.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    All QNX is doing now is attempting to capture some of the spotlight with linux just by using terms like "open source" and "linux". They're doing nothing but (ab)using the names.

    This whole free QNX thing was just another ploy to get some free marketing by using those names. The free OS isn't really practically usable by anyone. Sure if you wanna play a dvd or browse the web its great to toy around with for that stuff, but you can browse the web just as well in linux/fbsd/windows. With no virtual memory disk swapping, it makes it easy for them to make it more realtime, and harder for people to write complex programs (ala photoshop). "Welcome to early macos." I've used both QNX4 and neutrino now for over a year. I've written some drivers for it, and work for a company that has a product based on it. It's not as cool as they make it sound. And lets not even talk about what happens when it can't switch processes in a real time manner causing things to not happen on time.

    I can't believe slashdot lets them openly advertise on here with all of this bullshit marketting stuff.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @06:58AM (#658590)
    Just listen to this tripe about how QNX is the "best of both worlds". It amounts to this:

    QNX: Gee guys thanks for all the free code.
    Linux Community: No problem can we have...
    QNX: NO!
    LC: Can we see the source for...
    QNX: NO!
    LC: Okay here's some more free code though...

    Honestly, QNX is just profiting from writing a kernel and then porting a bunch of free software to that kernel, while keeping the kernel proprietary. Boy that sure sounds like the best of both worlds for *them*. But for the lil' dudes we must toil and suffer. Honestly QNX is a great RtOS (in the true sense of the word) and I would love to see a RtLinux that had the scalability and power of QNX...but with the QNX attitude that will never happen...

    So HEMOS how do you have vested in QNX????
    You lamer...
  • The market for BeOS is currently those who want an alternative to Windows on their home/desktop system, but can see that Linux isn't quite there yet. Small market, yes.

    Yeah, it is small. BeOS revenues were US$68,000 last quarter. BeOS may be cool, but OS sales are becoming less and less fiscally viable.

  • For embedded work, there's ECOS already.

    between ECOS [redhat.com], GNU HURD [gnu.org], RTEMS [rtems.com] and others, there is a plethora of open-source hard real-time and microkernel systems available to the open-source hacker. closed source systems may be slick, but you will always be at the mercy of the closed-source owners.

  • I've read some literature from Apple claiming that OSX (and, by extension, Darwin) is an RTOS. However, that's the only place I've ever heard this, and I'm not particularly certain how this claim could be backed up at this point in time. Anyone here have any ideas on that?
    ----------
  • This was in the (admittedly scant) documentation Apple provided with OSX Public Beta. One of the major benefits they speak of is what they call "realtime support," the description of which sounds exactly like the description of a true RTOS.

    Maybe I'm missing something with that; I don't know. But it certainly sounds like they're trying to claim OSX and Darwin are RTOS's.
    ----------
  • Yes, the BeBox/BeOS was described by Jean Louis Gassee (sp?) as "The spiritual decendant of the Amiga" and that they were going to "do correctly what Amiga did wrong" because they had studied Commodore and the Amiga and all of what happened.

    I don't think the BeBox/BeOS will go the way of the Amiga, probably more the way of OS/2. There is still a tremendously large interest in the Amiga and its antiquated hardware, a love if you will, and I don't think Be* ever quite gained that status. Maybe it hadn't existed long enough?

    I will at least say that when the BeBox was coming out, I was a die-hard Amiga user and I was drooling over the BeBox. I never bought one due to the fact that I didn't quite have the money at the time to buy an experimental box with experimental software. But.. but.. the GEEK PORT. sheesh, how could you pass on something that has one of those?

    --

  • Well, we'll see. Be's position on the "desktop or not?" matter is more or less officially schizophrenic (I know both the Be engineers and marketers would take offense at that characterization, but it seems true enough in practice). At this point, QNX is sending mildly mixed signals that aren't unfamiliar: engineers being involved out of a sense of geek love, but a corporate stance which appears to have only marginal interest in the matter.

    In the long term, who's more committed? Maybe it is QNX. Again, the signals from Be are schizophrenic; while their developer support for the desktop is less enthusiastic than QSSL's, you can't walk into Best Buy and buy a boxed RtP set with a printed manual. Despite Be's stated future direction, BeOS is their only currently available product, and QSSL hasn't (to my knowledge) announced any plans for a retail equivalent to BeOS 5 Pro--being in the retail channel is a measurable commitment that hasn't been made with Neutrino yet. (And it's one that could suggest Be is, characteristically, hedging their bets for next year's Annual Focus Shift. In 2001, Be will be repositioned as... oh, I'm sure anything I say won't be as humorous as whatever their marketing gurus come up with, right?)

    My more serious concern (about both platforms) is this. If the OS's growth and direction are controlled by a for-profit company, and they have made business choices that do not depend in any substantial way on the OS succeeding on the desktop, there's only so much external "community" forces can do to force that success. I'm sure QNX RtP will gain a cult following... but it remains to be seen whether that'll be enough to break out of the Geek Toy Ghetto that BeOS is in, i.e., a product everyone likes but few people actually bother running. QNX has the advantage of running Linux apps, granted, but a cynic might say that just gives it a little OS/2 mixed in with its touch of Be.

    Bizarrely enough, the only new-yet-closed OS company I see really agitating in the way I think will be needed for success is Bill McEwen's new new new new new no we really mean new this time Amiga. Amy the Squirrel may yet have the last laugh.

  • by Watts Martin (3616) <layotl@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @12:33PM (#658597) Homepage

    A comment from "(Mike)(duh)" further on down claims the difference between BeOS and Neutrino is that the latter is attracting developers and BeOS isn't. This is highly misleading. But, I'm not sure Ars-Fartsica is 100% on target, either.

    BeOS did have a lot of announced commercial support this time last year--from companies that to date still have shown no interest in Linux. While there are some quantifiable advantages BeOS has in media performance over Linux (and, I would submit, over QNX as well), the difference wasn't technology--nor was it that the companies didn't "trust" open source, as some BeOS cheerleaders claim. It's that Be had strong developer support. These companies wanted somebody there able to offer immediate, detailed support and corporate evangelism. Linux can come close to this sometimes, but it definitionally can't match it, simply because there is no "Linux Company" that gives you access to nearly all the great developers. "It's open, you can make the changes yourself" isn't as good an answer as "we've tracked down that bug and fixed it for you," if (and it's a big if) there's a group able and willing to do the latter. This marketplace reality is why companies target specific Linux distributions--it's because Red Hat, SuSE, and Caldera are trying to do for Linux what Be was doing for BeOS. A company may feel comfortable porting to "Red Hat Linux" because they're not doing the port alone, they're doing it with Red Hat's technical--and possibly even financial--support.

