Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Explaining The Symbiosis Between QNX RtP & Linux

Hemos posted more than 13 years ago | from the what's-going-on-there dept.

Amiga 121

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

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#658587)

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.

Slashdot's Linux zealots spreading misinformation. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#658588)

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.

tagging onto linux for free marketting (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#658589)

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.

HEMOS is Mike Bouma's bee-yatch! (3)

Anonymous Coward | more than 13 years ago | (#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...

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (1)

rodgerd (402) | more than 13 years ago | (#658591)

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.

Re:Get over it. (1)

The Finn (1547) | more than 13 years ago | (#658592)

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.

OSX and Realtime... (2)

Millennium (2451) | more than 13 years ago | (#658593)

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?
----------

Re:OSX and Realtime... (2)

Millennium (2451) | more than 13 years ago | (#658594)

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.
----------

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (1)

bjb (3050) | more than 13 years ago | (#658595)

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?

--

No, it's another BeIA (3)

Watts Martin (3616) | more than 13 years ago | (#658597)

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.

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (1)

Frederic54 (3788) | more than 13 years ago | (#658598)

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)
--

Symbiosis? (2)

booch (4157) | more than 13 years ago | (#658601)

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?

Re:Are they riding coattails or have I misread thi (2)

luge (4808) | more than 13 years ago | (#658602)

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

A press release comment to a press release story (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 13 years ago | (#658604)

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.

--

Press Releases! We get Press Releases! (1)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 13 years ago | (#658605)

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, ....

--

Are they riding coattails or have I misread this? (4)

A nonymous Coward (7548) | more than 13 years ago | (#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?

--

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (3)

GypC (7592) | more than 13 years ago | (#658607)

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"

"ad stories" (1)

Pierre Phaneuf (8433) | more than 13 years ago | (#658608)

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

--
Pierre Phaneuf

Apples vs Oranges (2)

Norman Lorrain (11572) | more than 13 years ago | (#658609)

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?

QNX vs. BeOS is what we want (1)

Pegasus (13291) | more than 13 years ago | (#658610)

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.

Re:Are they riding coattails or have I misread thi (1)

Sloppy (14984) | more than 13 years ago | (#658611)

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!)


---

BeOS vs Linux vs QNX (1)

evil-beaver (15985) | more than 13 years ago | (#658612)

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!

huh? (1)

BigWillieStyle (22009) | more than 13 years ago | (#658613)

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...

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (1)

webster (22696) | more than 13 years ago | (#658615)

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

Re:I want it, but can't use it (1)

terpia (28218) | more than 13 years ago | (#658618)

why dont you do it jackass, i bet you dont free ride on gnutella too fuckin freeloder

Re:QNX is Linux done right (1)

pixelbeat (31557) | more than 13 years ago | (#658620)

Linux has loadable kernel modules now in case
you hadn't noticed. They've been supported
for the last few years.

morons (2)

madmaxx (32372) | more than 13 years ago | (#658621)

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.

i've noticed this more and more.. (1)

ebbv (34786) | more than 13 years ago | (#658622)


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

because they're all ignorant.. (1)

ebbv (34786) | more than 13 years ago | (#658623)


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

no, not funny.. (1)

ebbv (34786) | more than 13 years ago | (#658624)


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

am i supposed to feel thrashed? (1)

ebbv (34786) | more than 13 years ago | (#658625)


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

No (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 13 years ago | (#658628)

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

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (3)

wbb4 (60942) | more than 13 years ago | (#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 :)

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (2)

be-fan (61476) | more than 13 years ago | (#658630)

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.

Re:That's great and all but.... (2)

be-fan (61476) | more than 13 years ago | (#658631)

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!

Re:BeOS vs Linux vs QNX (2)

be-fan (61476) | more than 13 years ago | (#658632)

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!

Re:Get over it. (2)

ReconRich (64368) | more than 13 years ago | (#658633)

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

some more info on QNX (3)

dboyles (65512) | more than 13 years ago | (#658634)

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.

Why it *is* cool.. (5)

iamsure (66666) | more than 13 years ago | (#658635)

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.

Re:I don't mean to sound rude, but ... (2)

dbarclay10 (70443) | more than 13 years ago | (#658636)

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,

Re:I agree (2)

dbarclay10 (70443) | more than 13 years ago | (#658637)

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,

I don't mean to sound rude, but ... (5)

dbarclay10 (70443) | more than 13 years ago | (#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,

Re:VMIC (1)

OmniGeek (72743) | more than 13 years ago | (#658641)

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.

I have used QNX on serious projects (4)

OmniGeek (72743) | more than 13 years ago | (#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.

Press Release (2)

Ledge Kindred (82988) | more than 13 years ago | (#658643)

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 (1)

AussiePenguin (83326) | more than 13 years ago | (#658644)

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

Call me a cynic, please. (1)

mikej (84735) | more than 13 years ago | (#658645)

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."

Re:Call me a cynic, please. (1)

mikej (84735) | more than 13 years ago | (#658646)

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.

VMIC (1)

PurinaCatChow (86637) | more than 13 years ago | (#658647)

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.

