Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 15th Jun 2005 04:58 UTC, submitted by Kelly McNeill
QNX QNX (pronounced either Q-N-X or Q-nix) is a commercial POSIX-compliant Unix-like real-time operating system, aimed primarily at the embedded systems market. The system is quite small, fitting in a minimal fashion on a single floppy, and is considered to be both very fast and fairly "complete." But how does it perform? Stuart Goddard submitted the following editorial to osOpinion/osViews, which shows his experiences after installing version 6.3 of the operating system. Update: The story was removed at osViews.
Order by: Score:
umm
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 05:09 UTC

I bet they are losing market share to linux and doing everything they can to retain their profits. FWIU, qnx is used mostly in robotic controls and for operating assembly lines.

v hehe
by QuantumG on Wed 15th Jun 2005 05:11 UTC
waste...
by Bob on Wed 15th Jun 2005 05:19 UTC

That was a particularly uninspired essay, devoid of interesting details or actual information.

-Bob

Bad article
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 05:22 UTC

The article only showcases the authors ignorance. 4 gigs of memory, 412megs of that is being used and that is a 'waste'. No sir, the remaining 3684megs were being wasted.

Amazing...
by Jonathan Thompson on Wed 15th Jun 2005 05:25 UTC

That this guy has no clue what the system is intended to solve. It is NOT intended to be a desktop OS! It is a *real-time* system for embedded applications that must be so boringly reliable that the only acceptable case of failure is hardware failure. Speed isn't the important design criteria: fixed maximum latency with response to an event is.

What this guy also is clueless about is *where* that amount of memory has likely gone: the filesystem cache. While I haven't worked with this version of QNX (I had installed the first free version awhile back on my laptop, and noted it had a bad habit of leaving the clock in a suspended state if the screensaver came on) what is very common with many operating systems (Windows, Linux, Unix variants, etc.) is to use as much RAM as available for a filesystem cache, preferably unified with the VM subsystem. Until the system actually needs the memory that's been cached for new data and otherwise has run out of pages in physical RAM, there's no point in worrying about the memory used: the LRU algorithm (most commonly used) will conveniently flush out something that's not been reused since it was cached, at no performance hit. On the other hand, chances are high enough for it to make sense to cache until it's not needed, and data that's reused in the filesystem has an immediate performance win if it's already cached in RAM, as it doesn't need to go to the disk again.

Now for the networking speeds, I can't comment on his throughput, as this guy didn't actually benchmark anything beyond whining about perceived speeds. However, QNX is a microkernel with most things in separate user space processes, including the networking stack. This most definitely does have a performance overhead, but because he didn't do any tests to isolate what was really going on, he decided it had to be the OS, of course! What about the possibility that the connection had a slow link somewhere off the QNX machine? He didn't provide any data to disprove that. He didn't even mention what software he was running that was using the network stack: was it FireFox, FTP, or something else?

In short, this editorial that was linked to here on OSNews is so worthless as to make OSNews look like a joke for bothering with such crap, because all it is, is a rant by someone that's rather clueless as to what he's evaluating and what it was intended for.

v Yeah, that's what I said..
by QuantumG on Wed 15th Jun 2005 05:31 UTC
No idea what he's talking about?
by Sören Kuklau on Wed 15th Jun 2005 05:49 UTC

He sounds like he was expecting a full-blown and speedy desktop OS, and his remark about SSE support makes me wonder: does this guy realize at all that QNX is an embedded OS, and that the version for desktop machines has the main purpose of developing applications?

Reviewer has no clue
by Andy C on Wed 15th Jun 2005 05:58 UTC

QNX doesnt have to support the latest greatest hardware out there, 64 bit processors or anything that takes away from its main purpose: rock solid stability.

Not to mention that the reviewer seems technically inept, mistaking a Pentium 4 with Hyperthreading for a Pentium 4 D with 2 physical cores (SMP)

I don't get it...
by Thomas on Wed 15th Jun 2005 06:01 UTC

Is this article some kind of joke? An attempt at irony, perhaps? I really don't get it...

v Oh..
by CaptainObvious on Wed 15th Jun 2005 06:11 UTC
The comments say all you need to know
by Viridian on Wed 15th Jun 2005 06:23 UTC

The folks who replied to the author's "article" give some idea of the worth of the piece.

whoa
by hard to believe on Wed 15th Jun 2005 06:26 UTC

Hard to believe this crap even made it to OSNews, even with today's standards. This is one of the worst, and I don't even like QNX. This article/rant/collection of misunderstanding should be aborted asap.

