I have seen it said here before to not use TCP/IP 4.25 or earlier under qnx
4 but TCP/IP v5 is ok.
Is this correct? Is the implementation of the TCP/IP correct under 4.25?
What are the issues? What is the upgrade path? If this is correct, how does
telnet and ftp work under 4.25?
Any information would be great.
“Doug Rixmann” <rixmannd@rdsdata.com> wrote in message
news:b2171f$3iv$1@inn.qnx.com…
I have seen it said here before to not use TCP/IP 4.25 or earlier under
qnx
4 but TCP/IP v5 is ok.Is this correct?
Is the implementation of the TCP/IP correct under 4.25?
This == what ? TCP/IP v5 Beta2 for QNX4.25 ? Dunno. Also, depends on what
“correct” means. Does it work fine ? It does 
What are the issues?
I bet if QSS R&D staff knew the issues they would fix them in a moment.
Well, one of the issue is: do not use slinger. It was, is and guess will be
buggy as a hell. Better get apache, the latest one is 1.3.27.
What is the upgrade path?
http://www.qnx.com/developer/download/updates/
If this is correct, how does telnet and ftp work under 4.25?
telnet and ftp work fine from my experience, both client and server parts.
Any information would be great.
Hope it helps a bit.
// wbr
“Ian Zagorskih” <ianzag@megasignal.com> wrote in message
news:b228u2$84i$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Doug Rixmann” <> rixmannd@rdsdata.com> > wrote in message
news:b2171f$3iv$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I have seen it said here before to not use TCP/IP 4.25 or earlier under
qnx
4 but TCP/IP v5 is ok.Is this correct?
Is the implementation of the TCP/IP correct under 4.25?This == what ? TCP/IP v5 Beta2 for QNX4.25 ? Dunno. Also, depends on what
“correct” means. Does it work fine ? It does >What are the issues?
I bet if QSS R&D staff knew the issues they would fix them in a moment.
Heu?
Well, one of the issue is: do not use slinger. It was, is and guess will
be
buggy as a hell. Better get apache, the latest one is 1.3.27.What is the upgrade path?
http://www.qnx.com/developer/download/updates/
If this is correct, how does telnet and ftp work under 4.25?
telnet and ftp work fine from my experience, both client and server parts.
TCP/IP 4.25 is reliable enough for most user. It’s not just real-time and
embedded friendly enough. 5.0 (lastes beta) is better and I beleive some
issues with NFS has been solved.
Any information would be great.
Hope it helps a bit.
// wbr
“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:b229c8$85k$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Ian Zagorskih” <> ianzag@megasignal.com> > wrote in message
news:b228u2$84i$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Doug Rixmann” <> rixmannd@rdsdata.com> > wrote in message
news:b2171f$3iv$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I have seen it said here before to not use TCP/IP 4.25 or earlier
under
qnx
4 but TCP/IP v5 is ok.Is this correct?
Is the implementation of the TCP/IP correct under 4.25?This == what ? TCP/IP v5 Beta2 for QNX4.25 ? Dunno. Also, depends on
what
“correct” means. Does it work fine ? It does >What are the issues?
I bet if QSS R&D staff knew the issues they would fix them in a moment.
Heu?
Well, one of the issue is: do not use slinger. It was, is and guess will
be
buggy as a hell. Better get apache, the latest one is 1.3.27.What is the upgrade path?
http://www.qnx.com/developer/download/updates/
If this is correct, how does telnet and ftp work under 4.25?
telnet and ftp work fine from my experience, both client and server
parts.TCP/IP 4.25 is reliable enough for most user. It’s not just real-time and
embedded friendly enough. 5.0 (lastes beta) is better and I beleive some
issues with NFS has been solved.
Sure it works, i didn’t tell it’s broken or bad
I moved on v5 (even in beta status) when i had some weird problems with
dhcp.client which couldn’t get address from Windows NT server (was
configured in some weird way afair servicing as a PDC same time for some
huge LAN). So i checked 5 and found that it works fine.
// wbr
So, normal/basic socket programming under v4.25 should be ok?
