Hi. I saw a few messages posted previously concerning this, but I just
wanted to completely clarify this issue. Are the following statements
true or false:
I’d appreciate any help with these basic ‘looming’ questions.
Thanks,
Eric
Eric <Eric.Simon@gsfc.nasa.gov> wrote:
Hi. I saw a few messages posted previously concerning this, but I just
wanted to completely clarify this issue. Are the following statements
true or false:
- There is no way to do native networking between a QNX4 and QNX6
machine.
correct.- You must use TCP/IP to make them communicate.
correct.- My QNX4 node licenses will not work with QNX6.
correct.
Regards,
Chris
I’d appreciate any help with these basic ‘looming’ questions.
Thanks,
Eric
Thanks, Chris!
Chris Travis wrote:
Eric <> Eric.Simon@gsfc.nasa.gov> > wrote:
Hi. I saw a few messages posted previously concerning this, but I just
wanted to completely clarify this issue. Are the following statements
true or false:
- There is no way to do native networking between a QNX4 and QNX6
machine.
correct.- You must use TCP/IP to make them communicate.
correct.- My QNX4 node licenses will not work with QNX6.
correct.Regards,
ChrisI’d appreciate any help with these basic ‘looming’ questions.
Thanks,
Eric
Previously, Eric wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.os:
Hi. I saw a few messages posted previously concerning this, but I just
wanted to completely clarify this issue. Are the following statements
true or false:
- There is no way to do native networking between a QNX4 and QNX6
machine.
True, but as has been done in the past, you could setup a
bridge that would simulate message passing. You would have
to write your own protocol to do this. You might have to
deal with issues like different endian’s and watch out for
structure packing differences.
Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com
- My QNX4 node licenses will not work with QNX6.
correct.
Maybe this belongs in the advocacy group, but you know, as an owner of quite
a few QNX4 licenses, I have always thought this was kind of crappy. I would
assume that QSSL would not want to be saddled with the support of a whole
bunch of legacy QNX4 users. So why are they throwing obstacles in the path
of those wanting to migrate to Neutrino? 
Is there at least some kind of upgrade discount? Even Microsoft does that
Stephen
Thanks for the advice, Mitch.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Stephen - I would have assumed that this
type of thing would have been implemented by QSSL to encourage migration into
QNX6. It would make sense to enable native communication between a product
and that product’s upgrade. Otherwise the developer must either NOT migrate
or re-vamp his/her entire network ($$$$$$$). This is especially obstructive
to embedded developers. I, for example, have a bunch of embedded computers
running QNX4. I also have a laptop that I use to maintain the embedded
systems. If I want to begin a migration to QNX6 for my new systems, that
means that I not only have to change the OS on my laptop, but I have to go
through each of my old embedded buddies and give them a facelift as well (or
buy a second laptop). This makes migration a very expensive and/or
time-consuming - thus undesirable - thing.
Mitchell Schoenbrun wrote:
Previously, Eric wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.os:
Hi. I saw a few messages posted previously concerning this, but I just
wanted to completely clarify this issue. Are the following statements
true or false:
- There is no way to do native networking between a QNX4 and QNX6
machine.True, but as has been done in the past, you could setup a
bridge that would simulate message passing. You would have
to write your own protocol to do this. You might have to
deal with issues like different endian’s and watch out for
structure packing differences.Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- > maschoen@pobox.com
Mitchell Schoenbrun <maschoen@pobox.com> wrote:
Previously, Eric wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.os:
Hi. I saw a few messages posted previously concerning this, but I just
wanted to completely clarify this issue. Are the following statements
true or false:
- There is no way to do native networking between a QNX4 and QNX6
machine.True, but as has been done in the past, you could setup a
bridge that would simulate message passing. You would have
to write your own protocol to do this. You might have to
deal with issues like different endian’s and watch out for
structure packing differences.
My personal opinion on this is that this is a fantastic
third party opportunity for someone to write a bridge
IO manager for QNX4 and a bridge resmgr for NTO that would
talk back and forth.
Thomas (toe-mah) Fletcher QNX Software Systems
thomasf@qnx.com Neutrino Development Group
(613)-591-0931 http://www.qnx.com/~thomasf
Previously, thomasf@qnx.com wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.os:
My personal opinion on this is that this is a fantastic
third party opportunity for someone to write a bridge
IO manager for QNX4 and a bridge resmgr for NTO that would
talk back and forth.
I think fantastic may be a little bit exaggerated. A product
like this was built for QNX2/QNX4 and I don’t think it was
much more than a moderate success.
Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com
Mitchell Schoenbrun <maschoen@pobox.com> wrote:
Previously, > thomasf@qnx.com > wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.os:
My personal opinion on this is that this is a fantastic
third party opportunity for someone to write a bridge
IO manager for QNX4 and a bridge resmgr for NTO that would
talk back and forth.I think fantastic may be a little bit exaggerated. A product
like this was built for QNX2/QNX4 and I don’t think it was
much more than a moderate success.
Actually, I think there were 2 or maybe 3 products that did this.
Most also offered connection/comms with programs running under DOS
as well.
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com
In article <Voyager.010706101327.1076E@schoenbrun.com>,
maschoen@pobox.com says…
Previously, > thomasf@qnx.com > wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.os:
My personal opinion on this is that this is a fantastic
third party opportunity for someone to write a bridge
IO manager for QNX4 and a bridge resmgr for NTO that would
talk back and forth.I think fantastic may be a little bit exaggerated. A product
like this was built for QNX2/QNX4 and I don’t think it was
much more than a moderate success.
Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- > maschoen@pobox.com
Take it from one of the people that did such a project… Mitch is right.
Stephen Munnings
Software Developer
Corman Technologies Inc.
“Stephen Munnings” <steve@cormantech.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.15afc0f4d392333398968f@inn.qnx.com…
Take it from one of the people that did such a project… Mitch is right.
It was (IMHO) a fair to middlin’ technical success.
It was a fairly poor sales success.
( The product is DosNX Relay - from On-Line Data )Stephen Munnings
Gee Steve. How would you know anything about that? ;~)
Have you checked Microsoft’s upgrade policy lately? Almost anything is
better nowadays.
“Stephen Thomas” <slthomas@corpDOTolin.com> wrote in message
news:9i2spn$b3k$1@inn.qnx.com…
- My QNX4 node licenses will not work with QNX6.
correct.Maybe this belongs in the advocacy group, but you know, as an owner of
quite
a few QNX4 licenses, I have always thought this was kind of crappy. I
would
assume that QSSL would not want to be saddled with the support of a whole
bunch of legacy QNX4 users. So why are they throwing obstacles in the path
of those wanting to migrate to Neutrino? >Is there at least some kind of upgrade discount? Even Microsoft does that
Stephen