WTF?
by Lars Hansson on Wed 15th Jun 2005 06:30 UTC

Why is this even on osnews? It's a review by someone who obviously have NO clue whatsofuckingever on an OS he dosnt even remotely understand. A proud day for internet journalism no doubt.

What a moron!
by DruggedBunny on Wed 15th Jun 2005 06:36 UTC

Amazingly ill-informed! Why on earth was this accepted on OSNews?

I am nonplussed
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 06:37 UTC

This entire post is obviously a troll? Why was it linked to?

Who buys a relatively expensive piece of hardware for the express purpose of running a real-time embedded operating system as their desktop OS?

The "article" is full of erroneous assertions and is flamebait. It's stupider than an article written in a hypothetical collaboration between Cringely and Dvorak.

Bad article
by Flav on Wed 15th Jun 2005 06:47 UTC

As a QNX user in a university teaching environment, the author is way off.

QNX is a microkernel based real-time operating system for embedded systems. It's not supposed to be speedy or responsive in the way we perceive desktop OS. It's not even meant to be used in a desktop OS environemnt. For one the scheduler is deterministic b/c of real-time constraints, it is by default not as responsive as Linux or Windows, for example,

The network stack is slower than counterparts, the reason is that it run at a lower priority than many other processes.

Besides, the Momentics is a development environment for embedded applications. There's support for 68k, ARM and other embedded processors. That's why there is zero support for advanced processor primitives b/c it's not needed. The Momentics environment is meant to generated code, kernel image and drivers to be pushed onto a development target board connected through Parallel/serial/USB/dedicated port.

Lastly, as others has mentioned, the graphics is dog slow with the default SVGA frame buffer driver if the card is not directly supported. However, there is a SVGA driver out there that improves performance by a whole lot if you're the unlucky ones. One of the most powerful part of QNX is the ease of developing drivers for the system.

Is this some kind of a joke ?
by Julious on Wed 15th Jun 2005 07:37 UTC

I have rarely seen so much ignorance condensed in such a small "review". I know I should have stopped reading when I read that QNX doesn't support SSE3. Wake up dude : it's just _not_ meant to be. Can't believe it made it to OSNews' front page.

Ironically, I can't wait for the "writer's" next review on Longhorn being used as an embedded industrial-strength real-time operating system.

amateur writer, professional jackass
by mrhappypants on Wed 15th Jun 2005 07:40 UTC

If the author of this rather ignorant essay has ever had a clue, that clue was not related to computing of any kind. He's got no idea how memory is allocated under QNX (or even Linux, for that matter) and doesn't bother to inform himself of the raison d'etre of the entire OS he wishes to use.
Why was this posted to OSnews?

Doesn't anybody check these things before submitting?

Hello?

Geez...
by Buck on Wed 15th Jun 2005 07:42 UTC

The article is horrible! "QNX had better get its ass in gear" - WTF?? To suit whom? Use your Windows.

Seriously, there's something wrong with recent articles on OSNews...

64-bit?
by alspnost on Wed 15th Jun 2005 07:54 UTC

Yep, I'm sure we really need a 64-bit *embedded* OS! Let me know when your BMW has a 64-bit on-board computer. And name a single OS that can be run in 64-bit by a "checkbox"! I think you'll find that even Linux, BSD etc, require different install CDs for 32-bit and 64-bit, and it's not exactly something you just "checkbox"! I've never used it, but I thought QNX was all about smallness, elegance, and bulletproof stability, not speed and scale.

Funny
by Andrewg on Wed 15th Jun 2005 08:22 UTC

When I read that he had bought a new P4 for the purpose of installing QNX I thought he was;

A) Lying
B) Stupid
C) Has more money than sense

Then I read the article and realised that he had taken ignorance to a new level.

Seriously the only thing redeeming in the article is that a few of the posts people made are really funny.

Ignorant
by deathshadow on Wed 15th Jun 2005 08:22 UTC

Alspnost beat me to the punch, pointing out the part that to me illustrated just how ignorant this reviewer was... Check box for 64-bit enabled? Sounds like someone who has little or no experience with ANY operating systems from here.