    So what happened to BeOS? Be stopped providing that support for the desktop, shifting nearly all their DTS resources to BeIA.

    I've looked at QNX RtP, and sure, it's pretty neat. But it is in the same position on the deskop that BeOS is--the desktop incarnation of a closed operating system whose company intends to focus their resources on the "appliance" market.

    Look at the business and marketing FAQs on get.qnx.com. Do you see anything about their plans for the alternative desktop market? "It's uniquely positioned to become the premier platform for embedded devices." When they're comparing it to Linux, they're talking about its advantages to embedded systems developers:

    QNX provides OEMs with a large suite of applications and OS components that are thoroughly tested and highly optimized for embedded use. No re-engineering required. This gives developers a head start: Instead of losing time on low-level kernel issues (and spending money on OS maintenance teams), they can focus right away on creating unique features and applications for their embedded device.

    QNX RtP isn't intended to be a desktop OS contender: it's been released as a "self-hosted development environment" for RtP-based appliances, as well as a demonstration to potential partners of what the system can do.

    Just like BeOS is for BeIA now. Rah, rah, focus shift.

    QNX is a bunch of great guys, from what I can tell, but don't kid yourself, folks. This is not the next great alternative OS; no operating system is going to be without serious pushing from a corporate developer.

    Opening the source helps with developer mindshare, sure, but I'm not sure it'd help much; there'll be enough hackers porting Unix stuff over without it, and it's a rare profit-driven company that gives a fig about such issues--they just want to sell their products and/or services, and that requires a userbase. (If BeOS had a few million users, Corel would have been there porting already. Whether we'd want them there is another question, of course, but I digress.)

    In any case, the source isn't going to be completely open in either case; both companies see their kernels as their prized product. In practice, they could use a license like the Aladdin Ghostscript one (essentially, free for most use, but commercial redistribution requires a license), but let's not hold our breath.

  • Of course not! QNX is here for almost 20 years, the ymade the first HD driver, the first micro kernel on x86, the first true multitasking kernel on x86, etc
    BeOs is very very young, and QNX is very very old! This is really not the same thing. I use QNX4, BeOS, and now QNX RTP, the 3 are different (the 1st one is also more expensive :o)
    --
  • How does making their source code available give something back? It's source code under a proprietary license.

    Bruce

  • SCO did this a while ago - they made their system run Linux applications, thinking that of course people would want the tried and tested SCO operating system. Nobody bought it. The dregs of SCO now belong to Caldera.

    Linux apps run great on Linux, and if you don't like the GPL license they run on BSD, too.

    Releasing free software doesn't make sense for everyone. OK, but using free software that other people have released sure makes sense to them. It doesn't seem like much of a fair exchange as far as I can tell.

    I think Linux compatibility might make the QNX stockholders happy, for a while. But QNX should target to what they do well rather than trying to be a general-purpose OS. There's little value left for them in that market when so many competitors don't even want your money.

    Bruce

  • I think QNX is an excellent RTOS, and the modularity of the system makes it much more stable and flexible than other systems.

    But where the heck is the symbiosis? QNX gets plenty of software from the Open Source community, but what does the Linux community get from QNX?
  • I don't think that is what they mean to say, but that is what it sounds like to me anyway. /me pats RMS on the back and moves on...
    ~luge
  • ...and never have to recompile unless you upgrade your kernel (in which case suck it up, stop upgrading to the bleeding-edge).
    • Run 'make config'.
    • If you can answer 'M' to a choice, then do so.
    • run 'make dep clean
    • sun 'make modules modules_install'
    • Add everything into /etc/conf.modules
    • init 6
    • There ya go, there's your modularized Linux.
  • Man now this is cutting edge stuff! Not only has slashdot put out a QNX press release as "news for nerds, stuff that matters", but some QNX flunky submits a press release as a comment, not even in response to a question!

    We are really bleeding edge here. I am so proud to be a part of this new style journalism.

    --
  • Yes indeed, step right up, getcher red hot press releases right here at Press Releases for Pardners, Stuffed 'n' Flatters. We got yer corporate flunky press releases, yer flunky corporate press releases, ....

    --
  • by A nonymous Coward (7548) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @06:48AM (#658606)
    They seem to be saying how wonderful that all this free source code is wonderful because it takes just a recompile to work on QNX, but Giving source code away freely for everyone to use does not make sense for everybody so they don't have to give anything back.

    Is this what it says? Am I confoozed?

    --
  • by GypC (7592) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @08:37AM (#658607) Homepage Journal

    Whoever said that Linux can cure any of those things (insert "world hunger", "war", "disease", whatever else here) ? Are you smoking crack? Give me one example, one quote.

    Some of us are simply not interested in closed-source software. Does that make us wrong? evil? Are we not allowed to express that opinion?

    I hate to break it to you, but Linux has been ready for my desktop for years, and I don't really care about Joe SixPack. If someone else does, that's fine, but it's not like Linux is going to lose money and go out of business and strand all it's users like the Amiga did... or BeOS might.

    "Free your mind and your ass will follow"

  • HPCwire [tgc.com] already has that, they call that something like "industry news" or somesuch...

    --
    Pierre Phaneuf
  • It's a shame that the article has so much fluff, because this would have been a great discussion.

    As someone who's used both, here's my take on it

    QNX strengths:
    - HARD real-time. If you don't know what that means, find out before flaming anyone. This is a huge strength that matters a LOT in some markets.
    - Microkernel. You don't write kernel-mode device drivers; everything's in user-mode. Compile-run-debug cycles are much shorter when you don't have to reboot every time your driver crashes.

    Linux strengths:
    - GNU toolset
    - lots of supported hardware
    - lots of applications
    - open source
    - popular

    In short, QNX is an embedded OS that's moving into the desktop market whereas Linux is a server OS that's moving into the desktop & embedded market.

    The big news with QNX RTP is that you don't have to give up the good stuff that comes with Linux.

    Remember, though, if you don't need the real-time responsiveness or the microkernel architecture, Linux is fine.

    It's a shame the article was posted, because it would be of benefit to have a better, more thought-out one. Other points to discuss would be

    -what advantages / disadvantages come from the fact that there is a single "distribution" of RTP?

    -how will QNX's other features (such as FLEET networking) help boost Linux?

    -what role the the GPL play in how the QNX RTP-Linux tango plays out?

