gary@softway.oz (Gary Corby) (01/10/90)
ant@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: >There is a disagreement as to whether it is *NIX compatible. From what >I can work out, there is a fair amount of compatability, but because it >is developed with the idea of distributed processing on IBM PC's and >because of some legal probs they had at one stage with AT&T, there are >a few differences. I am very far from being a QNX expert, but then again there doesn't seem to be a lot of experienced QNX users out there so I'll throw in what little I know. QNX is not *NIX compatible, though there tends to be enough similarity that porting is relatively easy. For example, UNIX signals become QNX exceptions. Exception values do not necessarily carry the same meaning as the equivalent UNIX signals, but they behave in pretty much the same way. QNX does not have a setuid bit. Processes such as login can read the password file but unless the system manager is crazy no normal user can read the contents. This feels very weird after being able to read /etc/passwd on UNIX. Because the password file is not public the user passwords are entered in clear text. There are lots and lots of little differences such as the above. What I find most annoying about QNX though is that there isn't really such a thing as a shell, and the editor supplied with the system could be better. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has one of the UNIX shells ported to QNX. I may be involved in a project to do just this in the near future. >I plan to contact Quantum in the near future, to ask for more information, >especially details like distributors in OZ. If anyone else has done this, >then please post your findings to the net, as I will when I get further >details. There is indeed a distributor in Australia, the name of which I do not know. However a friend who is a QNX enthusiast tells me it is considerably cheaper to order the system from Quantum and import it than to go through the Australian distributor. He has imported copies for his own use and has two QNX systems running. Disclaimer: I'm just an interested observer. I don't really know what I'm talking about. -- Gary Corby (Friend of Elvenkind) Softway Pty Ltd ACSnet: gary@softway.oz UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!gary
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (01/10/90)
In article <2525@softway.oz- gary@softway.oz (Gary Corby) writes: -ant@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: - --There is a disagreement as to whether it is *NIX compatible. From what --I can work out, there is a fair amount of compatability, but because it --is developed with the idea of distributed processing on IBM PC's and --because of some legal probs they had at one stage with AT&T, there are --a few differences. - -I am very far from being a QNX expert, but then again there doesn't -seem to be a lot of experienced QNX users out there so I'll throw in -what little I know. QNX is not *NIX compatible, though there tends to -be enough similarity that porting is relatively easy. For example, -UNIX signals become QNX exceptions. Exception values do not necessarily -carry the same meaning as the equivalent UNIX signals, but they behave -in pretty much the same way. - ... -There are lots and lots of little differences such as the above. By and large, QNX is not *NIX. There are as many incongruities as there are similarities. Personally, I didn't get into QNX to use a you-know-what clone, but for QNX' unique capabilities (small, distributed, fast, etc.). On the other hand, the next release will be POSIX-compatible, which may make such arguments moot. (see the january issue of MIPS magazine for an assessment of QNX and benchmarks of the new file system) (We -- Basis Computer Systems -- have been using QNX exclusively for almost two years now.) -What I find most annoying about QNX though is that there isn't really -such a thing as a shell, and the editor supplied with the system could be -better. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has one of the UNIX shells -ported to QNX. I may be involved in a project to do just this in the -near future. Sure there's a shell, it's just not all that powerful. There are third-party shells, but again, POSIX mandates the UI and the utilities, so you can expect to feel at home in the new version. (TNT Computing, I believe, markets a shell if you can't wait. They advertise in MIPS and Dr Dobbs.) --I plan to contact Quantum in the near future, to ask for more information, --especially details like distributors in OZ. If anyone else has done this, --then please post your findings to the net, as I will when I get further --details. - -There is indeed a distributor in Australia, the name of which I do not -know. However a friend who is a QNX enthusiast tells me it is considerably -cheaper to order the system from Quantum and import it than to go through -the Australian distributor. He has imported copies for his own use and -has two QNX systems running. Off the top of my head, look for Computer Network Systems and Grey Matter in Australia, and Micro Utilities in NZ (we ship QNX books to such people, but I don't have my data-base handy). -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
