As RTP said, it can support all BSD sockets and 100% linux compatible. so
does it really support these all?
such as Promiscuous mode setting in networking programming ?
To what extend RTP really support socket programming? I want to know it
exactly. Or someone can provide me some useful sources on net.
thanks for any reply!!!
I believe the capability to use promiscuous mode is a function of the
network driver, not the socket programming interface. The Big stack
(io-net -p tcpip) is derived from the BSD 4.4 stack so it should be
quite compliant with it. If you look at any book on socket programming
such as; Internetworking with TCP/IP by Comer and Stevens, you will
find that all the code works.
Previously, Tsang wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.os:
As RTP said, it can support all BSD sockets and 100% linux compatible. so
does it really support these all?
such as Promiscuous mode setting in networking programming ?To what extend RTP really support socket programming? I want to know it
exactly. Or someone can provide me some useful sources on net.thanks for any reply!!!
\
Tsang <zj_mkt@263.net> wrote:
As RTP said, it can support all BSD sockets and 100% linux compatible. so
does it really support these all?
such as Promiscuous mode setting in networking programming ?
These sorts of things are system specific (and device specific). However,
there will be some form of an update after PatchA goes public that
will include drivers that support the devctl() DCMD_IO_NET_PROMSICUOUS
which can be used to toggle the device into promsicuous mode.
To what extend RTP really support socket programming? I want to know it
exactly. Or someone can provide me some useful sources on net.
In terms of socket programming we are using a derivative of the 4.4BSD
stack so we support the whole deal. That is why you can run things
like apache and other large socket based servers on RTP.
chris
–
cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
so,what you mean is that current RTP version doesn’t support promiscuous
mode yet? And later Patch will support this character by includeing some
newer drivers?
“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:9435pd$1uu$1@nntp.qnx.com…
Tsang <> zj_mkt@263.net> > wrote:
As RTP said, it can support all BSD sockets and 100% linux compatible.
so
does it really support these all?
such as Promiscuous mode setting in networking programming ?
These sorts of things are system specific (and device specific). However,
there will be some form of an update after PatchA goes public that
will include drivers that support the devctl() DCMD_IO_NET_PROMSICUOUS
which can be used to toggle the device into promsicuous mode.
To what extend RTP really support socket programming? I want to know it
exactly. Or someone can provide me some useful sources on net.
In terms of socket programming we are using a derivative of the 4.4BSD
stack so we support the whole deal. That is why you can run things
like apache and other large socket based servers on RTP.chris
–
cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Tsang wrote:
so,what you mean is that current RTP version doesn’t support promiscuous
mode yet? And later Patch will support this character by includeing some
newer drivers?
I just read Chris’ reply again and here is what I understand:
current RTP doesn’t support it, upcoming patch A doesn’t support it.
it will be supported in the future.
Frank
“Chris McKillop” <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:9435pd$1uu$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
Tsang <> zj_mkt@263.net> > wrote:
As RTP said, it can support all BSD sockets and 100% linux compatible.
so
does it really support these all?
such as Promiscuous mode setting in networking programming ?
These sorts of things are system specific (and device specific). However,
there will be some form of an update after PatchA goes public that
will include drivers that support the devctl() DCMD_IO_NET_PROMSICUOUS
which can be used to toggle the device into promsicuous mode.
To what extend RTP really support socket programming? I want to know it
exactly. Or someone can provide me some useful sources on net.
In terms of socket programming we are using a derivative of the 4.4BSD
stack so we support the whole deal. That is why you can run things
like apache and other large socket based servers on RTP.chris
–
cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
\
Hi,liu:
thanks for your understading,which seems more accurate.
so how do ou think of QNX os? do you think it’s better than embedded linux
os?
At the beginning, I may think it’s very good, but now i think it’s still not
very mature or enough to support my research task.
what’s your opinion?
thanks for reply!
“Frank Liu” <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.21.0101170155200.5674-100000@mama.indstate.edu…
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Tsang wrote:
so,what you mean is that current RTP version doesn’t support promiscuous
mode yet? And later Patch will support this character by includeing some
newer drivers?I just read Chris’ reply again and here is what I understand:
current RTP doesn’t support it, upcoming patch A doesn’t support it.
it will be supported in the future.Frank
QNX4 was very good, QNX6 (aka RTP) will be very good. Remember all
we have now is a beta RTP and so called patch A is a patch to beta.
There is no ETA for RTP release yet.
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Tsang wrote:
Hi,liu:
thanks for your understading,which seems more accurate.
so how do ou think of QNX os? do you think it’s better than embedded linux
os?
At the beginning, I may think it’s very good, but now i think it’s still not
very mature or enough to support my research task.
what’s your opinion?
thanks for reply!“Frank Liu” <> liug@mama.indstate.edu> > wrote in message
news:> Pine.LNX.4.21.0101170155200.5674-100000@mama.indstate.edu> …
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001, Tsang wrote:so,what you mean is that current RTP version doesn’t support promiscuous
mode yet? And later Patch will support this character by includeing some
newer drivers?I just read Chris’ reply again and here is what I understand:
current RTP doesn’t support it, upcoming patch A doesn’t support it.
it will be supported in the future.Frank
\
Tsang <zj_mkt@263.net> wrote:
Hi,liu:
thanks for your understading,which seems more accurate.
so how do ou think of QNX os? do you think it’s better than embedded linux
os?