  • Really, i gave a try to this new qnx toy and indeed i was impressed. As i was impressed with BeOS when it came out free. Both make easier to install and configure and simpler to use desktops than Linux does, but i didn't have time to try any of them in some server role. Both also have superiour multimedia capabilities than linux has, ie. i cant even get the sound to play smoothly under linux with medium loaded old pentium box, not to mention mpeg1 movies (which run smooth on win 486).
    Oh yes, there's another player coming to the field of multimedia unices, OS X. Don't know if it's realtime, probably not, but it wants to be strong here too. So maybe i'd add a OS X in the title too.
  • Yes, that's what they're saying. The paper claims to explain the symbiosis between QNX RTP and Linux, and that's exactly what it does: it explains that there isn't one. Or rather, that the "symbiosis" only goes one way, making RTP more of a very clever parasite than a symbiote.

    Not that this is a bad thing, from the RTP point of view... Being able to run Linux code (which is practically mainstream these days) on it will make it more practical. I can't wait until my IDE CD-ROM drive arrives in the mail so I can play with it. (I wasn't able to install RTP from my SCSI DVD-ROM drive...)

    (I had to order the CD-ROM drive through mailorder because the local stores don't sell black peripherals, I ain't gonna put a white or beige periph in my ATC-200-MX [coolermaster.com]. After all, I'm not a barbarian!)


    ---
  • First, BeOS is actually a server OS now, thanks to BONE (the new networking update ) BeOS is better at networking now and is actually faster and can handle more loads than Linux. Secondly, BeOS has lost two developer companies, one Wildcard design had to close it's doors because it was sued by a larger ( and as yet unkown company ) the other Thunder Munchkin Software, because the owner is a butthead. however BeOS has retained the home based developer community. BeOS has gained and expanded it's user base. BeOS if it ever does fail in the market place may very well go Opensource! Be inc, current plans are to push BeIA earn revenues from that and re-channel them into BeOS. So far it seems to be working. If the Amiga can make a comeback,hell BEOS will live forever!
  • This whole thing bothers me. It seems like corporations now figure that they can release some source code, get some folks to fix it up for free, and then sell it. Sorry, if I wanted to take part in charity work, I'd volunteer with the RedCross or something.

    People contribute to Open Source projects because it's a community effort, nobody is directly making money from a particular piece of software. Shoot, all that Linus has gotten are stock options (which I actually wouldn't mind having).

    Oh, my going rate for programming is $125/hour, feel free to email me if you still want help. F*ing loosers...
  • Nonsense!

    QSSL already has developer mindshare with its QNX 4 and Neutrino OS's. In the industrial realtime industry their only real competition is VxWorks.
    Furthermore QNX has been around for nearly 20 years and is FULLY posix compliant and certified.

    --zipcube
    Windows were made for closing
  • Aside from the real-time capabilities, which I presume are meaningless to almost all linux users, basically we've got another BeOS here.

    Yeah, except that QNX has been around - and people have been buying it for mission critical applications - for many, many years. I think we can all learn something about how the *nix market works by taking a look at these guys, and I, for one, am glad that this showed up on slashdot.
    Always and inevitably everyone underestimates the number of stupid individuals in circulation
  • Well, the HURD is doing this as well AFAIK.

    That is micro-kernel with daemons running in user space.

    OTOH it's not all that done.
  • Ok, what follows is slanted opinion. Treat it as such.

    From my point of view as someone who converted from classic Amiga hardware + AmigaOS (with a bit of Linux/m68k every now and then) to ia32-Linux, I know it's hard to see why the Amiga-fan herd would want to use QNX as a desktop system. "It's a REAL-TIME OPERATING SYSTEM, for crap's sake! You're not SUPPOSED to run it on the DESKTOP!" I hear. Well, things aren't that simple.

    As you probably know, the amiga herd was, in the 1990s, engaged in a bitter and one-sided war against the pc/windows crowd. Since the amiga hardware stopped being able to keep up with the speed that the PC was developing, the amiga fans had to use different arguments for why "the amiga REALLY is MUCH better than ANYTHING that Micro$oft keeps pushing you" than hardware superiority (which was true until about 1993, 1994...). Most of the arguments were based on these ideas:

    • AmigaOS has a small memory footprint and no bloat to speak of. You can fit a working AmigaOS system on a single 880KiB floppy.
      Being able to fit a working environment on a floppy was important in the early days (1986-1990) because hard drives cost quite a lot of money and the most that people could afford was generally a 512KiB memory expansion and/or a second floppy drive. So-called "turbo" cards and the ability to take standard SIMM memory modules came later. As you can probably tell, the one-floppy feature is largely irrelevant today as there's enough memory to boot off one disk, then mount a filesystem on another or in the system memory.
      Additionally, the cost of having a small memory footprint was that the system core was extremely simple. There was no memory protection, and the virtual memory extension programs that came later were doomed to fail because of the inconsistent manner that AmigaOS programs allocated memory (i.e. the "should we use MEMF_PUBLIC for this memory that we're going to pass between processes?").
      (QNX paraller -- the web-station-on-a-HD-floppy demo)
    • The AmigaOS is a real-time operating system; we don't need no steenking 32MiB audio buffers for audio that doesn't crackle! Also, the OS task-switches much better than windows ever can.
      All true, except that with the low context-switch time (that you get when you don't have to mess around with memory management; every process is king, remember?) you get major stability problems since every process can take the system down, in the middle of a disk transaction no less.
      (QNX paraller -- two magic buzzwords: "real time")

    Because the QNX kernel shares many of the properties that they used for arguments in their war-on-the-PC, they now have a collective hard-on for a closed-source real-time kernel not designed for desktop use. Another reason why the amiga fans are now slinging more vitriol is that the sensible ones moved to Linux on either ia32 or PPC a couple of years ago, when it became clear to most that despite the many iterations of "Amiga bought, new owner plans resurrection! Film at 11!", nothing was going to happen, ever (the best that some could do was release a "support the amiga!" CD single containing some of the worst electro-pop I've ever heard; this was in 1998).
    I present as evidence the incredible shitflingery perpetrated in comp.sys.amiga.{advocacy,misc} regarding Linux around when the current owner had announced[0] that the next Amiga incarnation would be linux-based; some even claimed that the SCSI support in the 2.2.x kernel was horribly broken based on a message they'd seen regarding a SCSI bug in a 0.x kernel!

    I used Amiga computers from the year 1988 to 1997. I wrote quite a bit of code, including a primitive texturemapped 3d-engine and a port of Id software's DOOM (based on the source release a few years ago, not the GPL one). The only thing about the Amiga that's alive now is the demo scene, and that's being killed off by the mainstreamization of the demoscene by assembly.com [assembly.org] (there's a demoscene around the old CBM 64 though, so don't lose hope yet.)

    And that's all I've got to say.


    [0] Well, they didn't actually announce anything. It's said that during a presentation flick that they did, the words "Linux" and "Transmeta" were displayed; I'm assuming they got a whiff of "open-source linux-licking betrayal" from there.