“Ian Zagorskih” <ianzag@megasignal.com> wrote in message
news:b22c0r$b3l$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:b229c8$85k$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Ian Zagorskih” <> ianzag@megasignal.com> > wrote in message
news:b228u2$84i$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Doug Rixmann” <> rixmannd@rdsdata.com> > wrote in message
news:b2171f$3iv$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I have seen it said here before to not use TCP/IP 4.25 or earlier
under
qnx
4 but TCP/IP v5 is ok.Is this correct?
Is the implementation of the TCP/IP correct under 4.25?This == what ? TCP/IP v5 Beta2 for QNX4.25 ? Dunno. Also, depends on
what
“correct” means. Does it work fine ? It does >What are the issues?
I bet if QSS R&D staff knew the issues they would fix them in a
moment.Heu?
Well, one of the issue is: do not use slinger. It was, is and guess
will
be
buggy as a hell. Better get apache, the latest one is 1.3.27.What is the upgrade path?
http://www.qnx.com/developer/download/updates/
If this is correct, how does telnet and ftp work under 4.25?
telnet and ftp work fine from my experience, both client and server
parts.TCP/IP 4.25 is reliable enough for most user. It’s not just real-time
and
embedded friendly enough. 5.0 (lastes beta) is better and I beleive
some
issues with NFS has been solved.
Sure it works, i didn’t tell it’s broken or bad >I moved on v5 (even in beta status) when i had some weird problems with
dhcp.client which couldn’t get address from Windows NT server (was
configured in some weird way afair servicing as a PDC same time for some
huge LAN). So i checked 5 and found that it works fine.// wbr
“Doug Rixmann” <rixmannd@rdsdata.com> wrote in message
news:b25u4q$9f4$1@inn.qnx.com…
So, normal/basic socket programming under v4.25 should be ok?
Yes, but then again why not use 5.0?
“Ian Zagorskih” <> ianzag@megasignal.com> > wrote in message
news:b22c0r$b3l$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:b229c8$85k$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Ian Zagorskih” <> ianzag@megasignal.com> > wrote in message
news:b228u2$84i$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Doug Rixmann” <> rixmannd@rdsdata.com> > wrote in message
news:b2171f$3iv$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I have seen it said here before to not use TCP/IP 4.25 or earlier
under
qnx
4 but TCP/IP v5 is ok.Is this correct?
Is the implementation of the TCP/IP correct under 4.25?This == what ? TCP/IP v5 Beta2 for QNX4.25 ? Dunno. Also, depends on
what
“correct” means. Does it work fine ? It does >What are the issues?
I bet if QSS R&D staff knew the issues they would fix them in a
moment.Heu?
Well, one of the issue is: do not use slinger. It was, is and guess
will
be
buggy as a hell. Better get apache, the latest one is 1.3.27.What is the upgrade path?
http://www.qnx.com/developer/download/updates/
If this is correct, how does telnet and ftp work under 4.25?
telnet and ftp work fine from my experience, both client and server
parts.TCP/IP 4.25 is reliable enough for most user. It’s not just real-time
and
embedded friendly enough. 5.0 (lastes beta) is better and I beleive
some
issues with NFS has been solved.
Sure it works, i didn’t tell it’s broken or bad >I moved on v5 (even in beta status) when i had some weird problems with
dhcp.client which couldn’t get address from Windows NT server (was
configured in some weird way afair servicing as a PDC same time for some
huge LAN). So i checked 5 and found that it works fine.// wbr
\
Previously, Mario Charest wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
“Doug Rixmann” <> rixmannd@rdsdata.com> > wrote in message
news:b25u4q$9f4$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
So, normal/basic socket programming under v4.25 should be ok?Yes, but then again why not use 5.0?
I believe 5.0 is in a perpetual “beta” state. 4.25 is not,
so 4.25 is shippable and officially supported.
No idea if that matters to the OP.
[…]
I actually installed 5 and looked into one of the install scripts and saw
that the version line was changed from V5 beta to V5.
I thought as you did/do that it was a Beta release. Is it actually out of a
beta state now?
“Ken Schumm” <kwschumm@IH8SPAMqsolv.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.030210090109.687A@dilbert…
Previously, Mario Charest wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
“Doug Rixmann” <> rixmannd@rdsdata.com> > wrote in message
news:b25u4q$9f4$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
So, normal/basic socket programming under v4.25 should be ok?Yes, but then again why not use 5.0?