Re:HEMOS is Mike Bouma's bee-yatch! (1)

Technik~ (87292) | more than 13 years ago | (#658648)

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

Re:So What... (1)

mr (88570) | more than 13 years ago | (#658649)

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?

QNX is not new, not fantastic. (1)

wharfrat (90464) | more than 13 years ago | (#658650)

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.

Re:Getting it to work with linux? (1)

vorpal22 (114901) | more than 13 years ago | (#658651)

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.

Tearing down monopolies... (1)

jasno (124830) | more than 13 years ago | (#658652)

"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...

Sub-industries (2)

yerricde (125198) | more than 13 years ago | (#658653)

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."

Loadable kernel modules work only on ONE kernel (2)

yerricde (125198) | more than 13 years ago | (#658654)

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.

QNX (1)

Strog (129969) | more than 13 years ago | (#658655)

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.

QNX has been badly advertised... (3)

Vandenzob (130166) | more than 13 years ago | (#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.

That's great and all but.... (2)

bangman (140200) | more than 13 years ago | (#658657)

There's no drag-n-drop in QNX. They've got some work to do before they make that OS the equal of Linux.

Re:Get over it. (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 13 years ago | (#658658)

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.

Re:QNX is Linux done right (2)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 13 years ago | (#658659)

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.

QNX is Linux done right (3)

Lord Ender (156273) | more than 13 years ago | (#658660)

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.

Re:Stop Bitching... (1)

jaroca (157689) | more than 13 years ago | (#658661)

Actually thats what I do. (multiboot)


Round the firewall,
Out the NIC,
Through the router,
Down the wire,
NOTHING BUT NET!

Stop Bitching... (2)

jaroca (157689) | more than 13 years ago | (#658662)

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!

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (3)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 13 years ago | (#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.

So, its another BeOS?? (5)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 13 years ago | (#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.

QNX (2)

anubis__ (168382) | more than 13 years ago | (#658665)

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 is an "Amiga" topic? (2)

StRobinson (175747) | more than 13 years ago | (#658666)

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

It's not Free nor is it Open Source (1)

insipid (176166) | more than 13 years ago | (#658667)

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
---

Re:Slashdot's Linux zealots spreading misinformati (1)

Realtime Coward (178827) | more than 13 years ago | (#658668)

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.

Re:huh? (1)

Realtime Coward (178827) | more than 13 years ago | (#658669)

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.

Re:Apples vs Oranges (1)

Realtime Coward (178827) | more than 13 years ago | (#658670)

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.

Don't smoke crack and post articles (1)

Realtime Coward (178827) | more than 13 years ago | (#658671)

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!

Story: -5: [Deceptive Topic] (1)

CyberKnet (184349) | more than 13 years ago | (#658672)

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.

---

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (1)

vonGyver (189231) | more than 13 years ago | (#658673)

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.

Sounds nice.. but.. (1)

onion2k (203094) | more than 13 years ago | (#658675)

'topple the choking monopolies within the industry'

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

Re:Sounds nice.. but.. (1)

ColdGrits (204506) | more than 13 years ago | (#658676)

"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.

SCSI support... (1)

ranessin (205172) | more than 13 years ago | (#658677)


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

Re:Press Release (1)

ranessin (205172) | more than 13 years ago | (#658678)


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

Ranessin

Re:because they're all ignorant.. (1)

bowb (209411) | more than 13 years ago | (#658679)

You consider QNX RTP to be, technologically speaking, lame shit? Ha ha ha ha ha. You are funny.

Get over it. (4)

Siqnal 11 (210012) | more than 13 years ago | (#658680)

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.

--

New Mod Category (4)

skoda (211470) | more than 13 years ago | (#658683)

Perhaps a new moderation category would be helpful:

(Score: -1, Marketing Fluff)

:)
-----
D. Fischer

Getting it to work with linux? (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#658684)

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.

I was thinking more along the lines of.. (1)

sips (212702) | more than 13 years ago | (#658685)

a small install with just the needed files somehow repackages maybe like a tar archive.

Re:huh? (1)

King of the World (212739) | more than 13 years ago | (#658686)

It was attempted but when one team stood on the power-square-things the opposition gets no CPU time and the griffin's got all tetchy.

Good idea at the time, though.

Re:qnx sucks (1)

BlueHexahedron (216552) | more than 13 years ago | (#658687)

I remember posting a news article about 4 years ago about making QNX freely available for non-commercial use, and was immediately shot down in flames.
This was before Linux was widely known, and this seemed like a good idea at the time. But as you say, this release has come too late.
DING-dING-diNG-dinG-ding...missed the train!

I like QNX, and I have plans for something useful. However, It'll never surplant Linux, certainly not now.

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (1)

update() (217397) | more than 13 years ago | (#658688)

I don't make a living from computers, I enjoy writing code that other people will use and want to give a little back in exchange for the software and documentation people have made freely available to me. But, you know, if I were a professional developer I'd be leery about creating a perceived value of zero for software. Today, an new OS simply is not thought to be worth paying money for.

Of course, I'm a biomedical researcher so everybody already thinks I should be working for free, with an occasional pat on the head for compensation....