I'm reminded of the line from George Carlin: "Talks intelligent, sounds like he knows what he's talking about... AHA, HE'S FULL OF {CENSORED}"

v hmm
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 08:23 UTC
RE: Ignorant
by Andrewg on Wed 15th Jun 2005 08:25 UTC

Actually I don't think there was an intelligent sounding idea in the article. Calling it an article is actually an injustice to articles.

RE: Ignorant
by Bernard on Wed 15th Jun 2005 09:00 UTC

This article goes to show how poor reviewers write poor reviews.

RE: Ignorant
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 09:22 UTC

Yes the author was ignorant and the article should never had been posted in osnews in the first place.

However, I , being as ignorant as the author but not so foolish so as to post about things I have no idea about, found the comments very useful and now have some idea about what an embedded OS is.

@Andrewg (RE: Funny)
by pica on Wed 15th Jun 2005 09:49 UTC

Andrewg,

just get the fact:

the most blown up, pimp my PC boxes are used for gaming only

Carsten

Article most likely a troll.
by JD on Wed 15th Jun 2005 09:53 UTC

Is anyone here familiar with the infamous Slashdot troll Trollaxor?

He once wrote a relatively subtle trollish review / critique of QNX that reads remarkebly similar to this article - e.g complaining about lack of support for the Hyperthreading on his dual Xeons etc..

The similarities are striking and, in my opinion beyond coincidence. Unfortunately Trollaxors website has been domain-jacked, so I can't link to the piece in question.

However, I am fairly certain that everyone commenting on this article has been trolled, has lost and should have a nice day. Hope this helps.

re: Article most likely a troll.
by JD on Wed 15th Jun 2005 09:57 UTC

And here's the proof :

http://www.trollaxor.com/text/qnx4.html

OSNews has been trolled.

I played with QNX once
by The MESMERIC on Wed 15th Jun 2005 10:06 UTC

it was quite neat
i knew that its forte was not the desktop
just like Solaris
so I never jumped to a conclusion of the type: QNX is crap because it can't interface some USB toy..

What I really liked about QNX was the installer - very neat.
Similar to synaptic but more graphical and interesting to watch.

Where really QNX shines and what made me had to uninstall it in the end - was Momentics.
Most IDE I face (Eclipse, KDevelop ..), I just go blank in frustration - there is something inheritenly evil about them; something that tells you; there is no way you are going to get any simple GUI up and running with ease.

Momentics is the first IDE I've encountered that suggests opposite. It encourages you. You feel inspired and confident - and that drive makes you try out more, learn more.

But you are on a 1 month trial,
and the license I am sure must be prohibitively expensive (specially for my current budget) .. so I had to do the sad thing: uninstall.

Although I am *not* a GPL purist. This is where sometimes Open Source makes sense. QNX Momentics could have attracted hobbyist like me; to play and eventually submit serious apps.

I use my Toshiba Laptop to try new things, new OSes, but I swear had Momentics been free, I would still be running QNX on it.

Shame
by p13 on Wed 15th Jun 2005 10:06 UTC

This is a prime example of FUD

His "review" sorely lacks insight or even basic knowledge of what is to be reviewed.
Frankly, i doubt he even knows what marketshare QNX serves.

I've serviced palletising machines, automatic warehouses, CNC benches, etc ... i do not see the operators complaining about GUI performance or tcp/ip performance.

Furthermore, a dual p4 to run an embedded kernel ?
That's just stupid.

As a closing request: Mr. Goddard, please inform yourself propperly before reviewing anything. I'm sure you have what it takes to produce great editorials.
Do not let this critique get your hopes down, critique is given where it is due.
Pick a new subject and write another editorial.

Take Care,

- Kevin

Slightly OT: QNX 6.x on VMWare 4.5.x +
by pica on Wed 15th Jun 2005 10:15 UTC

Any experiences?

Thanks,
Carsten

v Why is this load of dung being referenced by OSNEWS?
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 10:16 UTC
Crap article.
by Thom Holwerda on Wed 15th Jun 2005 10:32 UTC

If you want to read a *good* article on QNX 6.3, go here:

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=8911

A three page article discussing the muK, and also looking into how QNX performs as a desktop OS, but this time *with* the knowledge that QNX *is not* intended as a desktop OS.

v LOL
by Bud on Wed 15th Jun 2005 10:40 UTC
RE: Amazing
by AVX on Wed 15th Jun 2005 11:39 UTC

Agreed. The article was completely uncalled for by the author. He is complaining that an embedded development environment isn't as good as "The Big Three" (Windows, MacOS, Linux distros). That's comparing apples and oranges; completely unrelated.