  • why dont you do it jackass, i bet you dont free ride on gnutella too fuckin freeloder
  • It does not matter what name is in the post. You seem to think it does, and that posting anonymously is somehow different from posting with a name. It isn't. It doesn't matter what name apppears. If ALL posts were anonymous, you would be arguing a point, not with another individual.

    No one gets to decide what is and isn't true, on usenet, on slahsdot, or in life. So, now that you see a name (and if it makes any difference to you, I just posted the last comment, not anything else on this board) does that make it somehow better?

    This religious adherence to posting etiquette is as sad as people believing the Bible or any other manmade religious text as created by a deity. It shows a weakness of the mind and an inability to reason and adapt.

    Identity is meaningless. As we move towards a world where people are replaced by machines with our consciousness implanted within, this will become more apparent. Of course, the current population, at least most of it, will be long dead before this happens. Onc the barcoding begins, there will be no more "dave" or "ebbv", just another pile of meat on bone call a human.
  • Linux has loadable kernel modules now in case
    you hadn't noticed. They've been supported
    for the last few years.
  • by madmaxx (32372)
    some things are not free (beer or freedom). this is life. qnx is cool *and* newsworthy despite the fact it doesn't fit the zealot idea that every fsking thing has to be free. i've developed for qnx (and many *nix systems) for many of years ... and qnx is easily the coolest of them all.

    /. is news for nerds ... not news for open source zealots. get off your high horse and appreciate cool geek stuff.

    thanks to hemos for rising above the stench of purist crap.

  • a lot of recent articles (i'm sorry i'm too busy to actually put some URLs in here, i'm sure someone else will) of this ilk.

    slashdot is becoming like network news... last time i saw the network news (a couple weeks ago) they had a 'story' on Toy Story 2 being released on video.

    uhh,.. yeah. that's news alright!

    i am reading /. less and less and less...
    ...dave

  • i'm gonna be -1'd for this but, what the fuck..

    most people on /. , especially the editors, are totally ignorant when it comes to actual coding,.. they consider themselves 'hax0rz' because they know how to put the ram in and compile their kernel.

    that's old news, but it seems like it needs to be re-iterated.

    you should not be surprised at all when lame shit like this gets hyped.. it's been a long time since the majority of posters were clueful.
    ...dave

  • very bored with computers.

    i don't care what some third-rate gimps shit out,.. wow another stupid UNIX-like OS.. huzzah, pardon me while i piss myself with joy.

    you'll reach the point i'm at some day. just wait.. almost everything computer related evokes one single reaction from me :

    *yawn*
    ...dave

  • because it's obvious simply by the fact that you posted as an AC that you're :

    a) ignorant

    b) a newbie

    and

    c) a chickenshit

    i'm not trolling, i'm making my voice heard that stuff like this is dull and that the rest of you buttfuckers who think it's cool are stupid.

    it's obvious by the quality of your post that you rival potato chips for iq scores. (i'd say 'are rivaled by..' but you're the one attempting to surpass the other..)
    ...dave

  • p-l-e-a-s-e.

    i'm not going to argue with someone who is actually stupid enough to believe that posting as AC is no different from posting under a single name all the time.

    this is one of the oldest piles of bullshit cowardly anonymous posters always bring up.

    it wasn't true on usenet and it's not true on web boards.
    ...dave
  • by ebbv (34786)

    you're an imbecile.

    a) if you have a name attached to all of your posts i can see if you're a hypocrite, i can understand your point better by having read your previous posts and associating them with your current one.

    b) it's *always* arguing with the person, because the person creates their 'point'.

    etc. etc.

    you're obviously a newbie or you'd have gone through this a long long time ago.

    'move along son, ya bother me.'
    ...dave
  • by wiredog (43288)
    QNX is an embedded devices operating system. Has been for years. It was designed to use very little memory. Be very stable. And very (timeslice-wise) predictable. Having worked in the embedded world I have run on systems where we were trying to sqeze the size of the OS+Program+Data to less than 1k. Try doing that with Be. Or a regular Linux, for that matter. Be, Linux, Windows are "optimized" to run on machines with many megs of ram, large hard drives, other desktop (or server!) type of accessories. QNX and other embedded os's run on hardware that is very small. Think the "opposite" of a server
  • by wbb4 (60942) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @07:20AM (#658629)
    What market is that? Sure, you Linux zealots (Read: Slashdot Audience) won't use BeOS just because you cant recompile the kernel because you, in your infinite wisdom, think that it would be better with|without a specific option.

    Does this mean there is no market for BeOS? Hardly. I hate to break it to you, Linux is far from ready for the desktop. BeOS isn't a server OS (Hell, if you want a server OS, use a BSD), and it isn't meant to be. The market for BeOS is currently those who want an alternative to Windows on their home/desktop system, but can see that Linux isn't quite there yet. Small market, yes. Good market? well, thats something I can't comment on.

    Be has a solid OS, and just because its not Open Source doesn't mean it sucks and that Be should drop into the infernal abyss.

    Linux is a decent OS, it has a few things to learn (Which is why I use BSD :), but the thing that bugs me most about Linux are the claims by its users that it can cure (insert "world hunger", "war", "disease", whatever else here.).

    I grow so tired of people like that. I'v probably started a flame war here, but I'll be gone for a week so whats it matter :)
  • Sorry to break it to you, but Be is far from dead. If you take a good look at BeBits or BeNews, you'll realize that. Sure Be is right on the edge, but the users haven't given up yet and the developers haven't given up yet. When they do, then they're toast. PS> Methinks that a lot of the negative comments on BeUserTalk are from Slashdot trolls who got kicked out.
  • Isn't that what MS was saying about Linux a few years ago? If all you went by was features, then Windows2K would beat the shit out of everything else on the OS market!
  • Not meaning to scare away a fellow BeOS user, I have to disagree. No point in providing ammunition to the BeOS-hating /. hoards.

    BeOS is not and probably never will be a server OS. While BONE should kick some serious ass it will not be as good as Linux or BSD. The rest of the system just wasn't designed to pay that much attention to the network stack.

    BeOS probably will never go Open Source. Certainly not as long as Be lives, and even if it dies, it will probably not. Say Be finally decides to throw in the towel. They can't OSS BeOS because of the licensed code within it, and they can't afford to strip out the licensed code because they have to close. Ideally, they would sell BeOS to SGI or something and then we'd have a REAL OS on our 3D workstations. But that's probably just idyllic fantasy. I really would like to see BeOS under some sort of Open Source. I still don't totally like the idea, and I certainly wouldn't want the dictatorship that is Linux or the anarchy of the other OSS projects (while OSS may not affect quality, it certainly does affect code-size. All the major OSS projects suffer from feature bloat because there are so many developers willing to help out) however a BeOS managed by a dedicated central group with contributions kept on a tight leash (kind of like OpenBSD except with speed and multimedia performance as the overriding goal) would probably be a good thing. While Be's coders seem to be damn good, I just don't see them having enough time to dedicate to BeOS.