I want it, but can't use it (1)

Lazee (218654) | more than 13 years ago | (#658690)

I really would like to use QNX. However I can't. It is incompatable with my video card, my audio card, my scsi card and my ethernet card. I really hope they or someone else will build more drivers.

So What... (1)

spotteddog (234814) | more than 13 years ago | (#658694)

So what does this give me that I can't get with the Hurd? Neither is released as a stable product, both feature a microkernel and all the user space servers, etc. that go along with that design. Oh yeah - if I use this I get to support a company that will decide what I need in my os (or at least what I need to have supported in my os). Sorry, they are just a bit late for me. Five years ago I would have been all over it, now it is just too late.

spotteddog

Advantage QSSL (1)

HJ_Simpson (235588) | more than 13 years ago | (#658695)

Giving source code away freely doesn't make sense for everybody. 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 as 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.

Re:Stop Bitching... (1)

JurriAlt137n (236883) | more than 13 years ago | (#658696)

All these different OS's serve there own purpose.

Besides, if there is not a single OS that fulfills your need, Multiboot?

Your C64 might have some trouble doing this, but aside from that, it's a great machine. Ah, the good ol' days.

10 PRINT "MY C64 ROCKS";GOTO 10

Re:Call me a cynic, please. (2)

JurriAlt137n (236883) | more than 13 years ago | (#658697)

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!!!

Re:QNX is Linux done right (1)

poodlemaster (237451) | more than 13 years ago | (#658698)

What a moron ... hi ho.

CC

Re:Press Releases! We get Press Releases! (1)

poodlemaster (237451) | more than 13 years ago | (#658699)

The joint is jumping ... ;).

CC

Alterior methods of survival (1)

iomud (241310) | more than 13 years ago | (#658700)

It's my understanding that qnx has an extremely stable grip on mission critical markets. So why not open source the beast and simply charge insane ammounts of money for support. It's an excellent source of revenue. I can happily say that until it's free or just does so much I cant put it down I wont use it.

Re:I have used QNX on serious projects (1)

the frizz (242326) | more than 13 years ago | (#658701)

Omnigeek wrote
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.
When I used QNX 5 years ago I didn't needed to use a floppy to boot them. In fact, I often never used a hard disk either.

Re:Are they riding coattails or have I misread thi (1)

the frizz (242326) | more than 13 years ago | (#658702)

They are making most of their source code available. That's giving something back. Their Business FAQ [qnx.com] says:
Which portions of the QNX platform can I access in source form?

You can download source for most components, including driver toolkits, OS utilities, TCP/IP stacks, startup code, media players, Internet applications, games, and so on. Components that will remain protected include the OS kernel, core OS modules (e.g. QNX process manager, QNX file system manager), and software licensed from third parties.

Also they say:
Why doesn't QNX provide source to the kernel and other core OS modules?

Because QNX developers don't need kernel source to extend the OS. With QNX's advanced architecture, most OS-level services (drivers, file systems, and so on) exist as user programs that run outside the kernel, just like regular applications. As a result, developing OS extensions doesn't require kernel source - or for that matter, kernel debuggers (tricky) and kernel programmers (expensive). You just use the same tools as for developing user applications.

I completely agree them them here. I used QNX for 3 years and never needed to see how the kernel was implemented. Sometimes to help writing my own applications I needed request the source code in their system utilities under a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Now these should be freely available without an NDA.
While our embedded customers want the flexibility provided by source code, they also demand a stable, high-performance core of technology that they can rely on. With our approach, they can enjoy both. Put simply, we can offer OEMs key benefits of an open source OS, but without the drawbacks.
But I think this is a bogus excuse. If a customer wants a a stable, high-performance core of technology, they could choose to use QNX Software Systems core only, but that doesn't stop QSS from open sourcing it.

I think the real reason why they don't open source is a comercial one. Maybe they would be better off open source the lot and offer their services for hire, but that's a risky decision which is theirs to make. At this point in time I'd rather thank them for code they are making available, instead of chastizing them for the code they aren't making available.

Re:huh? (1)

(Mike)(duh) (249973) | more than 13 years ago | (#658703)

Why is it a crime to make money?

It seems to me the situation with Linux is just as bad. There, the Linux IPOs make money off the efforts of people who improve the source too, because that makes their products more attractive.

Actually, there's an insidious incentive there though. The more bug free and user friendly Linux gets however, the less money those companies make in support. Which might explain the ever increasing sprawl of Linux code, especially buggy code.

Mike

Marketing? (2)

(Mike)(duh) (249973) | more than 13 years ago | (#658704)

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

Re:So, its another BeOS?? (1)

Gus.de.Argentina (250037) | more than 13 years ago | (#658705)

What are you saying, boy? I have been using QNX since 1989. There where neither Linux, nor BSD, nor BeOS in those days... Ive developed real-time critical apps. under QNX 2 and QNX 4 for the steel industry. Nowadays Im using QNX 4.25 for a payment system getting more than 250000 electronic transactions per day with a 266 MHz Pentium II that replaced a Tandem. And finally, I have been experiencing with QNX Neutrino since 1996 (what is what QNX RTP really is). Open your mind. Architecture makes the difference.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?