“Jens H Jorgensen” <> jhj@remove-nospam-videk.com> > wrote in message
news:aeku4r$3ar$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
It is true that it is more convenient for a user that knows what he/she
is
doing to be able to choose root partition at boot time. But the problem
is
that you cannot change the default root partition currently, so if a
non-expect user has to use a certain root partition then that user has
to
press the correct key, which can be a big challenge for some users.
The advantage with doing it through fdisk is that an expert user can
setup
which partition to use as root partition, and then the novice user is
not
presented with the choice after that.
The current mode is basically an expert mode for the boot strap code, so
if
there was a “use active partition” version of the boot strap code that
would
be very nice.
Thanks
Jens
“Kris Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:aekqsk$6ru$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
What about the situation when there are multiple OS partitions? I’m
just
thinking that the timeout for the choice is quite short and it’s
considerably more inconvenient to have to use fdisk to set the active
partition every time than to just pick one or let it time out.
There’s
nothing to stop you from changing the active partition to have a
different
default. I guess I’m not really seeing why having the choice is a bad
thing. Perhaps an ‘expert mode’ or something to get this behaviour?
If you have multiple partions with a valid QNX installation
(.diskboot
in
the root) the QNX boot manager comes out and ask which partion to
use
as
root partition. I would actually prefer if the QNX boot manager (or
certain
version of the boot manager) would simply use the partion which is
marked
as
the active boot partion as the root partion, and not offer up the
choice
to
the user.
The reason: in a multi partion setup an expect user can control
which
partion to boot from and the novice user is not posed with the
partion
selection question every time the system is booted.
I am compiling a wish-list for utilities development over the next
6
months
to a year. I’m mostly looking for things that existed in QNX4 but
don’t
in
QNX6 but I’m also taking general utils feature requests.
So, if there are any utilities you wish you had or enhanced
functionality
to
existing utilities, now is the time to let me know so I can try to
get
them
on the road map.
Kris Warkentin <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote:
So, if there are any utilities you wish you had or enhanced
functionality to
existing utilities, now is the time to let me know so I can try to get
them
on the road map.
BIG ONE that I almost forgot.
Please, please, please, for the sanity of all developers everywhere, add
support for the keychord CTRL-ALT-SHIFT-DELETE.
This is one of the major annoyances with Qnx6 when developing an embedded
system.
That would be me. >
See my above note on why wtmp/utmp isn’t the best way for QNX.
Thing is, Posix dictates that utmp/wtmp is the way to do accounting on a
unix system. Fortunately, posix doesn’t seem to dictate HOW the information
is obtained, only the interface. So it might be possible to do it without
the actual files as long as the interface is implemented.
The who detection algorithm that I am using will occasionally show users
that are not there, but when it does… it ALWAYS represents a stray /
orphaned process that IS there and needs to be cleaned up.
The question I would have is whether your method can deliver all the
information required such as tty, login time, etc.
The other question would be, do you want it to work from the console only or
from photon as well? I’m just thinking Linux/X11 where you actually have to
be at the console for that to work.
I think CASD is better, since “windohz peeple” (yes I am reserving that
name for my rock band > > expect CAD to bring up a task manager thingy
(not directly initiate a shutdown).
I’ve seen a number of requests for ditto and I was wondering if there was a
really compelling reason why we would still need this. We’ve got phditto
which seems to be quite a bit more powerful. We’ve got telnet which is
relatively secure and portable. I know it was something that people liked
once upon a time but I’m wondering if perhaps this is a bit of nostalgia as
opposed to an actual need.
I am compiling a wish-list for utilities development over the next 6
months
to a year. I’m mostly looking for things that existed in QNX4 but don’t
in
QNX6 but I’m also taking general utils feature requests.
So, if there are any utilities you wish you had or enhanced functionality
to
existing utilities, now is the time to let me know so I can try to get
them
on the road map.
I don’t want it to work at ALL! I certainly don’t want my customers
to be able to bring down the system simply by hitting some key chord,
whether they’re logged into the console or not.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding how you intend this to be installed.
–
Paul D. Smith <pausmith@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT–HA Software Mthds & Tools
“Please remain calm…I may be mad, but I am a professional.” --Mad Scientist
These are my opinions—Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
“Armin Steinhoff” <a-steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3D0E03E1.E640460D@web_.de…
Jim Douglas wrote:
My wish is that you would fix QNet to be as good as the QNX4 native
networking -
Make it reliable. At present there are too many errors and loss of
service.