Wipe off this article
by Jay_of_Today on Wed 15th Jun 2005 11:55 UTC

and wipe it now, please!!! c'mon.... Give us ALL a favor!!
For geeks' dignity

@ p13
by Andrewg on Wed 15th Jun 2005 11:57 UTC

I am wondering what FUD means to you. I thought it was an acronym for 'FEAR' 'UNCERTAINTY' 'DOUBT'.

Cannot see any of those in the article.

bad bad article - but ...
by distantvoices on Wed 15th Jun 2005 12:27 UTC

... one has to read such crap too so to get a distinction between good ones and those crammy ones.

ain't no fud nowhere in that article albeit is a full load of BS so to say. Unfounded, no proofs, merely allegations and sorta. That laddie buck certainly knowws nothing about Operating Systems and their innards as shown by several posters here.

to the troll: wake up buck n refrain from writing such sorta crap, ok?

or maybe...
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 12:41 UTC

Maybe the osnews admins wanted to see if we are paying attention...

wow..
by helf on Wed 15th Jun 2005 13:06 UTC

comparing trollaxors and goddards "reviews" together and they are almost identical...

Speaking as someone who likes QNX
by Mike Bouma on Wed 15th Jun 2005 13:07 UTC

Oh come on people some of the reactions are a bit over the top. OK, so you don't agree with the opinion shared within this OSViews *opinion* article. Fair enough, but why not share your views in a bit more polite manner, address all the "FUD" point by point?

Personally I believe the QNX Neutrino kernel is most excellent, but I am a bit less enthusiastic about Photon myself. Maybe it would be a good idea for people to start writing "better" articles yourself for OSNews or OSViews instead!

IMO QSSL's situation isn't all rosey neither, they have lost significant market share to Microsoft for the embedded market.

Gurgle...
by Fabio Alemagna on Wed 15th Jun 2005 13:17 UTC

That article is so full of factual and conceptual mistakes that I can't believe it's on OSNews. Eugenia, do you even _read_ the articles before you allow them to be linked from here?

RE: @ p13
by p13 on Wed 15th Jun 2005 13:21 UTC

To me, the article embodies what you just defined, uninformed rantings about a subject which is, i suspect, randomly chosen.
The lack of any kind of reply from the author himself backs this up further.

Furthermore, why do you personally feel the need to correct my view on this matter ?
Have i offended you or your view on this matter in any way ?
Why the defense where there is no offence ?
This, IMHO, is also the reason for these kinds of articles: an impulsive urge to prove one's worth or knowledge on the subject at hand for fear of devaluation and inferiority to more knowledgeable people or just (as is the case here) other opinions.
I would like to stress the fact that neither you nor i are really qualified to comment on the issue at hand without actually knowing the person.
Yes, the article is crap ... but maybe he is learning, he might not have picked the most elegant way to do it, i'll grant you that.

I suggest you thread more lightly, you might step on someone's toes.

Take Care

- Kevin

Cache and Network
by MattPie on Wed 15th Jun 2005 13:22 UTC

If I recall (from QNX4), the filesystem process grabs a fixed amount of RAM for cache on startup, based on the entire memory size. There's a command-line option you can set when starting the filesystem to override the default.

While I don't know, I suspect they use a static-sized cache so the system is more deterministic. You'll never have to wait for the VM system to free up cache. In fact, I don't think QNX uses swap for this same reason. The delay for these actions could kill a real-time process.

While I don't recall QNX's network performance to be lightning fast, it was always acceptable using 10/100Mb cards. Not as slow as dumbass is claiming, that's for sure.

Really bad article, written by a clueless someone....
by Antonio Alegria on Wed 15th Jun 2005 13:23 UTC

I can't believe stuff like this is even refered to... The guy is clueless about...everything! Why the hell would he buy a high-end system specifically to run QNX on it??

Worse than his article is the fact that it actually got posted at OSnews... why?!

It was a joke, huh...
by Thomas on Wed 15th Jun 2005 13:29 UTC

If it was better written it could have been pretty funny :-)

Stop saying FUD
by Antonio Alegria on Wed 15th Jun 2005 13:29 UTC

And btw, I think it's time to create a FUD tax, so that people pay each time they call something FUD. Suddenly, everything is FUD! Why don't people think before starting to randomly babble about something??

