Most of the latest Servers, such as Compaq and HP, already come with new
SCSI controller (chip set SYM53C1510). When will QSSL provide the driver for
these servers? Any particular date for beta? I am using ML370 but I have to
buy a separate SCSI controller (older version) in order to make QNX 4.25 run
on this machine. Sounds familiar, isn’t it?
Why QSSL never catch up with the hardware development?
“Johannes” <jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9osgef$bn9$1@inn.qnx.com…
Most of the latest Servers, such as Compaq and HP, already come with new
SCSI controller (chip set SYM53C1510). When will QSSL provide the driver
for
these servers? Any particular date for beta? I am using ML370 but I have
to
buy a separate SCSI controller (older version) in order to make QNX 4.25
run
on this machine. Sounds familiar, isn’t it?
Why QSSL never catch up with the hardware development?
Because they are putting their efforts on QNX 6.0. Don’t expect any new
driver for QNX 4.25.
“Mario Charest” <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9osglf$brj$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:9osgef$bn9$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Most of the latest Servers, such as Compaq and HP, already come with new
SCSI controller (chip set SYM53C1510). When will QSSL provide the driver
for
these servers? Any particular date for beta? I am using ML370 but I have
to
buy a separate SCSI controller (older version) in order to make QNX 4.25
run
on this machine. Sounds familiar, isn’t it?
Why QSSL never catch up with the hardware development?Because they are putting their efforts on QNX 6.0. Don’t expect any new
driver for QNX 4.25.
is it an officialy proofed statement or at least has some serious underlying
basis or just a supposition ? don’t get me wrong but it’s quite important
for me information.
// wbr
“ian zagorskih” <ianzag@novosoft-us.com> wrote in message
news:9osngq$iu4$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Mario Charest” <> mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> > wrote in message
news:9osglf$brj$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:9osgef$bn9$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Most of the latest Servers, such as Compaq and HP, already come with
new
SCSI controller (chip set SYM53C1510). When will QSSL provide the
driver
for
these servers? Any particular date for beta? I am using ML370 but I
have
to
buy a separate SCSI controller (older version) in order to make QNX
4.25
run
on this machine. Sounds familiar, isn’t it?
Why QSSL never catch up with the hardware development?Because they are putting their efforts on QNX 6.0. Don’t expect any new
driver for QNX 4.25.
is it an officialy proofed statement
What was said by QNX people (that I’m am aware of is);
no support for cardbus. So that’s kind of official.
As for the rest no it’s not official
or at least has some serious underlying basis
This was also mention by other in this newsgroup
or just a supposition ?
I call it common sense 
QNX6 is very important to
QNX. I assume they want all their resources allocated to it.
Some thing are common to both OSes, like graphics drivers
so they may be some new drivers for QNX4 has they are develop
for QNX6. But to my knowledge harddisk and network driver
have nothing in common.
I wouldn’t expect much more then bug fix with QNX4, but that
is just a feeling. But look at what happenned when going from QNX2
to QNX4, the same is happening now.
don’t get me wrong
I’m not.
but it’s quite important for me information.
// wbr
“Mario Charest” <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9ostud$pga$1@inn.qnx.com…
“ian zagorskih” <> ianzag@novosoft-us.com> > wrote in message
news:9osngq$iu4$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Mario Charest” <> mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> > wrote in message
news:9osglf$brj$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:9osgef$bn9$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Most of the latest Servers, such as Compaq and HP, already come with
new
SCSI controller (chip set SYM53C1510). When will QSSL provide the
driver
for
these servers? Any particular date for beta? I am using ML370 but I
have
to
buy a separate SCSI controller (older version) in order to make QNX
4.25
run
on this machine. Sounds familiar, isn’t it?
Why QSSL never catch up with the hardware development?Because they are putting their efforts on QNX 6.0. Don’t expect any
new
driver for QNX 4.25.
is it an officialy proofed statementWhat was said by QNX people (that I’m am aware of is);
no support for cardbus. So that’s kind of official.As for the rest no it’s not official
or at least has some serious underlying basis
This was also mention by other in this newsgroup
or just a supposition ?