    Secondly, BeOS has lost two developer companies, one Wildcard design had to close it's doors because it was sued by a larger ( and as yet unkown company ) the other Thunder Munchkin Software, because the owner is a butthead.
    howeverBeOS has retained the home based developer community.BeOS has gained and expanded it's user base. BeOS if it ever does fail in the market place may very well go Opensource! Be inc, current plans are to push BeIA earn revenues from that and re-channel them into BeOS. So far it seems to be working. If the Amiga can make a comeback,hell BEOS will live forever!
  • Hold on a second. I programmed on QNX for many years, and ... They are right; you don't need the kernel source code. Why you ask ? because its only a couple of thousand lines of assembly, and hasn't changed significantly since about 1993. The whole Idea behind QNX, (and other RTOS'es) is stablility, and I can tell you QNX is fscking stable. Because its a microkernel (emphasis on micro), the things that we consider to be "kernel" functions in *nix aren't. You can replace all of the filesystem, process scheduler, vm, device manager/drivers you want to. All of those things are just processes (!). The QNX kernel is just the glue that binds those things together.

    -- Rich
  • by dboyles (65512) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @06:50AM (#658634) Homepage
    from http://amiga.eden.it/news/QNX-Linux -en g.html [amiga.eden.it]:

    QNX is often compared to UNIX, LINUX and BSD. We do share the same POSIX APIs, and most code written for these systems ports easily to QNX, but the resemblance ends there. Based on 20 years of OS experience, QNX has a radically more advanced architecture. It's a massively scalable, multi-threaded, fault-tolerant, realtime OS designed for devices and computers of any type or size. QNX provides a unique network architecture where large full-service protocol stacks aren't required on each computer and devices plugged into the network are simply "discovered" automatically by other devices - all services and peripherals of the new device can then be used by any other device in the network. QNX is also the only self-hosted RTOS where the development environment and the runtime target environment are the same. And though we're not open source, we adopt an "open source" policy for hardware-specific drivers. This allows us to continually support the latest hardware advances, while still maintaining control of core technology. More importantly, it ensures QNX has a focused vision for the future.
  • by iamsure (66666) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @06:54AM (#658635) Homepage
    They hit the nail on the head. QNX is interesting and good and cool because it will expand, yet again, the market for linux binaries!

    Remember, the main reason SO many people code for windows is the simple fact that in doing so, they reach some 75% of the market (or whatever it is today).

    Between Gnome becoming default on Sun stations, and QNX, and all the other places (dont forget BSD!), linux binaries are reaching a seriously larger audience.

    Whether individually those things are in and of themselves cool (be nice if kde AND gnome were BOTH defaults.. ie, a choice), as a whole, they are increasing the market for programs for linux.

    That is how to win the war to grab programmers. :)

    (I know what you are thinking -- who wants windows programmers. We dont. We want programmers that HAPPEN to program for windows because of its HUGE installed base).

    Eventually, linux will be the OBVIOUS choice.
  • Oh, I found the text terribly interesting :)

    BUT, it's still an advertisement, and that should be the headline. For example:

    Ad: QNX Real-time OS, symbiosis with Linux

    I actually think this is a *very* good idea - a real ad every fix or six stories. Banner ads bite, and there's no real equivalent for commercials on the 'net. I think an ad-story every now and then would sell for some good money. Something like this is actually feasible.

    Dave
    'Round the firewall,
    Out the modem,
    Through the router,
    Down the wire,
  • Try again.

    What's the difference in between a review and an advertisement?

    Review: Attempts, at least in some ways, to be impartial. For instance, if there's a huge gaping hole of a bug, they'll tell you about it.
    Advertisement: Never, EVER says bad things about the product.

    Now, I've used QNX(at work), and it's a pretty nice system. I like it, and I hope it gains adoption in the appliance sector(the smaller the browser, the less extentions. The less extentions, the more standards-compliant), but it has some flaws.

    So, was this a review, or an add(doesn't matter who writes it, an ad is an ad)?

    Figure it out for yourself.

    Dave
    'Round the firewall,
    Out the modem,
    Through the router,
    Down the wire,
  • Just because Linux has tons of flaws doesn`t mean every Linux article has to mention them. This guy just stated the stuff he liked about the platform.

    Well, most Linux articles I've read DO mention some of the flaws, usually something along the lines of: "Well, it's a good step forward, but there's quite a bit of work to be done yet." This (sneer) article didn't mention anything bad.

    Come on, face it. This was an advertisement. I hope they Slashdot paid for it.

    Dave

    'Round the firewall,
    Out the modem,
    Through the router,
    Down the wire,
  • Shit.

    Change "I hope they Slashdot paid for it." to:
    "I hope they paid Slashdot for it."

    Dave
    'Round the firewall,
    Out the modem,
    Through the router,
    Down the wire,
  • by dbarclay10 (70443) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @06:54AM (#658640)
    I apologize if I sound rude, but his is nothing more than an advertisement. Only two or three lines has anything to do with "Open Source"(yeah, right, who here is gonna call THAT "Open Source"???), and the rest of it was them telling us how great QNX is, how well it scales, how easy it is to program for, etc., etc..

    Now, if you want to review something, that's great by me - I like reviews. I don't even care if it's a review of an Evil Microsoft product, and I don't mind if you sing its praises.

    But is this the forum for blatant advertising? Sure, banner ads are fine, whatever. Even "sponsorship messages" are cool - but LABEL THEM AS SUCH.

    Dave
    'Round the firewall,
    Out the modem,
    Through the router,
    Down the wire,
  • Hmmm. Alas for 100BASE_T; I haven't tried it, so I never hit that snag. Bummer... I've seen 1 CPU board that went bad (I have VMIVME-7588 boards), and another that had a loose interboard connection (I pushed the board back in, and it stayed good), out of a total of 7. Not so high a failure rate as yours, but I can see the common thread; I hope VMIC pay good attention to closing the faiilure-analysis-remedy loop.
    No experience with vxWorks, I ran Linux from the get-go. I DID have one weird problem, though; Seems the last 2 boards had a different Adaptec SCSI chip in them; same part number, NO indication given of any difference in "form, fit, or function", BUT it crashed the SCSI detect in RH5.X 'cause Adaptec changed the chip's internal architecture without telling anyone. VMIC hadn't heard of the problem either... Bad, Adaptec, VERY bad! Fortunately, RH6 includes the fix.
  • by OmniGeek (72743) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @07:43AM (#658642)
    I have a ten-years-old distributed system (small, just 3 nodes, but distributed) that uses an early version of QNX to remotely boot diskless front-end systems and operate them from a central computer (a 386-33MHz speed demon). The system IS nice, you can run programs on a remote system from the command line with trivial ease, and the networking (at least the Arcnet system we used for the network-boot architecture) was quite robust. (Of course, the lousy application program that we ran on top of QNX is cursed to the deepest pits, and the system has always been marginal as a result...) QNX itself is s fine OS.

