Linked by James Ingraham on Mon 24th Jul 2006 11:15 UTC
QNX In today's entry in our Alternative OS Contest, James Ingraham takes a close look at QNX, the operating system based on the Neutrino microkernel. He concludes that "While you can probably find solutions for just about all of your desktop computing needs using the QNX RTOS, that is not QNX's strong suit. Its focus is real-time, embedded, and mission critical applications." Read on for the whole article.
Thread beginning with comment 145791
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: For all you QNX bashers...
by Kochise on Mon 24th Jul 2006 15:49 UTC in reply to "For all you QNX bashers..."
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

"It may not be the best O.S. for everyone, but it certainly has its place in this world."

For the people that can get in touch with it, yes, maybe. Should I speak also of a revolutionary OS that I keep under cover and only a few (and rich) customers could affor ? I don't think so, because hardly few people will ever have to deal with...

That's the problem with QNX : with 6.0 and 6.1, I thought it was some 'early' versions that lacked features released as NC (Non Commercial) usage to the community as an appeal. Then with 6.2 and 6.3 I understood that QNX don't give a shit about the community and the only interrest is to make money (that's pretty normal).

It's just too sad QNX don't leave some geeks improve the desktop version they don't plan to support anymore.

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 1

BryanFeeney Member since:
2005-07-06

Should I speak also of a revolutionary OS that I keep under cover and only a few (and rich) customers could affor

a) QNX is not "under a cover"; it's well known and well marketed

b) Compared with other RTOSes, QNX is not expensive, so most people who need an RTOS can afford it: it's not some delicacy reserved for the rich. If you think about it, six computers and accompanying copies of XP Pro and Office Pro would also cost $10,000, but most small companies manage it.

c) What on Earth do you plan to do with an RTOS anyway? It's quite unsuited to general desktop use; as the article states, its main advantage is that it provides an easy development system for software that will run on machines lacking a display, keyboard and other niceties.


Not every operating system needs to be able to play MP3's, have a fanciful (or indeed any) display layer, or even be able to multi-task to be of value. QNX is aimed at the embedded space where there are hard real-time and fault-intolerant constraints. Ultimately almost no-one in the "community" every here is talking about was able to contribute the kind of high-quality code - most of it in assembly - that mattered to QNX. The company has a number of very skilled developers that need to be paid, and earning money to pay those people for their hard work is nothing to be ashamed of.

Edited 2006-07-24 17:58

Reply Parent Score: 4

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

"Not every operating system needs to be able to play MP3's, have a fanciful (or indeed any) display layer, or even be able to multi-task to be of value."

A desktop OS needs these 'fancy' stuffs. Otherwise please explain why have QSSL bothered to create a native x86 version of QNX with such a nice and effective GUI ?

And don't tell me about cross development, a cross compiler hosted on Windows or Linux is just enough. So why have they wasted so much creativity in something they lock down afterward ?

I think there were markets for an open desktop version for people seeking reliabilty and responsiveness from their OS, not especially focusing on the RTOS hype of the embedded version. People would have been eager to develop on QNX NC which provide a strong industry compliant API, not the mess you may find on other platforms (see on Windows Win32 vs MFC vs ATL vs WTL, .NET vs ...).

It's normal QNX is seeking some money for their coders, I'm not against that at all. But enforcing the use of a NC desktop version would enforce little by little QNX as a standard de facto, especially in high schools where students can work on a POSIX compilant OS that is really used in the industry. That would be a great advantage for everyone...

But hey, that's my vision of things, and I know that people on the market and financial departement have other views of the problem, mostly a short time range...

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 0

chrish Member since:
2005-07-14

Just like to point out that QNX 6 contains almost no assembly code, and that nobody (to my knowledge) develops QNX software in assembly language. The OS (and applications) is very portable.

- chrish @ QNX

Reply Parent Score: 2

Morin Member since:
2005-12-31

> I understood that QNX don't give a shit about the community and the
> only interrest is to make money (that's pretty normal).

They do give a **** about their customers, otherwise they'd surely not have a high quality support line. I don't know if that is what you mean by community, though.

> It's just too sad QNX don't leave some geeks improve the desktop
> version they don't plan to support anymore.

It probably contains too many hints to make a clone of the non-desktop stuff too. Which is exactly what they *don't* want.

Reply Parent Score: 1