jdm1@eds1.UUCP (Jon McCown) (04/25/89)
I just acquired a qnx system and am interested in discussing same with other qnx users. Especially curious about experiences with application development (caveats etc). Please followup to comp.os.misc where the s/n is better. If mail responses are significant I will summarize to comp.os.misc. - Jon -- J.D. McCown - RCSG Director - Senate of Pennsylvania - psuvax1!eds1!jdm1 I disclaim it all, no I never said anything. Even if I did say anything the owners of this system and/or my employers likely wouldn't agree or support it.
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (04/25/89)
In article <208@eds1.UUCP> jdm1@eds1.UUCP (Jon McCown) writes: >I just acquired a qnx system and am interested in discussing same with >other qnx users. Especially curious about experiences with application >development (caveats etc). I've been a QNX consultant for a while and have just finished a book about the o/s (to be published next week). I can sum up by saying it's a very well designed real-time, distributed o/s, founded on the concept of message-passing for inter-task communication. I like it a lot, and find it highly suitable to real-time applications (although I imagine it would also do well in non-industrial environments). It's certainly more difficult to learn, and the documentation is very good but terse. Beats the pants off OS/2, in speed, size and capabilities. Probably the main caveat is to not get carried away with messages. Most people seem to have difficulty designing truly parallel applications, esp. across networks. BTW, Quantum's support for QNX is exceptional. Not only good voice support, but also a BBS for users. You can discuss issues with other developpers *and* the designers of the o/s, and can often download fixes to the o/s and utilities within days of reporting a problem. Quantum is also commited and to developing QNX, with regard to POSIX, windows, etc. Obviously I'm biased (as a satisfied user), but I think QNX is worth a look for any serious real-time application. (There are some really *big* users out there and, I believe, about 75,000 systems installed world-wide.) Anything else you'd like to know? -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
paine@rust.dec.com (Willy Paine) (04/26/89)
Cc: I was investigating QNX for awhile and I think this is very good OS for 286 machine. There are many disadvantage and I never heard any plans for 386 machine in the future. I would like to run BBS in DOS shell but it runs only one dos shell at time and video displays bleeds through console screen very badly even sysadm is not using this shell. I would say QNX is pretty backward as comparing with other Unix for 386. I don't give you all negative commments and I like the runtime benchmark for QNX and this runs fast enough to run ms-dos BBS in dos shell without any problem. I hope QNX developers are agressive to take advantage using full 386 power like multi-tasking and multi-users on ms-dos shells without any direct video problem. I have never heard of any newsgroup for QNX but there is good FidoNet echomail on QNX. Willy
paine@rust.dec.com (Willy Paine) (04/26/89)
Cc: Does Quatum (maker of QNX) have any email or uucp address at all? I don't use voice phone because I am hearing impaired and I just want to know about the future of QNX for 386 machine like multi- dos shell. Willy
greg@dekalb.UUCP (Greg Philmon) (04/26/89)
In article <208@eds1.UUCP> jdm1@eds1.UUCP (Jon McCown) writes: > >I just acquired a qnx system and am interested in discussing same with >other qnx users. Especially curious about experiences with application >development (caveats etc). Yes, what of QNX? I've seen their ads in PCMag and would like more info from users. I'm currently running a 'nix PC. What advantages does QNX have? Thanks in advance! -- --------------------------------------------------------- | Greg Philmon ...gatech!dekalb!greg CIS: 72261,1724 | ---------------------------------------------------------
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (04/27/89)
In article <8904252052.AA05490@decwrl.dec.com> paine@rust.dec.com (Willy Paine) writes: >Cc: > >Does Quatum (maker of QNX) have any email or uucp address at all? >I don't use voice phone because I am hearing impaired and I just >want to know about the future of QNX for 386 machine like multi- >dos shell. If you have a modem, you can call (613) 591-0934 and log-in on their BBS. They;re're not on this net or any other that I know off. -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
steve@dmntor.UUCP (Steve Pozgaj) (04/28/89)
We have been forced to use QNX, by virtue of inheriting applications. Without going into many gorey details, which I'd be happy to discuss individually, we are converting to UNIX [on SUNs, in our case] ASAP. I have consistently maintained that the only similarity between QNX and UNIX is they both contain the letters "N" and "X". Seriously. QNX is probably a wonderful system for running factory automation, process control, or tasks of that "almost-realtime" ilk. However, for software development, my vote, seconded with a tremendous roar by my software development staff, is a resounding "NO WAY!". Why? Again, in a nutshell, one of the most difficult undertakings in software development is to write code on an inherently unreliable platform. QNX is that, in my opinion. When one cannot rely on the operating system's fundamental commands to execute properly, one gets chaos ... and many wasted days of expensive programmer effort. The QNX shell is the root of this unreliability; unfortunately, it spreads all the way through many of the underlying commands. This is not to say QNX is without merit, as suggested above. However, the question the original poster posed was QNX's use in *developing* software. The answer, again, must be "no". Use the real thing; that's what it was designed for, and does it ever show! P.S. The *people* behind QNX are tremendously helpful. They always tried to either solve the myriad problems we uncovered (and, unfortunately, continue to uncover), or, at least, put us in touch with people who know. I only wish their product were as good as their intention.