I call it common sense >
QNX. I assume they want all their resources allocated to it.Some thing are common to both OSes, like graphics drivers
Common source wise not binary wise.
so they may be some new drivers for QNX4 has they are develop
for QNX6. But to my knowledge harddisk and network driver
have nothing in common.I wouldn’t expect much more then bug fix with QNX4, but that
is just a feeling. But look at what happenned when going from QNX2
to QNX4, the same is happening now.don’t get me wrong
I’m not.
but it’s quite important for me information.
// wbr
\
It is an official statement.
see: http://www.qnx.com/products/os/qnx4support.html
The bottom line is, whatever drivers are released by December next year,
are what you have to work with going forward. QSSL will still fix
“essential” bugs and support it in the same manner as they do today,
until 2004.
So Mario is a little on the pessimistic side. There may be more drivers
for QNX 4.25, but I would suspect at this point that this would only be
done for “squeaky wheels” (and even then only “squeaky wheels” that are
important wheels 
-----Original Message-----
From: ian zagorskih [mailto:ianzag@novosoft-us.com]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 7:08 AM
Posted To: qnx4
Conversation: Driver and driver and driver …
Subject: Re: Driver and driver and driver …
“Mario Charest” <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9osglf$brj$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:9osgef$bn9$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Most of the latest Servers, such as Compaq and HP, already come with
new
SCSI controller (chip set SYM53C1510). When will QSSL provide the
driver
for
these servers? Any particular date for beta? I am using ML370 but I
have
to
buy a separate SCSI controller (older version) in order to make QNX
4.25
run
on this machine. Sounds familiar, isn’t it?
Why QSSL never catch up with the hardware development?Because they are putting their efforts on QNX 6.0. Don’t expect any
new
driver for QNX 4.25.
is it an officialy proofed statement or at least has some serious
underlying
basis or just a supposition ? don’t get me wrong but it’s quite
important
for me information.
// wbr
“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9D724@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…
It is an official statement.
see: > http://www.qnx.com/products/os/qnx4support.html
The bottom line is, whatever drivers are released by December next year,
are what you have to work with going forward. QSSL will still fix
“essential” bugs and support it in the same manner as they do today,
until 2004.So Mario is a little on the pessimistic side.
I granted you that But if you look at
- Photon 1.14 versus Photon 2.0
- Phab
- how long it took to release TCP/IP 5.0,
- ~5 year old compiler with no hope of an update.
- I do not expect much from third-party as they are all looking at QNX6
- It’s a reality that in general to attract/keep good programmers you
have to make them
work on the lastest stuff, otherwise they get frustrated and leave.
There may be more drivers
for QNX 4.25, but I would suspect at this point that this would only be
done for “squeaky wheels” (and even then only “squeaky wheels” that are
important wheels >
This is exacly what I was attempting to express
-----Original Message-----
From: ian zagorskih [mailto:> ianzag@novosoft-us.com> ]
Posted At: Wednesday, September 26, 2001 7:08 AM
Posted To: qnx4
Conversation: Driver and driver and driver …
Subject: Re: Driver and driver and driver …
“Mario Charest” <> mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> > wrote in message
news:9osglf$brj$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:9osgef$bn9$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Most of the latest Servers, such as Compaq and HP, already come with
new
SCSI controller (chip set SYM53C1510). When will QSSL provide the
driver
for
these servers? Any particular date for beta? I am using ML370 but I
have
to
buy a separate SCSI controller (older version) in order to make QNX
4.25
run
on this machine. Sounds familiar, isn’t it?
Why QSSL never catch up with the hardware development?Because they are putting their efforts on QNX 6.0. Don’t expect any
new
driver for QNX 4.25.
is it an officialy proofed statement or at least has some serious
underlying
basis or just a supposition ? don’t get me wrong but it’s quite
important
for me information.// wbr
- how long it took to release TCP/IP 5.0,
According to the web page it hasn’t been release yet.
- Mario
According to http://www.qnx.com/products/os/qnx4support.html
it never will. That page says the last version for qnx4 is tcpip4.
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Mario Charest wrote:
- how long it took to release TCP/IP 5.0,
According to the web page it hasn’t been release yet.
