What's unique with QNX RTP ?

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
1

Hi,

The explanation below isn’t clear and is
missleading … IMHO.

"So what is a realtime platform anyway?

  • a hybrid that represents a cross between a
    realtime operating system and a platform OS.
    There are many free and commercially available
    operating systems - both realtime and conventional
  • but only one true realtime platform: the QNX
    realtime platform
    Built from over 20 years of experience in the
    embedded industry,
    the QNX realtime platform offers something truly
    unique: the
    reliability, small footprint, and realtime
    performance of an RTOS
    combined with all the advantages of a platform OS
  • low cost of
    entry, a productive, self-hosted environment, and
    tools and APIs
    familiar to a huge community of developers."

So QNX RTP has been downloaded by 400.000
developers of embedded systems ?
I’m not convinced!

What’s really UNIQUE is that QNX RTP can support
systems from high performance SMP workstations
down to deeply embedded systems … and that is a
real broad
PLATFORM! There is no other RTOS in the market
which can do that.

So why restricting QNX RTP to embedded systems
only ???

Armin

2

“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:39FD49E7.16D3BADC@web_.de…

Hi,

The explanation below isn’t clear and is
missleading … IMHO.

…

So QNX RTP has been downloaded by 400.000
developers of embedded systems ?
I’m not convinced!

I doubt it says anywhere that the QNX RTP has been downloaded by embedded
developers only? There probably aren’t 400,000 embedded developers in
existence.

Regardless of who downloads, QNX’s core audience has not changed - we offer
realtime technology for embedded development.

What’s really UNIQUE is that QNX RTP can support
systems from high performance SMP workstations
down to deeply embedded systems … and that is a
real broad
PLATFORM! There is no other RTOS in the market
which can do that.

So why restricting QNX RTP to embedded systems
only ???

I believe it’s called targeted positioning…

Armin

3

Debbie Kane wrote:

“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:39FD49E7.16D3BADC@web_.de…

Hi,

The explanation below isn’t clear and is
missleading … IMHO.

…

So QNX RTP has been downloaded by 400.000
developers of embedded systems ?
I’m not convinced!

I doubt it says anywhere that the QNX RTP has been downloaded by embedded
developers only? There probably aren’t 400,000 embedded developers in
existence.

Regardless of who downloads, QNX’s core audience has not changed

1% (?) of 400.000 are the core … and the “rest”
working for the desktop are just misleaded ?

  • we offer realtime technology for embedded development.

Hm … what means ‘embedded development’? IMHO …
QSSL is offering a development environment
targeting embedded systems, too … but ‘embedded
system’ doesn’t mean always ‘small footprints’.

And … what is UNIQUE with the support of embedded
systems?

What’s really UNIQUE is that QNX RTP can support
systems from high performance SMP workstations
down to deeply embedded systems … and that is a
real broad PLATFORM! There is no other RTOS in the market
which can do that.

So why restricting QNX RTP to embedded systems only ???

I believe it’s called targeted positioning…

Sorry … there is no visible target. Why SMP? Why
X-Window compatibility?
X-Window is useless for non-desktop apps. Is Quake
an embedded application?

The focus on ‘embedded systems’ with a ‘small
footprint’ is confusing …


Under PRODUCTS is to find on the homepage

QNX® realtime platform
“…designed specifically for embedded
developers…”

→ AND THAT is really NOT true and extremely
missleading!

QNX 4 Realtime Suite
"… This flexible architecture lets you scale QNX
down for
lean embedded systems, or scale it out to create a
virtual
super-computer orchestrating hundreds of
processors… "

→ so QNX4 is covering a broader range of
applications ???

QNX users are more and more confused and we get
many calls from customers who want to switch to
Neutrino because they have the impression that
QNX4 is dead end. The next confusion for them is
to read that it’s designed specifically for
embedded developers… so, what to do e.g. with
non embedded systems in Automation Industry??

The old one seems to be dead end, the new one
seems not really useful… have they to switch to
RT Linux ??

How to convience such guys that Neutrino will be
more potential for their applications than QNX 4
when it’s hard to find such info on your homepage
?