    On the minus side, QNX (at least then) did NOT let you create a bootable floppy, something that annoys me no end. We had sufficient licences for all nodes (at $hundreds per node), but ya still needed those double-damned fingerprinted floppies to make it work.

    More recently, I had a brief fling with LynxOS 2 years ago; after several days of can't-get-it-to-install-even-with-tech-support-pho ne-calls, changing the NIC and video card 'cause LynxOS didn't like'em, and general difficulty using it, I went out and bought RedHat 5.0, and I'm never, ever going closed-source again unless forced. (BTW, the funny thing 'bout LynxOS was, all the primary development tools were GNU; gcc, gdb... Only the profiler and MetroX X server were proprietary. Now, tell me again why I paid $30K for this package?)

    Yes, I MAY be able to get superior real-time performance out of a closed-source OS (unproven IMHO); but my systems, like MOST of those out there, do NOT stretch the boundaries of achievable performance. I'm running P5-200MHz front-end systems using VMEbus; if I need more performance, (which I haven't yet and probably won't), I'll just slap in a faster CPU card. So far, I've had to hack the NIC code once to eliminate a funky media-autosense problem, and the VME driver to accommodate the VMIC VME implementation (the latter has since fixed by VMIC; great people, I HIGHLY recommend them, AND they support Linux on their iron!); I could NOT have done this with LynxOS or QNX, and MY experience says there's every chance I would have needed to do so.

    It's not ideology that moves me to say this, and not cheapness (the OS cost isn't an issue in my systems); it's Linux' better flexibility, equal or better reliability and hardware compatibility, and that source accessibility that make it my primary choice for an OS.

    As a practical matter of getting my job done, Open Source wins for me. Period.
  • Hey, cool! Slashdot is publishing marketing materials now!

    Can I send my company's brochure in as a story and get it published too?

    -=-=-=-=-

  • I agree... there was not one negative comment in that "review". Reviews should always list both pros and cons and if there are no cons then you should say so. Then again I am no English teacher. But I do know that QNX has it's cons... for one thing I have seen an ATM running QNX crash.

    AussiePenguin
    Melbourne, Australia
    ICQ 19255837

  • This entire screed reads like a glossy brochure. I can't be the only technical person out here who has earned (through personal pain and toil) to immediately distrust a supposedly technical document that contains the words "Something wonderful is coming."
  • I absolutely agree that they have the right to toot their own horns.

    I disagree that their unedited, uncommented marketing material is suitable "feature" matter.
  • It's interesting that you highly recommend VMIC. My experience with them has been partly positive but mostly negative:
    • There is at least one advertised feature, 100BASE-T Ethernet, that has never been made to work at all on our boards (the 233 MHz Pentium MMX based VMIVME7589).
    • Half the time, the boards don't work; we expect to send ours back home to Alabama every few months. They seem to develop internal loose connections easily.
    • When the boards don't work, the customer service people are admitedly very good about taking them back and fixing them promptly.
    • The vxWorks development tools are pretty poor, but that's Wind River's fault. We switched over to Linux for our last experiment, and it was like a dream come true.
  • Other than the bald marketing plug not being appropriate for Slashdot IMNSHO, this represents a seachange for QNX.
    As a student I tried to get a copy of QNX via snail mail which went pretty much like this:
    Letter #1- Can I get an educational copy?
    Reply #1- No, but we'll send you a fat book on the architecture and how to develop with it.
    Letter #2 - Okay, how about a student discount?
    Reply #2 - No, but you can buy our "reasonably priced" entry-level edition.
    Phone Call - Can I at least eval it before I drop the few $k?
    No, only professional developers working for established companies can get evals.
    Okay, thanks.

    I was underwhelmed and didn't touch their product until years later when a friend let me play with his copy.

    It looks like they're getting a clue, but they aren't there yet.
    - technik
  • Neither is released as a stable product, both feature a microkernel and all the user space servers, etc

    QNX started life as QUNIX 20+ years ago. They have shipped many products over the lifetime of the Canandian company that makes QNX.

    This 'press release' is about the latest version is all. To place what QNX has delivered on VS what HURD has delivered on shows QNX has a history of delivering products that actually WORK, as opposed to a product that might work, one day.

    If you don't feel QNX, as shipped, is a stable product, what DO you consider stable?
  • I have been using QNX for an industrial batching solution for years. The company I am working for has been using it for a bit longer.
    I know it is RT, but....
    you pay a hek of a price. With the previous version we could not use procesors with an odd clock speed ( odd as in 233 is bad but 200 or 266 or 200 is good... 333 is bad) does that make any sence to you?
    Support for even serial and parralel cards in 4.15 is sketchy...
    It works, but I do not see why everyone is going crazy over it. Linux or *BSD is far more superier as a web/mail/name/whatever deamon as well as desktop (just try getting your rage iiid or whatever top of the line video card to work under QNX)
    Oh you say RT for multimedia? There are plenty of latency patches out there for Linux kernels or you can apply the RT patch (yuk! Id go for the latency patches... wich may become mainstream if it can be 'presented' well enough to Linus)
    well thats my two sence. QNX is nothing new, nothing spectaclular. If you have no Industrial needs, you have no QNX needs.
  • AFAIK, I think they'll be offering an installation under Linux (akin to the installation under Windows) with the next release (which should be any time now, I believe). Keep checking their website.
  • "Something wonderful is coming. Do you want to join the exciting battle to change computing and topple the choking monopolies within the industry? :)"

    And help us build our monopoly, centered around our proprietary OS!

    Ok, so I work for WRS [wrs.com], but I still think these guys are trying to ride the fence and get some free apps for their proprietary OS...

  • Can't have more than one monopoly in an industry.

    Yes you can. A "monopoly" can be in a field smaller than an "industry." For example, Microsoft Corp. holds a monopoly not on "computer software" but on "desktop OS for x86 boxen."

  • Linux has loadable kernel modules now

    Ever try a 2.2.x kernel module in 2.4? Or for that matter, a 2.2.13 kernel module in 2.2.14?