64-bit switch...
by Antonio Alegria on Wed 15th Jun 2005 13:33 UTC

I personally love the 64-bit switch part... hummm.. Maybe the article was a joke? It must be..

@ Antonio Alegria

> Worse than his article is the fact that it actually got
> posted at OSnews... why?!

I guess, because the article got submitted and is just a personal opinion article. Such opinions doesn't need to reflect the believes of the OSNews crew or conform to popular believes. Even if the article is riddled with mistakes, such mistakes are IMO good food for discussion.

Just stating that the article is crap without going into detail, doesn't look like good food for discussion to me though.

ars-technica reviewed both beos and qnx
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:08 UTC

awhile back

re: The comments on this bla bla bla ...
by Graen Stiles on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:14 UTC

hahaha, good one, made my day ... esp the google part, its that sort of silly comment that i wont be surprised to hear. I actually wonder what the real staff were thinkin when they posted this crap. Basically, whenever i see anything from the OsViews, i know thats it isn't worth killing my brain cells over.

Clueless article, QNX is a RTOS, not your typical NIX
by JT on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:14 UTC

Subject line says enough.

QNX is a RTOS primarily designed for a completely different targeted usage than Linux and the other NIX's. These comparisons are about like someone complaining when they find a Tractor-Trailer rig couldn't keep pace with an Indy race car. Well beyond apples and orranges, about like grapes versus pumpkins.

Man OSNews has gotten to the point I don't think they even pre-read this horrible stuff before posting. Just more horrible opinions and unusable comparisions..


JT

re: The comments on this bla bla bla ..
by Mike Bouma on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:23 UTC

@ Graen Stiles

> Basically, whenever i see anything from the OsViews,
> i know thats it isn't worth killing my brain cells over.

AFAIK osViews allows just about anybody to share their story. So why not share your experiences yourself and 'help' leverage the overall 'quality'? :-)

Re: Really bad article, written by a clueless someone....
by Fabio Alemagna on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:25 UTC

@ Bouma
> I guess, because the article got submitted and is just a
> personal opinion article. Such opinions doesn't need to
> reflect the believes of the OSNews crew or conform to
> popular believes. Even if the article is riddled with
> mistakes, such mistakes are IMO good food for discussion.

So, are you saying that anything that gets submitted to OSNews appears on the front page? Is there no selection at all? Are you speaking on behalf of the OSNews crew?

> Just stating that the article is crap without going into
> detail, doesn't look like good food for discussion to me
> though.

You can't expect everyone to go into details, some have done it, specially on the linked site itself. There's enough counter arguments already to be able to classify the linked article as nothing but a bunch of words put together without much sense.

Besides, one of the comments here links to a site of a known troll which has basically the same "review" as the one linked here. As the author of that comment says, OSNews "has been trolled".

Re: Mike Bouma
by Buck on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:28 UTC

So why do 'Linux sucks' 'Windows sucks' comments get modded down here then? Let's leave them as they are - they're opinions, right? Everybody's sharing experiences, right?

@ Fabio Alemagna

> So, are you saying that anything that gets submitted to
> OSNews appears on the front page? Is there no selection at
> all?

No, this isn't an unmoderated discussions forum, there are enough of those available on the internet already. IMO this is one of the reasons why OSNews generally is far more popular.

However OSNews has published many articles which does not reflect the opinions of its staff. IMO OSNews and osOpinion/osViews offer a valuable service to the alternative OS community.

@ Buck
by Mike Bouma on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:37 UTC

@ Buck

> So why do 'Linux sucks' 'Windows sucks' comments get
> modded down here then? Let's leave them as they are -
> they're opinions, right? Everybody's sharing experiences,
> right?

I am sure an article which simply states that OS A or B sucks wouldn't make it onto osViews, and neither onto OSNews.

Opinion?
by Fabio Alemagna on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:41 UTC

> No, this isn't an unmoderated discussions forum, there are
> enough of those available on the internet already. IMO this
> is one of the reasons why OSNews generally is far more
> popular.

Ah, so I wasn't mistaken. There is selection. Something tells me it didn't work the right way this time, though.

> However OSNews has published many articles which does not
> reflect the opinions of its staff. IMO OSNews and
> osOpinion/osViews offer a valuable service to the
> alternative OS community.