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (04/28/89)
In article <481@dekalb.UUCP> greg@dekalb.UUCP (Greg Philmon) writes: >Yes, what of QNX? I've seen their ads in PCMag and would like more info >from users. I'm currently running a 'nix PC. What advantages does QNX >have? > QNX is multi-tasking and supports transapparent inter-task communication between nodes via Arcnet. Tye he primary communication mechanism is 'messages' -- variable-lenggth packets of sadata that are 'sent' and 'received' by tasks. The user interface and utilities are Unix-ish but not to the point of being a clone. From what I hear, they'reQuantum is doing very well (selling QNX like hotcakes, building a new office, hiring, etc.) The system runs very well even on 8088's (but is much nicer on a '286 or '386, where it can run in protected mode). A lot Most of the applications I've seen (I was commisioned to do a compariiare real-time, attesting to the soundness of the design and the rioobustness of the imp,lementation. Inter-node (i.e., user) communicasttion is also very good,. You can hook into another node's datafiles, console,m CPU (yes, reapotentially real distributueded processing), modem . etc. and can debug remotelyt, etc, etc. A slolid product that keeps improving. (As I mentiooned before, I am biased, having written a book on QNX, although not for Quantume.) -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank
gd@geovision.uucp (Gord Deinstadt) (04/28/89)
In article <8904252052.AA05490@decwrl.dec.com> paine@rust.dec.com (Willy Paine) writes: > >Does Quatum (maker of QNX) have any email or uucp address at all? They have a conferencing system that can be reached at (613) 591-0934 (300 to 9600 baud) Courier (613) 591-0940 (300 to 19200 baud) Telebit The conference can also be reached via DataPac (in Canada) and via Tymenet and Telenet (elsewhere), but I don't know how. It's a worthwhile conference. Dan Dodge and Gord Bell, the original authors, often take part. >I don't use voice phone because I am hearing impaired and I just >want to know about the future of QNX for 386 machine like multi- >dos shell. They have talked about a 386 version - or two (ie. a 16-bit version and a 32-bit version). I have no idea what commitments Quantum has made for delivery. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to work on QNX for ages. :-( By the way, I just heard that you can get multi-cpu make and sort utilities for QNX. They find not-so-busy CPUs lying around on the net and spread the job between them. Fun! -- Gord Deinstadt gd@geovision.uucp
bdb@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) (04/30/89)
In article <4984@mnetor.UUCP> frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) writes: |In article <8904252052.AA05490@decwrl.dec.com> paine@rust.dec.com (Willy Paine) writes: |>Does Quatum (maker of QNX) have any email or uucp address at all? |>I don't use voice phone because I am hearing impaired and I just |>want to know about the future of QNX for 386 machine like multi- |>dos shell. |If you have a modem, you can call (613) 591-0934 and log-in on their BBS. |They're not on this net or any other that I know of. |-- |Frank Kolnick, |consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X |UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank A UUCP port to QNX is in progress - when it is working I assume it will be used by Quantum as well as by others. Stay tuned... Cheers, -- __ Bruce Becker Toronto, Ont. w \cc/ Internet: bdb@becker.UUCP, bruce@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu `/v/-e BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER.BITNET _< >_ "A divine sparc turned me from nextrophilia" - NoNuke of the North
vandys@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Andrew Valencia(Seattle)) (05/01/89)
/ hpcupt1:comp.os.misc / gd@geovision.uucp (Gord Deinstadt) / 3:41 pm Apr 27, 1989 / >It's a worthwhile conference. Dan Dodge and Gord Bell, the >original authors, often take part. I thought QNX originally came from Thoth, written by David Cheriton (now a prof at Stanford U) while at the University of Waterloo. It was named QUNIX (sp?) when they first commercialized it, then changed its name to QNX when AT&T called'em on it. Or do I have some synapses crossed? Andy
frank@mnetor.UUCP (Frank Kolnick) (05/03/89)
In article <7140005@hpcupt1.HP.COM> vandys@hpcupt1.HP.COM (Andrew Valencia(Seattle)) writes: >/ hpcupt1:comp.os.misc / gd@geovision.uucp (Gord Deinstadt) / 3:41 pm Apr 27, 1989 / >>It's a worthwhile conference. Dan Dodge and Gord Bell, the >>original authors, often take part. > > I thought QNX originally came from Thoth, written by David Cheriton >(now a prof at Stanford U) while at the University of Waterloo. It was >named QUNIX (sp?) when they first commercialized it, then changed its name >to QNX when AT&T called'em on it. Or do I have some synapses crossed? > > Andy As I recall, Dodge & Bell came from Waterloo, but I don't think QNX is very similar to Thoth (aside from a reliance on message-passing). Thoth did find a commercial incarnation In Spectrix, which died out a couple of years ago (the company still exists, but not the o/s). Other Thoth-like derivatives are Harmony, developped at the National Research Council (of Canada), which has now gone commercial, and (I think) Waterloo Microsystems' PORT o/s. And of course Cheriton carried the concepts on to the V system at Stanford. I think you're right about the original spelling of QNX and why it was changed. BTW, the QNX book is now available from Basis Computer Systems in Toronto, Canada: (416) 495-1491 (i.e., direct from the publisher only). -- Frank Kolnick, consulting for, and therefore expressing opinions independent of, Computer X UUCP: {allegra, linus}!utzoo!mnetor!frank