- Mario
\
Frank Liu wrote:
According to > http://www.qnx.com/products/os/qnx4support.html
it never will. That page says the last version for qnx4 is tcpip4.
So the list of things that won’t get updated should also include
the list of things that have been updated?
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001, Mario Charest wrote:
\
- how long it took to release TCP/IP 5.0,
According to the web page it hasn’t been release yet.
- Mario
\
I’d like to add to this some personal information that I
received directly from Gordon Bell about two QNX shows
ago. I was concerned about exactly this type of eventuality.
I asked him about driver support for QNX4. He told me that
drivers were now developed using single source for both
OS’s. His point was that the cost to provide a QNX4
driver, once a Neutrino driver was finished was close to
Zero.
This situation may have changed, but I can’t imagine why it
should have. If it has not changed, I’d like to know why
QNX would cut off any such new drivers, unless it is to
force the retirement of QNX4. While this might be a
somewhat understandable goal from a corporate position, it
is fairly hostile to customers, especially customers who
have recently, or plan to recently go on-line with QNX4
products. I’ve spent the last two years working for just
such a customer.
I’d also like to add, that there are still numerous QNX2
installation that are alive and trying to survive. In
many cases, a simple updating of the embedded floppy
driver in that OS would have added at least 5 more years
of compatible hardware.
Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com
“Mitchell Schoenbrun” <maschoen@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.010928132615.11901A@schoenbrun.com…
I’d like to add to this some personal information that I
received directly from Gordon Bell about two QNX shows
ago. I was concerned about exactly this type of eventuality.
I asked him about driver support for QNX4. He told me that
drivers were now developed using single source for both
OS’s. His point was that the cost to provide a QNX4
driver, once a Neutrino driver was finished was close to
Zero.This situation may have changed, but I can’t imagine why it
should have.
I think it has,
If it has not changed, I’d like to know why
QNX would cut off any such new drivers, unless it is to
force the retirement of QNX4.
I think that is the case, and get the impression they want to
get QNX4 behind them as fast as possible.
IMHO they aren’t big enough to handle the development
of two OSes.
While this might be a somewhat understandable goal from
a corporate position, it is fairly hostile to customers,
especially customers who have recently, or plan to recently
go on-line with QNX4 products. I’ve spent the last two
years working for just such a customer.
I’d also like to add, that there are still numerous QNX2
installation that are alive and trying to survive. In
many cases, a simple updating of the embedded floppy
driver in that OS would have added at least 5 more years
of compatible hardware.
That’s beyond me as well, so small a change, they could even
make the driver available separetly or release it as unsupported
to spare the trouble of going through QA. But then again,
where to you stop, a line has to be drawn somewhere.
Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- > maschoen@pobox.com
We have been using QNX since 1996. Our application keeps on growing such
that we always demand faster and bigger hardware. In the last 5 years, we
notice that we are always one step (or one generation) behind our
competitors which use other operating systems. The good news is that even
though with one generation of hardware behind, our application still
performs better than our competitors which use new and faster hardware.
However, it always raised other isssues which our competitors use as their
weapon against us, such as it is harder to obtain the hardware because it is
“more obsolete”, and of course it effects our maintenance support where our
customer has to stock some backup hardwares; and we sound like never keep up
to date with new technology; and our customers fear that we can’t grow to
meet their growing demand; and so on.
Migrating to QNX 6 is another problem. We need to put a lot of efforts in
order to Migrate to the new version (almost as much as migrating to another
UNIX) because we use a lot of system calls. So we always ask ourselves is it
worthed to migrate to QNX 6? Will we get the same problems that we had in
the last five years with QNX? Until now, we are still uncertain with the
commitment from QNX regarding the device driver. And we don’t think QSSL
will improve it because until now QNX 6 alone does not support the new SCSI
in Compaq ML370 and other brands server of the same class or higher !!!
Besides this driver problem, we also have another major issue (see
comp.os.qnx “QNX is not meant for large system?”) where we have not received
any comment from QSSL yet.