You keep calling them "opinions", however they're anything but opinions. "I don't like QNX" is an opinion, "QNX sucks because it has <insert specific fictional flaw of your choice>" isn't an opinion, is something stated as a fact and therefore susceptible to examination.

Would you please state if you're speaking on behalf of the OSNews crew? And have you noticed the other "article" linked in one of the comments here?

Please, don't make me repeat the last 2 questions again and again and again.

Re: Opinion?
by Mike Bouma on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:53 UTC

@ Fabio Alemagna

> Would you please state if you're speaking on behalf of the
> OSNews crew?

Obviously without stating otherwise, I am sharing my personal views.

> And have you noticed the other "article" linked in one of
> the comments here?

Yes, and have you noticed that the opinion article has already been removed?

Fabio, I am not going to argue with you further (Based on past experience, I believe you will go on forever). IMO some of the reactions within this thread were over the top and added little to the topic at hand. No need for attacks OSNews or osViews, IMO get creative and start writing "better" articles yourself.

Re: Opinion?
by Fabio Alemagna on Wed 15th Jun 2005 14:59 UTC

@ Mike
> Yes, and have you noticed that the opinion article has
> already been removed?

Err, I think you've not understood what I was talking about, but doesn't matter.

> Fabio, I am not going to argue with you further (Based on
> past experience, I believe you will go on forever).

I will go on as long as there's something to discuss about, just like you do. Stop being patronizing.

> IMO some of the reactions within this thread were over the
> top and added little to the topic at hand. No need for
> attacks OSNews or osViews, IMO get creative and start
> writing "better" articles yourself.

There's another option: OSNews could just do without such "articles", for the benefit of mankind and its image.

osViews Article Removed
by Nik on Wed 15th Jun 2005 15:00 UTC

Obviously osViews thought that the article was horrible as well, I just tried to read it and the page said the article was removed.

v WTF!!!
by ipswg on Wed 15th Jun 2005 15:33 UTC
removed
by Kigh on Wed 15th Jun 2005 15:43 UTC

this review was removed ...


I'd like to read that!

@Kigh
by Julious on Wed 15th Jun 2005 15:52 UTC

> I'd like to read that!

Check your mail ;-)

Remove this article
by Josh on Wed 15th Jun 2005 15:57 UTC

If you follow the link, this article is not even posted anymore on the original site probably due to the embarassement of its lack of research and commitment to quality. The comments on the site where the article *was* posted rip it apart as uninformed, lacking technical expertise, and a just plain embarassing review for a number of reasons. I'd remove this article link to it just because it miscommunicates some 'truth' the article claims, which is debunked by the onslaught of comments. You don't want people to think you are becoming like slashdot do you ;) ?

logical falicy
by OsNews (Reeder) on Wed 15th Jun 2005 16:03 UTC

The problem is that TV news programs repeatedly feed the public BS arguments drawing on every logical falicy they can come up with and pass it off as real, so that they can get people to think & feel how their sponsors want us to. This is called spin.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Even the "Experts" are entitled to their own opinions based on logical falacy, whether they believe it or are just using these views to misguide a nation. It happens all the time.
I find comedy spiffs that point out the pink elephant to the public & make it obvious, bringing the problem to their awareness, entertaining. The public wont see it, but it sure is fun to play with their docile little accepting minds.

So long, OS News.
by xVariable on Wed 15th Jun 2005 16:32 UTC

Well, with the posting of this article, OS News has officially jumped the shark regarding any shred of remaining credibilty it may have had. Before the intelligent owners of this site delete my comment, can anyone recommend any alternative sites with similar content? TIA.

I fear
by Guest User on Wed 15th Jun 2005 16:55 UTC

that this was the beginning of the "QNX is not ready for the desktop" articles-series.

Seriously, I worked some time ago on project, that required real-time like data acquisition/pattern recognition. The OS we decided to use was DOS (no joke), mainly because we found, that QNX (I guess, it was QNX4 back then) would be overkill for our purposes (and DOS worked nice). But never, I say never, were things like lacking support for SSE or other stuff like that a thing we took into consideration.