At the beginning, I may think it’s very good, but now i think it’s still not
very mature or enough to support my research task.
what’s your opinion?
thanks for reply!
Just wondering, besides the promiscous mode support what are you looking for?
cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Just curious, is UDS in patch A yet? and others like
http://qnx.iaware.org/pipermail/qdn.public.qnxrtp.os/2000-November/000871.html
frank
On 17 Jan 2001, Chris McKillop wrote:
Tsang <> zj_mkt@263.net> > wrote:
Hi,liu:
thanks for your understading,which seems more accurate.
so how do ou think of QNX os? do you think it’s better than embedded linux
os?
At the beginning, I may think it’s very good, but now i think it’s still not
very mature or enough to support my research task.
what’s your opinion?
thanks for reply!
Just wondering, besides the promiscous mode support what are you looking for?chris
\cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
No, and it won’t be out for a while yet, AFAIK. It appears, while
working on it they realized that to do it properly they’d need to make
some changes in resmgr library and that takes time…
Frank Liu wrote:
Just curious, is UDS in patch A yet? and others like
http://qnx.iaware.org/pipermail/qdn.public.qnxrtp.os/2000-November/000871.htmlfrank
On 17 Jan 2001, Chris McKillop wrote:
Tsang <> zj_mkt@263.net> > wrote:
Hi,liu:
thanks for your understading,which seems more accurate.
so how do ou think of QNX os? do you think it’s better than embedded linux
os?
At the beginning, I may think it’s very good, but now i think it’s still not
very mature or enough to support my research task.
what’s your opinion?
thanks for reply!
Just wondering, besides the promiscous mode support what are you looking for?chris
\cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
Dear sir,
yes, what you said is probably right.however, if I cannot find exactly what
I’m currently searching for, how can I so adopted this product as my tool
for my current work??
what frank liu said in the last mail is right that QNX is a good product,
but it’s maybe a pity that it cannot afford this particular function.
“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:944n7l$sum$3@nntp.qnx.com…
Tsang <> zj_mkt@263.net> > wrote:
Hi,liu:
thanks for your understading,which seems more accurate.
so how do ou think of QNX os? do you think it’s better than embedded
linux
os?
At the beginning, I may think it’s very good, but now i think it’s still
not
very mature or enough to support my research task.
what’s your opinion?
thanks for reply!
Just wondering, besides the promiscous mode support what are you looking
for?chris
\cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
Igor Kovalenko <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote:
No, and it won’t be out for a while yet, AFAIK. It appears, while
working on it they realized that to do it properly they’d need to make
some changes in resmgr library and that takes time…
Of course the good news is that those fixes have been made so things are
more friendly in an SMP world … so UDS is back on track!
Unfortunately it will not be in this “release”, but I’m working to
keep it on track for the next release. Stay tuned … (and keep
pinging!)
Sorry 'bout that,
Thomas
Frank Liu wrote:
Just curious, is UDS in patch A yet? and others like
http://qnx.iaware.org/pipermail/qdn.public.qnxrtp.os/2000-November/000871.htmlfrank
On 17 Jan 2001, Chris McKillop wrote:
Tsang <> zj_mkt@263.net> > wrote:
Hi,liu:
thanks for your understading,which seems more accurate.
so how do ou think of QNX os? do you think it’s better than embedded linux
os?
At the beginning, I may think it’s very good, but now i think it’s still not
very mature or enough to support my research task.
what’s your opinion?
thanks for reply!
Just wondering, besides the promiscous mode support what are you looking for?chris
\cdm@qnx.com > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Chris McKillop – Lewis Carroll –
Software Engineer, QSSL
Tsang <zj_mkt@263.net> wrote:
Dear sir,
yes, what you said is probably right.however, if I cannot find exactly what
I’m currently searching for, how can I so adopted this product as my tool
for my current work??
Well you probably can’t, but fortunately the decision of what product to use
for your particular purposes is up to you, and luckily you are able to try
our product with no cost to determine if it does suit your purposes.
what frank liu said in the last mail is right that QNX is a good product,
but it’s maybe a pity that it cannot afford this particular function.
You mean it’s a pity that we haven’t been able to add this particular
function yet .
You asked about support for the function… you know it is not there now,
and it is not in Patch A. You know that we plan to add it after Patch A.
yes, Chris has planned to add this feature in the next several weeks. thanks
for his great work!!!
<pete@qnx.com> wrote in message news:946sno$7fp$2@nntp.qnx.com…
Tsang <> zj_mkt@263.net> > wrote:
Dear sir,
yes, what you said is probably right.however, if I cannot find exactly
what
I’m currently searching for, how can I so adopted this product as my
tool
for my current work??Well you probably can’t, but fortunately the decision of what product to
use
for your particular purposes is up to you, and luckily you are able to try
our product with no cost to determine if it does suit your purposes.
what frank liu said in the last mail is right that QNX is a good
product,
but it’s maybe a pity that it cannot afford this particular function.You mean it’s a pity that we haven’t been able to add this particular
function yet .You asked about support for the function… you know it is not there now,
and it is not in Patch A. You know that we plan to add it after Patch A.