“Mitchell Schoenbrun” <maschoen@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.010928132615.11901A@schoenbrun.com…
I’d like to add to this some personal information that I
received directly from Gordon Bell about two QNX shows
ago. I was concerned about exactly this type of eventuality.
I asked him about driver support for QNX4. He told me that
drivers were now developed using single source for both
OS’s. His point was that the cost to provide a QNX4
driver, once a Neutrino driver was finished was close to
Zero.This situation may have changed, but I can’t imagine why it
should have. If it has not changed, I’d like to know why
QNX would cut off any such new drivers, unless it is to
force the retirement of QNX4. While this might be a
somewhat understandable goal from a corporate position, it
is fairly hostile to customers, especially customers who
have recently, or plan to recently go on-line with QNX4
products. I’ve spent the last two years working for just
such a customer.I’d also like to add, that there are still numerous QNX2
installation that are alive and trying to survive. In
many cases, a simple updating of the embedded floppy
driver in that OS would have added at least 5 more years
of compatible hardware.Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- > maschoen@pobox.com
“Johannes” <jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9p73qh$634$1@inn.qnx.com…
We have been using QNX since 1996. Our application keeps on growing such
that we always demand faster and bigger hardware. In the last 5 years, we
notice that we are always one step (or one generation) behind our
competitors which use other operating systems. The good news is that even
though with one generation of hardware behind, our application still
performs better than our competitors which use new and faster hardware.
However, it always raised other isssues which our competitors use as their
weapon against us, such as it is harder to obtain the hardware because it
is
“more obsolete”, and of course it effects our maintenance support where
our
customer has to stock some backup hardwares; and we sound like never keep
up
to date with new technology; and our customers fear that we can’t grow to
meet their growing demand; and so on.
How ever nice QNX will put it, in my views, QNX has abandonned
QNX4 users.
Migrating to QNX 6 is another problem. We need to put a lot of efforts in
order to Migrate to the new version (almost as much as migrating to
another
UNIX) because we use a lot of system calls. So we always ask ourselves is
it
worthed to migrate to QNX 6? Will we get the same problems that we had in
the last five years with QNX?
If you look at their history it’s tempting to say yes. However now QNX
is playing with big boys like Cicso, IBM, Nortel, so I think that is very
unlikely they drop QNX for something else. As a company I’m sure
you wouldn’t want to piss IBM/CISCO/etc
Until now, we are still uncertain with the
commitment from QNX regarding the device driver. And we don’t think QSSL
will improve it because until now QNX 6 alone does not support the new
SCSI
in Compaq ML370 and other brands server of the same class or higher !!!
Besides this driver problem, we also have another major issue (see
comp.os.qnx “QNX is not meant for large system?”) where we have not
received
any comment from QSSL yet.
“Mitchell Schoenbrun” <> maschoen@pobox.com> > wrote in message
news:> Voyager.010928132615.11901A@schoenbrun.com> …
I’d like to add to this some personal information that I
received directly from Gordon Bell about two QNX shows
ago. I was concerned about exactly this type of eventuality.
I asked him about driver support for QNX4. He told me that
drivers were now developed using single source for both
OS’s. His point was that the cost to provide a QNX4
driver, once a Neutrino driver was finished was close to
Zero.This situation may have changed, but I can’t imagine why it
should have. If it has not changed, I’d like to know why
QNX would cut off any such new drivers, unless it is to
force the retirement of QNX4. While this might be a
somewhat understandable goal from a corporate position, it
is fairly hostile to customers, especially customers who
have recently, or plan to recently go on-line with QNX4
products. I’ve spent the last two years working for just
such a customer.I’d also like to add, that there are still numerous QNX2
installation that are alive and trying to survive. In
many cases, a simple updating of the embedded floppy
driver in that OS would have added at least 5 more years
of compatible hardware.Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- > maschoen@pobox.com
Mario Charest <mcharest@voidzinformatic.com> wrote:
“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:9p73qh$634$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
We have been using QNX since 1996. Our application keeps on growing such
that we always demand faster and bigger hardware. In the last 5 years, we
notice that we are always one step (or one generation) behind our
competitors which use other operating systems. The good news is that even
though with one generation of hardware behind, our application still
performs better than our competitors which use new and faster hardware.