@xVariable
by jojo on Wed 15th Jun 2005 16:59 UTC

Try Arstechnica. The guys at that site are working on their grad programs in comp or elec. eng, posts are not so often but of extreme quality. This is not the first article I've seen on osnews that is basically comparing an extrmely specialized OS to Mac&Windows, demonstrating those running this site either have no (or somehow seriously lacking is certain areas) knowledge of computer science or software engineering. Example: when on an RTOS the foreground process uses 100% resources and the backround stuff all freezes up and this is not normal behaviour for Mac/windows/linux/whatever THAT THIS IS A FEATURE OF AN RTOS THATS WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO !!!!!!!!! Linus in a recent article states quite corrected that comparing anything to anything is false since all things have their specialties in the first place.

I'm still puzzled
by Bad quality on Wed 15th Jun 2005 17:04 UTC

I still don't understand how this article got posted here... It's not a matter of a badly written article, stating the obvious or other problems people seem to have about some articles posted here on OSnews. The problem is this article is so full of mistakes, BIG mistakes, that I find it hard to believe it was refered to on a web site called OSnews... it makes me wonder where does the OS come from?

@ jojo
by Bad quality on Wed 15th Jun 2005 17:07 UTC

Now there's an EXCELLENT site! Really high quality stuff! They really dig deep when reviewing/previewing an OS, CPU or other Tech.

@jojo
by xVariable on Wed 15th Jun 2005 17:13 UTC

Yeah, Ars is great. I've been to many any Ars meet, and shared manya beer w/Caesar and the gang. :-)

good joke
by PdC on Wed 15th Jun 2005 17:20 UTC

lolrofllmao.

this article is really funny and the comments are even better.
good to see funny news here too ^_^

Lighten Up
by Rayiner Hashem on Wed 15th Jun 2005 17:27 UTC

Hey everybody, lighten up. As least the OSNews folks take enough care to keep the story blurbs clear and readable, which is more than I can say for some other popular geek news sites. Not to mention the fact that they're quite often the first big site to post interesting new news.

Anyway, if you don't like the article, don't read it. I know I haven't --- the title alone scared me away. That said, reading the comments has been fun.

OS News Needs New Editors / Moderators
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 17:29 UTC

Did you people read this before you posted the link?

Hopefully, you did not. Then, you can only be accused of negligence and foolishness.

If you *did* read it, you are either *very* stupid people and did not comprehend what drivel you were reading or you were very lazy and simply ran out of crap to put up on this site. So, you figured, well relatively few people write about QNX, we'll see what level of interest it creates. Who cares if it's worth the bits on the screen!

If there is any other plausible explaination, I'm sure that we'd all love to read it. Otherwise, I (and I'm sure many others), will think much less of your site and your editorial abilities and strongly resist visiting this place.

Remember, at the very least, your job is to "find, filter and re-package" OS news for your readers. Do try not to let us down on the filter aspect again.

I'd recommend that you retract this as quickly as possible and try to save your good name.

Thanks.

@Rayiner Hashem
by xVariable on Wed 15th Jun 2005 17:38 UTC

Get real please. If they took that kind of care, they would have actually read the article before linking to it (and, assuming they know what they're talking about, would not have known not to link to it). Don't make excuses for the inexcusable. Don't equivocate either - sure, it's not WW3. Wuld you forgve the same incompetence from the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, or even your local news paper? If yo're going to say one can't compare OS News to those other sources, fine. I guess, then, we'll all just have to accept that OS News is nothing more than a blog produced by people that don't have a clue.

Re: @Rayiner Hashem
by Mike Bouma on Wed 15th Jun 2005 17:46 UTC

@ xVariable

> The New York Times or Wall Street Journal, or even your
> local news paper? If yo're going to say one can't compare OS
> News to those other sources, fine.

I believe there are clear differences:

Eugenia:

"I do OSNews for pure fun (it is just a hobby for me in order to fill up my free time)"

BTW, if the article was genuine I feel a bit sorry for the person who contributed this article to osViews. When it comes to OSes, such an article can bring the worst out of the OS zealots. Some of the namecalling and personal attacks at some websites weren't very attractive to read. Yes, the article was riddled by mistakes, yes I generally do not agree with his editorial, but for god's sake it's just an opinion article about an Operating System.. It's not like he committed a crime or anything.

Obviously this was his first try at writing a tech article, hopefully this doesn't discourage him too much and instead he learns from some of the more constructive criticism.

@xVariable
by Rayiner Hashem on Wed 15th Jun 2005 17:56 UTC

Wuld you forgve the same incompetence from the New York Times or Wall Street Journal, or even your local news paper?