lm@snafu.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy) (01/11/90)
In article <2525@softway.oz> gary@softway.oz (Gary Corby) writes: >ant@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: > >>There is a disagreement as to whether it is *NIX compatible. From what >>I can work out, there is a fair amount of compatability, but because it >>is developed with the idea of distributed processing on IBM PC's and >>because of some legal probs they had at one stage with AT&T, there are >>a few differences. > >I am very far from being a QNX expert, but then again there doesn't >seem to be a lot of experienced QNX users out there so I'll throw in >what little I know. QNX is not *NIX compatible, though there tends to >be enough similarity that porting is relatively easy. For example, >UNIX signals become QNX exceptions. Exception values do not necessarily >carry the same meaning as the equivalent UNIX signals, but they behave >in pretty much the same way. I've used it a bit. It's not Unix or even very close. What it is is a _F_A_S_T_ networked os. Remote devices (disks, terminals, whatever). Really nice on a bare bones 8086. Does zillions of context switches per second. Personally, I'd hammer on Quantum for at least POSIX compat and better yet SVID II compat C environments. I haven't used QNX for several years so maybe they have that now. Bottom line: if you want Unix, this ain't it. If you want a usable C environment on cheap, cheap, cheap networked hardware - this is it. --- What I say is my opinion. I am not paid to speak for Sun, I'm paid to hack. Larry McVoy, Sun Microsystems (415) 336-7627 ...!sun!lm or lm@sun.com
pen@elinor.lysator.liu.se (Peter Eriksson) (01/11/90)
gary@softway.oz (Gary Corby) writes: >ant@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Murdoch) writes: >QNX does not have a setuid bit. Processes such as login can read the >password file but unless the system manager is crazy no normal user can >read the contents. This feels very weird after being able to read >/etc/passwd on UNIX. Because the password file is not public the user >passwords are entered in clear text. And since the password file isn't public, the normal user cannot change his password at will, and the sysop will know all users passwords. This I didn't like at all, so I wrote a login server that took care of the passwords for the users and store them in a non-reverseable encrypted format. By using the server, anybody can now change their password at will, and the sysop will not be able to find out the individual passwords. Incase anybody is interrested in this program, please let me know. /* Peter Eriksson (InterNet: pen@elinor.lysator.liu.se) */
dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (01/13/90)
In article <130118@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> lm@sun.UUCP (Larry McVoy) writes: ] ]Bottom line: if you want Unix, this ain't it. If you want a usable ]C environment on cheap, cheap, cheap networked hardware - this is it. ]--- ]Larry McVoy, Sun Microsystems (415) 336-7627 ...!sun!lm or lm@sun.com I'm not a QNX expert either, though I use it and run a system with it. Yeah, its a good C platform. What its better at, though, for me is allowing real true multiple processing without extremely expensive hardware. We have up to 10 user logins going (granted, with restricted capabilities) on a 10 Mhz XT. Not an AT, please note. If they just had 1) a way to access diskettes faster when doing backups/ restores and 2) something resembling a defragmenter for HDs, it would be a lot better! Dewey -- | ...!cs.utexas.edu!execu!dewey or | "If you will just quit shouting at me, I | | ...uunet!execu!dewey | will try to hear what you are saying" | | Execucom and I often have different ideas. THESE are mine, ok? Ok. |
gd@geovision.uucp (Gord Deinstadt) (01/15/90)
In article <5876@sequoia.UUCP> dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) writes: >If they just had 1) a way to access diskettes faster when doing backups/ >restores Huh? I don't understand what you're saying here. You can certainly treat a file on floppy just like one on hard disk. >and 2) something resembling a defragmenter for HDs, it would be >a lot better! QNX 4.0, which will be Posix-conforming, will have an all-new file system. Quantum claims it is much improved. They've also doubled net throughput, and finally *bought* a decent C compiler to replace their old piece of crap. Release is slated for sometime this quarter. (Lest the above paragraph give you the wrong impression, I *really* like QNX and have been using it since V1.2. 1600 task switches/second on an 8 Mhz 8088, lovely messaging and networking, run-time loadable libraries, support for custom drivers and filesystems *without* relinking the O/S or rebooting, and a kernel that only takes about 110Kbytes. La la la!) -- Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovsion.UUCP who does not work for Quantum