However, it always raised other isssues which our competitors use as their
weapon against us, such as it is harder to obtain the hardware because it
is
“more obsolete”, and of course it effects our maintenance support where
our
customer has to stock some backup hardwares; and we sound like never keep
up
to date with new technology; and our customers fear that we can’t grow to
meet their growing demand; and so on.How ever nice QNX will put it, in my views, QNX has abandonned
QNX4 users.
This is really depressing. Over the years we purchased over 170 QNX4 full
OS licenses and also some additional packages (compiler, tcpip, etc.) If
QNX4 support is being dropped, then our management will have even more
reason to abandon QNX completely. I have been struggling to convince them
otherwise, but now even I am becoming hopeless.
rick
“Mario Charest” <mcharest@voidzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9p5a61$4f1$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Mitchell Schoenbrun” <> maschoen@pobox.com> > wrote in message
news:> Voyager.010928132615.11901A@schoenbrun.com> …
I’d like to add to this some personal information that I
received directly from Gordon Bell about two QNX shows
ago. I was concerned about exactly this type of eventuality.
I asked him about driver support for QNX4. He told me that
drivers were now developed using single source for both
OS’s. His point was that the cost to provide a QNX4
driver, once a Neutrino driver was finished was close to
Zero.This situation may have changed, but I can’t imagine why it
should have.I think it has,
If it has not changed, I’d like to know why
QNX would cut off any such new drivers, unless it is to
force the retirement of QNX4.I think that is the case, and get the impression they want to
get QNX4 behind them as fast as possible.
This is disappointing!
Neutrino/V6/Rtp/(name of the week) IS the wave of the future. But it isn’t
ready yet. I think that it is still too early to abandon QNX V4.
“Rick Lake” <rwlake@spamfree.domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:9p7kmf$epl$1@inn.qnx.com…
Mario Charest <> mcharest@voidzinformatic.com> > wrote:
“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:9p73qh$634$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
We have been using QNX since 1996. Our application keeps on growing
such
that we always demand faster and bigger hardware. In the last 5 years,
we
notice that we are always one step (or one generation) behind our
competitors which use other operating systems. The good news is that
even
though with one generation of hardware behind, our application still
performs better than our competitors which use new and faster hardware.
However, it always raised other isssues which our competitors use as
their
weapon against us, such as it is harder to obtain the hardware because
it
is
“more obsolete”, and of course it effects our maintenance support where
our
customer has to stock some backup hardwares; and we sound like never
keep
up
to date with new technology; and our customers fear that we can’t grow
to
meet their growing demand; and so on.How ever nice QNX will put it, in my views, QNX has abandonned
QNX4 users.This is really depressing. Over the years we purchased over 170 QNX4 full
OS licenses and also some additional packages (compiler, tcpip, etc.) If
QNX4 support is being dropped, then our management will have even more
I’m sure QNX4 user will be supported, question will get answer, bug
will probably get fix for a while. But I wouldn’t expect any new
stuff/features.
reason to abandon QNX completely. I have been struggling to convince them
otherwise, but now even I am becoming hopeless.
Hopefully when QNX made that choice they were aware that
they were going to loose customer. Though call.
rick
I would not call it hopeless! I have worked with QNX since 1986 or so and
I’ve gone
through the changes of OS, compilers, etc., and I would not view what QNX is
doing as
“abandoning” QNX4 users. As others have said there are still QNX2 system
out there
working fine.
There will still be perfectly good platforms to build QNX4 applications on,
even though
it may not be the latest “hot/must have” item on the market, but that will
perform the task
required.
Migration to QNX6 is a must and has to be looked at seriously, but not in
the next day or
week, or month. We are planning on beginning migrating our system to QNX6
by the end
of 2002, over 1 year away.
I guess I do not understand all the worry and woes. Take what QNX4 is, what
QNX6 is,
and move on.