I believe 5.0 is in a perpetual “beta” state. 4.25 is not,
so 4.25 is shippable and officially supported.No idea if that matters to the OP.
[…]
Doug Rixmann <rixmannd@rdsdata.com> wrote:
I have seen it said here before to not use TCP/IP 4.25 or earlier under qnx
4 but TCP/IP v5 is ok.Is this correct? Is the implementation of the TCP/IP correct under 4.25?
What are the issues? What is the upgrade path? If this is correct, how does
telnet and ftp work under 4.25?Any information would be great.
My opinion, for what it’s worth. I have used both extensively.
TCP/IP V4.25 works fine. There have been some reported bug fixes in V5.
But these bugs never affected me. Also, I DO believe that V5.0 is
RELEASED, not beta.
For me, I use V5.0. It is a little more feature rich and easier to do
certain things (I don’t remember what they were. Oh yeah! I needed
supernetting. 4.25 didn’t support it. Also, I’m using ipfd to do NAT.)
One note though! Any programs compiled and linked for 4.25 need to be
recompiled and relinked for 5.0.
–
Bill Caroselli – Q-TPS Consulting
1-(626) 824-7983
qtps@earthlink.net
“Ken Schumm” <kwschumm@IH8SPAMqsolv.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.030210090109.687A@dilbert…
Previously, Mario Charest wrote in qdn.public.qnx4:
“Doug Rixmann” <> rixmannd@rdsdata.com> > wrote in message
news:b25u4q$9f4$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
So, normal/basic socket programming under v4.25 should be ok?Yes, but then again why not use 5.0?
I believe 5.0 is in a perpetual “beta” state. 4.25 is not,
so 4.25 is shippable and officially supported.
5.0 is officialy release. There is currently a beta for 5.0a or patch A
whatever they call it.
No idea if that matters to the OP.
[…]
One note though! Any programs compiled and linked for 4.25 need to be
recompiled and relinked for 5.0.
Not for me.
–
Bill Caroselli – Q-TPS Consulting
1-(626) 824-7983
qtps@earthlink.net
TCP/IP 4.25 is the officially supported version, and works fine for most
customers. There is currently a beta patch availabe for it (in fact two,
one for runtime and one for development) these will be promoted to release
stauts shortly, not before being re-packaged for installaition with CD
installer.
TCP/IP 5.0 was ported and released, somewhat unofficially, as it had
additional functionality that was not available in the 4.25 version, and not
easily added, but functionality that was required by some customers.
“Officially” you can’t ship this version of TCP/IP without getting
permission from QSSL. “Officially” we don’t support it. “Officially” we
also have a beta for TCP/IP 5.0 (again one for runtime ,and one for
development). “Unofficially” it certainly looks like we are supporting it !
Reality bites! We didn’t want to support two different TCP/IP stacks for
QNX 4, but as soon as we had customers using the 5.0 stack we really had no
choice. The TCP/IP stck has functionality that will never be added to teh
4.25 stack. The 5.0 stack is easier (in most cases) to fix reported bugs in
than the 4.25 stack. We will probably recommend the 5.0 stack more and
more. Use whichever one meets your needs!
-Martin.
“Bill Caroselli” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b28u05$hqm$4@inn.qnx.com…
Doug Rixmann <> rixmannd@rdsdata.com> > wrote:
I have seen it said here before to not use TCP/IP 4.25 or earlier under
qnx
4 but TCP/IP v5 is ok.Is this correct? Is the implementation of the TCP/IP correct under 4.25?
What are the issues? What is the upgrade path? If this is correct, how
does
telnet and ftp work under 4.25?Any information would be great.
My opinion, for what it’s worth. I have used both extensively.
TCP/IP V4.25 works fine. There have been some reported bug fixes in V5.
But these bugs never affected me. Also, I DO believe that V5.0 is
RELEASED, not beta.For me, I use V5.0. It is a little more feature rich and easier to do
certain things (I don’t remember what they were. Oh yeah! I needed
supernetting. 4.25 didn’t support it. Also, I’m using ipfd to do NAT.)One note though! Any programs compiled and linked for 4.25 need to be
recompiled and relinked for 5.0.–
Bill Caroselli – Q-TPS Consulting
1-(626) 824-7983
qtps@earthlink.net