gary@softway.oz (Gary Corby) (01/16/90)
pen@elinor.lysator.liu.se (Peter Eriksson) writes: >And since the password file isn't public, the normal user cannot change >his password at will, and the sysop will know all users passwords. This >I didn't like at all, so I wrote a login server that took care of the >passwords for the users and store them in a non-reverseable encrypted >format. By using the server, anybody can now change their password >at will, and the sysop will not be able to find out the individual >passwords. Incase anybody is interrested in this program, please >let me know. >/* Peter Eriksson (InterNet: pen@elinor.lysator.liu.se) */ I certainly would be, and so I imagine would anyone else with a QNX system. Perhaps this is a job for comp.sources.misc? I would be interested to know why QNX is not more popular than it is. QNX would seem to have great advantages for networked PC environments, yet not that many people seem to know about it. Why, for example, should you not use QNX rather than one of the commercial LANs? I'm not sure what the current costs are, but I have a feeling QNX run-time licenses would be cheaper than the software for, say, a Novelle network. Are there any opinions out there on this? Another question: Has anyone done any large porting jobs between UNIX and QNX? What were the worst problems? Gary -- Gary Corby (Friend of Elvenkind) Softway Pty Ltd ACSnet: gary@softway.oz UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!gary
dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) (01/17/90)
In article <763@geovision.UUCP> gd@geovision.UUCP (Gord Deinstadt) writes: ]In article <5876@sequoia.UUCP> dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) writes: ]>If they just had 1) a way to access diskettes faster when doing backups/ ]>restores ] ]Huh? I don't understand what you're saying here. You can certainly ]treat a file on floppy just like one on hard disk. Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. Gord is certainly correct that you can get to them with exactly the same commands, etc. However, access is really SLOW - right now. I understand that's changing with the new OS referenced below. Doing an fbackup right now to a floppy is painful. It's about the speed of IBM's backup, which is abysmal compared to a lot of things that are out (Fastback Plus, other products of that ilk). ] ]>and 2) something resembling a defragmenter for HDs, it would be ]>a lot better! ] I've since heard from them that there IS such a critter - and if I can get through to them I'll be getting it! ]QNX 4.0, which will be Posix-conforming, will have an all-new file ]system. Quantum claims it is much improved. They've also doubled ]net throughput, and finally *bought* a decent C compiler to replace ]their old piece of crap. Release is slated for sometime this quarter. ] ](Lest the above paragraph give you the wrong impression, I *really* ]like QNX and have been using it since V1.2. Me too, really. Even down to the V1.2 level, though I didn't have the slightest idea what that was at the time (amazing the things you get when you buy a system from someone who bought it from someone who... :) ]-- ]Gord Deinstadt gdeinstadt@geovsion.UUCP ]who does not work for Quantum Personally, I can't wait for the new Posix and etc stuff. My friend and I are on hold on a new equipment purchase right now because of it. If the upgrade costs are reasonable we'll be changing over to that pretty quickly - for the ability to port *NIX stuff easier if for no other reason. Dewey Henize -- | ...!cs.utexas.edu!execu!dewey or | "If you will just quit shouting at me, I | | ...uunet!execu!dewey | will try to hear what you are saying" | | Execucom and I often have different ideas. THESE are mine, ok? Ok. |
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (01/17/90)
In article <6232@sequoia.UUCP> dewey@sequoia.UUCP (Dewey Henize) writes: |... |Personally, I can't wait for the new Posix and etc stuff. My friend and |I are on hold on a new equipment purchase right now because of it. If |the upgrade costs are reasonable we'll be changing over to that pretty |quickly - for the ability to port *NIX stuff easier if for no other reason. And let's not ignore the new windowing system, also due out this spring. -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
pen@elinor.lysator.liu.se (Peter Eriksson) (01/18/90)
By the way - will QNX 4.0 support the 386 processor fully? The last version I used only used the 386 as a fast 286. That's a little boring... ;-) /* Peter Eriksson (InterNet: pen@elinor.lysatar.liu.se) */