Ivan
“Rick Lake” <rwlake@spamfree.domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:9p7kmf$epl$1@inn.qnx.com…
Mario Charest <> mcharest@voidzinformatic.com> > wrote:
“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:9p73qh$634$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
We have been using QNX since 1996. Our application keeps on growing
such
that we always demand faster and bigger hardware. In the last 5 years,
we
notice that we are always one step (or one generation) behind our
competitors which use other operating systems. The good news is that
even
though with one generation of hardware behind, our application still
performs better than our competitors which use new and faster hardware.
However, it always raised other isssues which our competitors use as
their
weapon against us, such as it is harder to obtain the hardware because
it
is
“more obsolete”, and of course it effects our maintenance support where
our
customer has to stock some backup hardwares; and we sound like never
keep
up
to date with new technology; and our customers fear that we can’t grow
to
meet their growing demand; and so on.How ever nice QNX will put it, in my views, QNX has abandonned
QNX4 users.This is really depressing. Over the years we purchased over 170 QNX4 full
OS licenses and also some additional packages (compiler, tcpip, etc.) If
QNX4 support is being dropped, then our management will have even more
reason to abandon QNX completely. I have been struggling to convince them
otherwise, but now even I am becoming hopeless.rick
Why would they lose customers? Did you not go through the migration from
QNX2 to QNX4? I’d like to think people build QNX systems and applications
for their stability and reliability, not because it supports the latest and
greatest
hardware. If someone really needs a particular type of hardware that is
supported
in QNX6, bit not QNX4, then they need to seriously consider migration or
change
their hardware requirements. IMHO
Ivan
“Mario Charest” <mcharest@voidzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9p9gne$i5d$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Rick Lake” <> rwlake@spamfree.domain.invalid> > wrote in message
news:9p7kmf$epl$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Mario Charest <> mcharest@voidzinformatic.com> > wrote:“Johannes” <> jsukamtoh@yahoo.com> > wrote in message
news:9p73qh$634$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
We have been using QNX since 1996. Our application keeps on growing
such
that we always demand faster and bigger hardware. In the last 5
years,
we
notice that we are always one step (or one generation) behind our
competitors which use other operating systems. The good news is that
even
though with one generation of hardware behind, our application still
performs better than our competitors which use new and faster
hardware.
However, it always raised other isssues which our competitors use as
their
weapon against us, such as it is harder to obtain the hardware
because
it
is
“more obsolete”, and of course it effects our maintenance support
where
our
customer has to stock some backup hardwares; and we sound like never
keep
up
to date with new technology; and our customers fear that we can’t
grow
to
meet their growing demand; and so on.How ever nice QNX will put it, in my views, QNX has abandonned
QNX4 users.This is really depressing. Over the years we purchased over 170 QNX4
full
OS licenses and also some additional packages (compiler, tcpip, etc.) If
QNX4 support is being dropped, then our management will have even moreI’m sure QNX4 user will be supported, question will get answer, bug
will probably get fix for a while. But I wouldn’t expect any new
stuff/features.reason to abandon QNX completely. I have been struggling to convince
them
otherwise, but now even I am becoming hopeless.Hopefully when QNX made that choice they were aware that
they were going to loose customer. Though call.
rick
Previously, Ivan Bannon wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
Why would they lose customers?
Imagine that you are a small startup company making a
medical instrument. About three years ago you had an idea.
You searched around and found that the FDA liked QNX, and
that there were other good reasons for using it. You hired
engineers, but about a year later you discovered that your
software people were not going to get the job done. You
hired a couple of QNX consultants who worked hard for two
years getting the software ready. Now after all this time,
and many unexpected delays, you are ready to submit your
product to the FDA. You expect another year before complete
approval, and then maybe another year before you are in full
swing, hopefully profitable.
Now you hear that you may start having trouble with hardware
support. Porting the project would mean re-hiring
consultants and going through what I estimate would be a 6
month project. Remember that this will also delay going
through the FDA. There also is the possibility that the FDA
might not feel the same way about RTP that they do about
QNX4, and might want a deeper level of scrutiny. And
finally, there’s all the new license and support costs.
While the port to RTP should be a lot easier than, lets say
a port to Wind River, from the point of view of management,
it might as well be CE. You still have to find consultants,
pay them a lot, and deal with the FDA.
Does this sound like I’m making this up? I’m not.
Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com