The NYT and WSJ show incompetence on a very consistently. Particularly when anything remotely close to scientific gets mentioned. That doesn't stop me from reading them.

@ Rayiner Hashem
by Bad quality on Wed 15th Jun 2005 18:06 UTC

> The NYT and WSJ show incompetence on a very consistently. Particularly when anything remotely close to scientific gets mentioned. That doesn't stop me from reading them.

OSnews is about OS's!! So I think it's legitimate to expect quality in that area

Funny...
by Kelson on Wed 15th Jun 2005 18:30 UTC

That's pretty funny, as someone else pointed it, it's from Trollaxor. It was a Troll/Joke....the first hint should have been the dual P4's at 3.6ghz...which would require they be Xeons. Go look on trollaxor.com if you want to read the article.

- Kelson

@ Funny...
by blaa on Wed 15th Jun 2005 18:36 UTC

I think Trollaxor picked the article up because it was so ridiculous..don't think they made that up.

i'm glad osviews got rid of the story
by natefrogg on Wed 15th Jun 2005 18:44 UTC

i'm glad as the reviewer obviously had no clue what it was that he was reviewing...

crap
by natefrogg on Wed 15th Jun 2005 18:47 UTC

i'm a dork, didn't realize it was a joke post by some troll...

This story was posted by Adam Ant?
by Ted on Wed 15th Jun 2005 18:56 UTC

Isn't this the real Stuart Goddard?

http://www.birdofprey.co.uk/cb031feb02.htm

osViews != osNews
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 19:19 UTC

Stop blamming osnews for a crappy osviews article.

no excuse
by Brett on Wed 15th Jun 2005 20:17 UTC

no ones blaming osnews for the quality of the article, the is obviously the writers fault. They are blaming osnews for linking to an obviously flawed article.

This shows that either the editors at osnews are incompetent, thought we'd understand it was a joke, or didnt bother to read it at all.

Lets hope they thought we would realize it was a joke

Embedded systems market
by Captain Jean Luc Picard on Wed 15th Jun 2005 21:25 UTC

More like embedded-in-their-computer-chair systems market am I right folks?

Re: The Comments on this thread @OsNews (Reed)
by Viridian on Wed 15th Jun 2005 22:04 UTC

"The comments on this thread are completely inapropriate. OsNews takes great care choosing only the highest quality articles for it's viewers."

Actually, the fact that you linked to such a badly written, factually incorrect piece completely belies your assertion. It is by no stretch of the imagination "of the highest quality", and to claim that it is would be to irreparably damage your credibility. For the record, do you believe that it was "of the highest quality"?

"If you think that you can make a better site than www.OsNews.com, I'd like to see you try. Os news is the #1 google ranked site for uptodate quality articles about operating systems. If you do not like it, you do not have to use it. I believe the staff at OsNews deserves an apology."

No, you don't deserve an apology. It's understandable if your feelings are hurt by some of the more inflammatory comments, but defensiveness of the type exhibited here is non-professional in the extreme. May I suggest that in future, if you make a mistake, as this obviously was, that you simply acknowledge it, apologize, if you think an apology is appropriate, and move on? Getting in a snit and challenging your readers to do better is frankly immature, as is the irrelevant comment about your Google ranking. It might be the most popular, that doesn't automatically mean that it's the best, as the many critics of Windows will hasten to point out. May I also point out that by creating a forum such as this and putting your opinions out there for God and everybody, that you may, in fact, attract criticism? It may be constructive, negative, or frankly offensive, but the fact is that you invited it, so it's up to you to deal with it. I strongly suggest that you allow yourself to cool off before you react to what you perceive to be ad hominem attacks. Lashing out in anger, even if justified, will only make you look like a jerk. I hope you will take some of this advice to heart, and all the best to you.

sad..
by Anonymous on Wed 15th Jun 2005 23:02 UTC


The sad thing about this is that the troll got what he wanted.

best comment ever
by Gabriel on Thu 16th Jun 2005 12:46 UTC

"you suck. you suck so bad that i've never even been to this website and i took the time to create an account just to say this."

v Viridian - Please reconsider your stand
by OsNews (Reed) on Thu 16th Jun 2005 14:26 UTC
RE:waste....
by justin on Mon 20th Jun 2005 23:20 UTC

This comment is basically terse and to the point, and also quite hilarious.


That was a particularly uninspired essay, devoid of interesting details or actual information.

-Bob