Make it work over a serial link WITHOUT having to use TCP/IP and PPP
as
well.
Make the ndp reliable and predictable and make it work over any type
of
link. At present it does not work at all over a serial link.
Come up with a name location scheme (or similar) that is as good as,
or
better than nameloc so that it is technically possible to configure a
logical system without regard for the physical network it runs on.
This is just an outline - if you want me to go into more detail just
ask…
Hmm … what you are requesting is a cluster middleware. User PVM >
I’ve seen a number of requests for ditto and I was wondering if there was
a
really compelling reason why we would still need this. We’ve got phditto
which seems to be quite a bit more powerful. We’ve got telnet which is
relatively secure and portable. I know it was something that people liked
once upon a time but I’m wondering if perhaps this is a bit of nostalgia
as
opposed to an actual need.
Nostalgia! doh - join the real world8-) We are talking simplicity and ease
of use…
It can work without Photon so it can give you a command line interface on
to your target while you fight to get Photon up and running.
The assumption is that it will work over QNet without having to struggle
with the intricacies of TCP/IP.
I don’t want it to work at ALL! I certainly don’t want my customers
to be able to bring down the system simply by hitting some key chord,
whether they’re logged into the console or not.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding how you intend this to be installed.
–
In QNX4 it could be disabled. If you add the CASD then you should add the
ability to disable it too. I’d like to see both.
For the record I has added a utility I call ‘sdf’ (shutdown -f) that looks
at what is running, including my app and shuts down everything a quickly and
gracefully as possible. It’s also very easy to type, just roll your finger
on the keyboard. But it will only work for root.
I’ve seen a number of requests for ditto and I was wondering if there was
a
really compelling reason why we would still need this. We’ve got phditto
which seems to be quite a bit more powerful. We’ve got telnet which is
relatively secure and portable. I know it was something that people liked
once upon a time but I’m wondering if perhaps this is a bit of nostalgia
as
opposed to an actual need.
I am compiling a wish-list for utilities development over the next 6
months
to a year. I’m mostly looking for things that existed in QNX4 but don’t
in
QNX6 but I’m also taking general utils feature requests.
So, if there are any utilities you wish you had or enhanced
functionality
to
existing utilities, now is the time to let me know so I can try to get
them
on the road map.
“Kris Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:ael825$h4u$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …
I’ve seen a number of requests for ditto and I was wondering if there was
a
really compelling reason why we would still need this. We’ve got phditto
which seems to be quite a bit more powerful. We’ve got telnet which is
relatively secure and portable. I know it was something that people liked
once upon a time but I’m wondering if perhaps this is a bit of nostalgia
as
opposed to an actual need.
Nostalgia! doh - join the real world8-) We are talking simplicity and ease
of use…
It can work without Photon so it can give you a command line interface on
to your target while you fight to get Photon up and running.
The assumption is that it will work over QNet without having to struggle
with the intricacies of TCP/IP.
It is also VERY important to telnet into a remote node, ditto to it’s
console to see what system error dumped there.
I really dislike TCPIP. It’s bloated, I consider it a hack. and I don’t
want it on my systems if I can help it. Ditto was extremely useful, and it
allowed interaction with a console. Telnet doesn’t do this.
I’ve seen a number of requests for ditto and I was wondering if there was
a
really compelling reason why we would still need this. We’ve got phditto
which seems to be quite a bit more powerful. We’ve got telnet which is
relatively secure and portable. I know it was something that people liked
once upon a time but I’m wondering if perhaps this is a bit of nostalgia
as
opposed to an actual need.
I am compiling a wish-list for utilities development over the next 6
months
to a year. I’m mostly looking for things that existed in QNX4 but don’t
in
QNX6 but I’m also taking general utils feature requests.
So, if there are any utilities you wish you had or enhanced
functionality
to
existing utilities, now is the time to let me know so I can try to get
them
on the road map.
I am compiling a wish-list for utilities development over the next 6 months
to a year. I’m mostly looking for things that existed in QNX4 but don’t in
QNX6 but I’m also taking general utils feature requests.
So, if there are any utilities you wish you had or enhanced functionality to
existing utilities, now is the time to let me know so I can try to get them
on the road map.
Oh, and nobody want “sin vc” ?