    Many binary kernel modules<cough>Lucent Win Modem</cough> support only the kernel that comes with a specific version of Red Hat Linux because a loadable kernel module has to be compiled against each kernel build it will be used with, and the kernel with the largest potential audience is the latest Red Hat.

  • by Strog (129969)
    I was really liking Qnx until I upgraded my mb to an Abit KT7 Raid. I hope they get drivers for the Highpoint raid controller. I will try it our some more on my PPro system but guess I will have to wait to check out the DVD playback in Qnx.

  • by Vandenzob (130166) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @07:34AM (#658656)
    Talking about Quake and Doom to explain what QNX can do gets the idea across but compared to what QNX is trully used for, these description are pretty weak. I have seen QNX used in satellite control, telemetry, GPIB and all the wonder stuff. QNX will always have its niche guaranteed and has been around for ages, it doesn't need to make its proof like BeOS does (an other comparison which makes me uneasy).

    All I can think of is they though "Hey those Slashdot kiddos only play quake, let's talk their language and avoid the serious stuff... Oh and the GPL, tell them it's not seen as good in the suit and tie environement."

    A bit disapointing from them. They have a heck of a product. Also what was the heading again? Perfect symbiosis with Linux? The letter doesn't seem to coroborate this statement.

    PS: Mr QNX, could you make you RTS Free CD boot from SCSI CDROMs? Somehow it doesn't look very "serious" either.

  • There's no drag-n-drop in QNX. They've got some work to do before they make that OS the equal of Linux.
  • The whole Idea behind QNX, (and other RTOS'es) is stablility, and I can tell you QNX is fscking stable.

    QNX is stable, but QNX RtP could use some work. I've managed to hang it up completely solid (at least, as far as I could tell) once and the GUI likes to stop taking mouse input and/or keyboard input periodically.

  • Who was the moron who modded this down? Linux kernel modules are not done well at all. You can't use a binary module from linux 2.2 in linux 2.4. Or use a 2.4 module with 2.2. QNX solves this problem, which I feel is the greatest problem with linux today. Kernel driver modularity.

    Look, just because they have something called 'modules' in the kernel does not mean the 'modularity' is nearly as useful as that of QNX.
  • by Lord Ender (156273) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @07:46AM (#658660) Homepage
    Hold on a second there, before you flame me. I love linux and I run slackware. I also love FreeBSD. And I run OpenBSD on my laptop. But there is one thing I really don't like about Linux--the design of the kernel. I dont like the idea of recompiling the kernel for new drivers. QNX is truely modular. Companies can release binary-only drivers for QNX and they work. This does not work well with linux, because the kernel changes every second.

    You see, Linux started as a project to run on one computer. QNX RtP is designed by engineers who had a clear view of what they want it to be when it is done. It is well engineered. With linux, you have to change the kernel to add drivers! That is NOT the way it shold be done! This is not a problem with QNX.

    All this being said I still love OpenSource, and I like linux but hate the way drivers are implemented in it. I would trade a poorly designed opensource kernel for a smaller, more modular commercial one, as long as the rest of the OS is open source. With QNX, you dont need to hack the kernel itself, because it is very small.

    Modularity.

    Modularity.
  • Actually thats what I do. (multiboot)


    Round the firewall,
    Out the NIC,
    Through the router,
    Down the wire,
    NOTHING BUT NET!
  • All these different OS's serve there own purpose. Whether it be ease of use, open sourced, realtime processing, etc... Just choose the one that best suits your needs, shut up, and be happy. I for one am glad that I have a choice.
    Of course non of them compare to my C64.


    Round the firewall,
    Out the NIC,
    Through the router,
    Down the wire,
    NOTHING BUT NET!
  • by Ars-Fartsica (166957) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @07:39AM (#658663)
    Be has a solid OS, and just because its not Open Source doesn't mean it sucks and that Be should drop into the infernal abyss.

    Of course Be has a quality product - but part of the marketing of that product is a decision whether or not to open the source. Like it or lump it, The BeOS market and the linux market are basically the same - people who are willing to try an alternative OS - and most of the users in this market are using the openness of the source in their product decision.

    Be could have made that decision early on to capture mindshare - they didn't - and now they are toast. The bottom line is that you give users what they want. Even if the CEO doesn't think open source makes sense, you listen to users. If users want a free car wash and a commemorative plate with each OS install, thats what you give them.

    Linux is a decent OS, it has a few things to learn (Which is why I use BSD :), but the thing that bugs me most about Linux are the claims by its users that it can cure (insert "world hunger", "war", "disease", whatever else here.).

    Speaking as someone who has used FreeBSD for five years, I can tell you that most of the cool userland stuff to land on BSD in the past three years has come from the linux userbase. Gnome and KDE would not have ever come about if not for the linux craze.

  • by Ars-Fartsica (166957) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @06:46AM (#658664)
    Aside from the real-time capabilities, which I presume are meaningless to almost all linux users, basically we've got another BeOS here.

    My advice: learn the lesson that Be didn't - open source your OS if you want to survive. Regardless of whether it makes "strategic" sense for the company, the market for this type of product won't dedicate any mindshare to a closed source product. Without developer mindshare, you're toast.

  • by anubis__ (168382)
    Yeah, the article might be just about advertising, but QNX is not a BeOS. After using it for some time, I can readily see why QNX would be the intelligent choice for embedded systems. Keep BSD on the big servers, Linux on home and small business servers and put QNX on all my bluetooth devices and I will be a happy man.
  • This article mentions Amiga peripherally at best, yet it's an "amiga topic". Am I missing something? QNX was proposed, and then dropped as an Amiga partner a while ago, weren't they? I think we've got enough confusion about what the Amiga is and isn't without mentioning some OS that was tied to what was a very different Amiga corporation a few years ago.

    - Ben
    junkmail@psychomantis.net
  • The article says that developers can download the source and develop for the platform while at the same time have their precious code protected from comptetitors, "So QSSL offers prime advantages of both the open-source and commercial worlds! !"

    No matter how you slice it, the system is not Free (as in speech) nor is it Open Source. I have read that QNX is big in the embedded market, but I seriously doubt any developers who really care about the issues of Freedom and Open Source are going to dive into developing for the platform.

