“Johannes” <Jsukamtoh@infolink.co.id> wrote in message
news:bmiaqb$ff7$1@inn.qnx.com…
If I browse this forum, over 50% of the people here are x86 user if I am
not
wrong. That could mean either we have more x86 user here or we have more
problems with x86! Well, in either case, QSSL has to spend a bit more time
in x86.
No, it is just that most people who write here are those that have some
passion for QNX, rather than ‘just a job’ attitude. And that sort of people
tends to run it on their desktops/laptops… not because they really need
to. Becase they can 
We also report more problems - not because x86 has
more problems, but because other platforms don’t get [ab]used in the ways we
can do it on x86. This helps to uncover lots of problems that are relevant
for all platforms, we just hardly see them reported.
So yes, looking at the newsgroups one might conclude that majority of the
users are on x86. In reality I think the majority is simply not here,
because they are ‘just a job’ folks.
Switch to Solaris? That idea has been in my mind before I migrate to
Neutrino. And looks like I have no choice now. I don’t want to repeat the
same problem that I have in the past few years looking for a computer part
that suit the O/S, especially in my area which is hard to find old stuffs.
It will be nice if we have a computer junk yard here, like the way I do
with
my old car. Talking about car, will you buy an older release car just
because you don’t know how to drive the new version? Or will you learn to
live with the new one? Hi-tech people will not accept this! We have new
release of computer in every quarter of a year, which also mean an older
version is obsolete in every quarter year as well. So if you can afford to
buy a new one, why should you buy the older one? If others can do it, why
can’t QSSL?
Who are the others? Linux has it partially because lot of ‘dot-com money’
has been funneled into it and partially because there is a lot more people
doing drivers - in many cases for free. Solaris (on x86) does not have the
same level of hardware support as Windows or even Linux.
Part of the problem of course is that driver DDKs for QNX did not exist for
too long, and some still do not exist (block drivers, hello Kevin). When
they appeared, it turned out QNX has a separate DDK for every subsystem and
in some cases they don’t look anything like each other. In Solaris you have
DKI/DDI and STREAMS that work for almost any kind of driver, using the same
set of concepts and functions. They also have white papers describing the
process of porting NT drivers down to tiniest details. QNX has just began
systematizing the eclectic mess they have created on the drivers’ front.
Even if they fix that, I doubt they will be able to catch up with Linux or
even Solaris. QNX lacks recognition among the hardware vendors and they also
lack proper internal attitude wrt making any kind of assurances in the
hardware support area - even simple things like publishing a list of
brands/models that are known to work turns out to be too much to ask. For
some reason Sun is not afraid to publsh a list of laptops that are known to
work with Solaris, even though they know laptops do change often.
We have been a good fan of QNX (since 1995). And we hope QSSL will keep up
to date with new hardware releases. Not all but at least one big brand
like
HP or Dell. We are talking about highly availability and highly
reliability
software here running 7x24, so none of our customers will dare to use
something that they have never heard of (sorry to other compatibles). That
is too risky. Even for big brand, our customer dare not use the desktop.
They would rather go for server class. BTW they also ask why QNX? They
have
never heard of it until we introduced QNX to them, and that took a lot of
our effort.
I believe you, but then you’re counter-arguing yourself. If your customers
don’t dare to use anyting unknown, they should not be using QNX. If they
need a high-availability system, you should not be pushing QNX either
because it is not. Pushing a system that we happen to like personally as a
solution for all problems is not an uncommon pitfall between us here 
Realistically speaking, an OS designed for HA systems needs to support a
whole lot more than just modern hardware (also, contrary the impression QNX
is trying to make, a system does not automatically qualify as a HA just by
virtue of being based on micro-kernel). It needs to support storage
clustering, redundant hot-swappable CPU modules and peripheral cards,
checkpoints, alternate pathing, load balancing, remote management and
whatnot. There is an emerging standard for that, driven by Service
Availability Forum. If you really need that kind of system, you will do
yourself a greatest favor by switching to a platform that was designed for
that by the vendor. Sun has SPARC server boxes that support most of that
right out of box. They will cost you, but you get what you’re paying for.
Neither x86 platform in general, nor QNX are particularly strong in this
area.
– igor
“Rennie Allen” <> rallen@csical.com> > wrote in message
news:bmh2tu$jcj$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Bill Caroselli wrote:
Igor Kovalenko <> kovalenko@attbi.com> > wrote:
IK > I would like nothing more than see a better situation with
hardware
support
IK > by QNX myself. However one has to face the reality. It is
unrealistic to
IK > expect adequate hardware support from a company with ~100
employees
for a
IK > platform (x86) that generates the least portion of their
revenues.
Every
IK > time somebody asks this question I bet someone at QNX gets an
itch
to remove
IK > self-hosted x86 platform altogether.
With this in mind I have one final comment to anyone else looking for
their next peice of hardware. Many of the big name vendors are more
likely to have proprietary hardware and undocumented software
requirements. They develope their own techniques for doing everything
because they can often do it just a little bit faster that way. The
lesser brands and brand-X vendors usually stay pretty close to a
standard if they can. Except for the real cheap ones that just skimp
on everyhing. Broadbased examples: WinModems and now WinPrinters.
Bottom line, whatever you buy, make sure you can return it.
Good Luck & Don’t Blame QNX
Personally, I don’t get my knickers in a twist at all with hardware
support
(even on QNX4). The point is, if QNX brings something to the table that
makes your product better, then you make the hardware fit the O/S (not
the
other way around). It isn’t hard to do, it’s not like there is a
shortage
of hardware vendors out there.