I really like to know who the hack it is, when my harddisk suddenly
keeps on busy while I was just stare at my screen
Implement a distributed file system for PVM or MPI/RT (still to
implement)
I’ve done MPICH a long time ago (on QNX4). What I am more interested in
is a QNET based, “made by QNX”, distributed system. (With things
like remote spawn, remote fork, job scheduling …)
is obtained, only the interface. So it might be possible to do it without
the actual files as long as the interface is implemented.
Ah, you know, I had not thought of that, smells like a resmgr
The question I would have is whether your method can deliver all the
information required such as tty, login time, etc.
Of course it can! That was some of the most difficult information to get,
but it is in there now. I’m still struggling with obtaining the IP address
that you connected from for an ssh connection, but I hope to have that one
resolved soon.
For those of us not brought up on a diet of vi/jed/emacs etc, and who
mourn
the loss of vedit/vplus, there may now be a suitable replacement. Check
out
Workspace at pages.infinit.net/micbel. I have not used it in anger as yet,
but it seems to have all the facilities an ex-vplus user like me would
ever
need.>
Modem is a very useful QNX4 utility. It had many nice features. I liked
auto-callback.
That way I could work on my customers systems without having to pay the
phone bill. Also, added security. If someone else called it couldn’t call
them back. It just hung up on them.
I’m assuming that this gives you some way to connect to the machine via
modem. Is ‘modem’ a utility of some sort? What would talk to it on the
other end? Does it allow tcpip traffic or something else?
I am compiling a wish-list for utilities development over the next 6
months
to a year. I’m mostly looking for things that existed in QNX4 but
don’t
in
QNX6 but I’m also taking general utils feature requests.
So, if there are any utilities you wish you had or enhanced
functionality
to
existing utilities, now is the time to let me know so I can try to get
them
on the road map.
Do you consider it generally acceptable to have things on the third party
cd? Most of the suggestions are for things we would include with the core
but some things, (ie send/expect) would be taken from public sources. The
reason I ask is that there are issues with including public utils in the
core offering:
Licensing: If it’s BSD style, fine but we still have to show the
license
on installation. If it’s GPL, there’s a whole can of worms because the
customer doesn’t want to get ambushed by accidentally including a GNU
utility in their shipped image.
Support: Like it or not, if we include a 3rd party util with the core,
we’re implicitly bound to support it to a certain extent. DDD is a good
example of this problem - I spent many an hour chasing issues in it even
though we weren’t technically supporting it.
What I’m saying is that it’s much easier to get things done on the third
party cd than the main offering but if this is okay with everybody then we
can go ahead and follow that route.
I am compiling a wish-list for utilities development over the next 6
months
to a year. I’m mostly looking for things that existed in QNX4 but don’t
in
QNX6 but I’m also taking general utils feature requests.
So, if there are any utilities you wish you had or enhanced
functionality
to
existing utilities, now is the time to let me know so I can try to get
them
on the road map.
I’ve seen a number of requests for ditto and I was wondering if there was
a
really compelling reason why we would still need this. We’ve got phditto
which seems to be quite a bit more powerful. We’ve got telnet which is
relatively secure and portable. I know it was something that people liked
once upon a time but I’m wondering if perhaps this is a bit of nostalgia
as
opposed to an actual need.
To add to other people comment: consider the following scenario:
You got a system with 20 program running, you would like to have each
program running in its own windows to have for example small menu fo
debugging
and looking at debug output .
Each program gets to run on its own private console (Dev.ditto). Via modem
(phditto
isn’t that nice at 9600), TCP/IP (telnet) or FLEET (assuming QNX4), you can
view
and interact with any of these consoles. These console can run “behind”
photon screen and take far less resources then pterm. They also can be
use on system without video card.
Typicaly when I design a system, I wrote each program assuming it will run
in this configuration. Then each program watches for keypress and turn
on/off certain section of “printf” within the program. That means you can
ditto
to /dev/ditto5 for example press m and every message the program receive
will be display on the console, press m again and the message dissapears.
Just awesome in the field.
I am compiling a wish-list for utilities development over the next 6
months
to a year. I’m mostly looking for things that existed in QNX4 but don’t
in
QNX6 but I’m also taking general utils feature requests.
So, if there are any utilities you wish you had or enhanced
functionality
to
existing utilities, now is the time to let me know so I can try to get
them
on the road map.
> expect CAD to bring up a task manager thingy