    I know I won't.

    dp
    ---
  • Can someone moderate this up please? It seems to be a fairly decent explanation for not handing out kernel source. On a different note; I'd wait for an actual release (not a pre-release) before saying that application source code isn't distributed.
  • woah woah woah! Who said anyone's fixing source code? A year ago Slashdot users wanted QNX to open source the OS - now they are, and you're still not happy. P.S. Can anyone make an intelligent point on /. anymore without resorting to sarcasm, cursing and name calling? It really degrades how people perceive your intelligence level.
  • All good points. It would be nice to actually have a serious discussion on Slashdot about articles without defining rumour and heresay as fact. Aren't sites like this about discussion, not statements of FUD? (/me gets off of the soapbox) I don't recall anyone ever putting Linux and RtP into a ring and saying "Fight!", so everyone should relax. If there's anyone who should worry, it's that company that makes that thing that has that blue screen all the time. You know who I mean.
  • Even if you actually are paid for doing 'industrial batch solution'-whatever, I have serious doubts you've ever used a QNX product. Listen to what you're saying "odd clock speed"? As friggin if. I've used QNX2, QNX 4.23->4.25, and RtP on a plethora of processors, odd and even. Poor support for serial and parallel? If you're going to make something up, make up something that people will believe. You say RtP is nothing new? It's in pre-release, how newer do you want? Stay off the pipe dude, and next time, if you want people to believe your FUD, use a spellchecker!
  • Its stories like these which REALLY make me wish someone could use ALL of their moderation points on a STORY and set -5: Lies; -5 Deception and -5 Advertisement. Really... this is nothing more than advertising.

    ---
  • It is interesting how everyones perception of Be is so superficial. Be switched there efforts to BeIA and has not seen revenue from this until devices such as Compaq's start getting into the market. This is when there revenue stream will start up again. Look a little deeper. BeOS has the most viable package out there for Internet Appliances. QNX is playing catchup (Bad Security) and WinCE well lets not go there. BeOS will hopefully pick up again when there revenue stream from BeIA starts making the BeOS effort more viable again. BTW: I do not work for Be.
  • It will be interesting to see how things turn out. I guess that you think the prototypes that Compaq has been showing are bogus; as well as the performance specs. But I guess that Compaq is not a big enough name to make a show. Interesting how 3COM is choosing another OS for there appliances, I guess that PalmOS did not scale well to more functionality.
  • 'topple the choking monopolies within the industry'

    Can't have more than one monopoly in an industry. Doh!
  • "Can't have more than one monopoly in an industry"


    Umm, actually, you can.
    An industry does not necessarily produce ONE single product. For each product (or product type) produced, the producer can be a monopoly. Ergo, it is perfectly possible to have multiple monopolies in an industry.


    Obligatory car analogy - you could have a monopoly on production of car engines, a different company having a monopoly on tyres, yet another company having the monopoly on windscreens - 3 monopolies in one industry.


  • Don't mean to sound rude, but till you can boot RTP from a SCSI drive, there are a lot of people left in the dark. I'll wait till I can try it out before I get excited and fall for ploy of this press release.

    Ranessin

  • Except that the QNX RTP was released *weeks* ago, and was announced on Slashdot then... This is nothing but marketing crap.

    Ranessin
  • You consider QNX RTP to be, technologically speaking, lame shit? Ha ha ha ha ha. You are funny.
  • by Siqnal 11 (210012) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @06:50AM (#658680) Homepage
    I really don't see what you guys are getting so excited about. What sets QNX apart from all the other commercial RTOSes out there? It's a commercial endeavour! Yes, you can download a demo disk. But you don't get full source and you're not allowed to use it for any real work. Sounds pretty much like VxWorks or any one of the dozens of other competitors to me. Call them, they'll send you a free demo too!

    Read the FAQ. Their opinions are stated in plain view:

    Q: Why doesn't QNX provide source to the kernel and other core OS modules?
    A: Because QNX developers don't need kernel source to extend the OS.

    Anyone who's ever done serious work in embedded systems know the kernel source is absolutely essential for debugging, not only the application but also the kernel. All OSes contain kernel bugs. They're a pain to find and fix without source, and those of us who've been there are not going back lightheartedly. You all know this, that's why we're embracing open source. How come so many of you are now eager to jump back into the dark hole that is proprietary software?

    For embedded work, there's ECOS already. It's Free Software and runs on a dozen different CPUs, with new ports coming all the time. If you want the 3D acceleration, anti-aliases graphics and macromedia player, you're probably not looking for embedded stuff in the first place.

    Sure, QNX is fun. Play away. But it isn't the future.

    --

  • You all know this, that's why we're embracing open source.

    We are? Funny, I don't care one way or the other if something is open source as long as it works as advertised.

    How come so many of you are now eager to jump back into the dark hole that is proprietary software?

    Polish?



    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
  • by tswinzig (210999) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @01:50PM (#658682) Journal
    Aside from the real-time capabilities, which I presume are meaningless to almost all linux users, basically we've got another BeOS here.

    Not even... BeOS is much more advanced in the multimedia aspects, and is fairly close to the 'realtime' definition as used in the context of QNX RtP.

    My advice: learn the lesson that Be didn't - open source your OS if you want to survive.

    1. As if Be is dead? BeIA will be doing nicely in 2001.

    2. As if open sourcing BeOS would have made more money for Be?

    Regardless of whether it makes "strategic" sense for the company

    Regardless? Regardless?? A company's goal is to make money. Period, end of story.

    Without developer mindshare, you're toast.

    No, without a killer app, you're toast. Whether or not you need developer mindshare to get that killer app is another thing.

    -thomas

    "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
  • by skoda (211470) on Wednesday November 01, 2000 @07:01AM (#658683) Homepage
    Perhaps a new moderation category would be helpful:

    (Score: -1, Marketing Fluff)

    :)
    -----
    D. Fischer
  • Is there a way to install this thing that dosn't involve burning my own CD or using a windows only installer? Is there a way to get just the basic essentials onto a hard disk partition and not have to install everything. I think this would be a very good thing it they bothered to do these things.
  • Ok, you're a cynic. You're also right. There's marketing drool dripping out of my monitor because I read this article. Yuck. Kleenex!!!
  • I take it lots of poeple are objecting to the fact this is an 'all positive article'. I don't know, but I've seen plenty of blatant cheerleading articles on /. before, so maybe some more specific critism should be in order. What exactly do people not like about RtP? -That it isn't completely OS? If that's a sticking point, then it's likely to remain one, because RtP won't go completely OS. -That is doesn't yet have a huge feature set (drag and drop, DVD, etc?). Given that this is a pre-release verson, who expects those things? It's come very far in a short amount of time, and has some stuff that more mature OSs like Linux don't. I for one have downloaded RtP for desktop use, and it's fast, responsive, and has a decent amount of features for a pre-release version. The included development system is, IMO, fantastic, especially the documentation. I keep seeing comparisons to Be, which I don't think are completely off the mark, except for one major difference: QNX has a proven track record and is attracting developers. Be isn't. Turns out, that's a pretty big difference

Mirrors should reflect a little before throwing back images. -- Jean Cocteau

Working...