IMHO, UNIQUE is really the support of a broad
range of targets … and that
meets the reality of Neutrino (QNX6) based
products.
What’s the problem to point it out??

Armin

4

As for restricting ourselves to embedded systems, that depends on how you
define embedded. For our purposes, an embedded system is any dedicated
system, whether it’s a tiny consumer device or huge SMP system.

As for targeted positioning, we are not targeting the desktop…but if
people begin to use it for that purpose…that’s great, but I don’t think it
would be wise to try to be everything to everybody, we’d just end up being
OK to some.

Debbie – these are just my perceptions, and probably the last I’ll make on
this topic :slight_smile: – Kane

“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:39FDD333.68842882@web_.de…

Debbie Kane wrote:

“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:39FD49E7.16D3BADC@web_.de…

Hi,

The explanation below isn’t clear and is
missleading … IMHO.

…

So QNX RTP has been downloaded by 400.000
developers of embedded systems ?
I’m not convinced!

I doubt it says anywhere that the QNX RTP has been downloaded by
embedded
developers only? There probably aren’t 400,000 embedded developers in
existence.

Regardless of who downloads, QNX’s core audience has not changed

1% (?) of 400.000 are the core … and the “rest”
working for the desktop are just misleaded ?

  • we offer realtime technology for embedded development.

Hm … what means ‘embedded development’? IMHO …
QSSL is offering a development environment
targeting embedded systems, too … but ‘embedded
system’ doesn’t mean always ‘small footprints’.

And … what is UNIQUE with the support of embedded
systems?

What’s really UNIQUE is that QNX RTP can support
systems from high performance SMP workstations
down to deeply embedded systems … and that is a
real broad PLATFORM! There is no other RTOS in the market
which can do that.

So why restricting QNX RTP to embedded systems only ???

I believe it’s called targeted positioning…

Sorry … there is no visible target. Why SMP? Why
X-Window compatibility?
X-Window is useless for non-desktop apps. Is Quake
an embedded application?

The focus on ‘embedded systems’ with a ‘small
footprint’ is confusing …


Under PRODUCTS is to find on the homepage

QNX® realtime platform
“…designed specifically for embedded
developers…”

→ AND THAT is really NOT true and extremely
missleading!

QNX 4 Realtime Suite
"… This flexible architecture lets you scale QNX
down for
lean embedded systems, or scale it out to create a
virtual
super-computer orchestrating hundreds of
processors… "

→ so QNX4 is covering a broader range of
applications ???

QNX users are more and more confused and we get
many calls from customers who want to switch to
Neutrino because they have the impression that
QNX4 is dead end. The next confusion for them is
to read that it’s designed specifically for
embedded developers… so, what to do e.g. with
non embedded systems in Automation Industry??

The old one seems to be dead end, the new one
seems not really useful… have they to switch to
RT Linux ??

How to convience such guys that Neutrino will be
more potential for their applications than QNX 4
when it’s hard to find such info on your homepage
?

IMHO, UNIQUE is really the support of a broad
range of targets … and that
meets the reality of Neutrino (QNX6) based
products.
What’s the problem to point it out??

Armin

5

Hi Debbie,

Debbie Kane wrote:

As for restricting ourselves to embedded systems, that depends on how you
define embedded. For our purposes, an embedded system is any dedicated
system, whether it’s a tiny consumer device or huge SMP system.

The ‘intuitive’ understanding of the term
‘embedded system’ is that an
embedded system is a tiny system … IMHO.

Every new ‘embedded system’ has today a strong
realationship to the internet.

That means every new product name for an embedded
OS should have these days an
intuitive ‘build in link’ to the internet …
that’s what I’m missing with the
crazy ‘Real Time Platform’. Who needs RT? Who
needs a Platform?

A name like .NTO (dot NTO) or QNX .NP (Net
Platform) would be much better :slight_smile:
That’s my understanding of ‘targeted positioning’
…

As for targeted positioning, we are not targeting the desktop

Hm … what is the target of the Augusta
‘movement’ ?

…but if
people begin to use it for that purpose…that’s great, but I don’t think it
would be wise to try to be everything to everybody, we’d just end up being
OK to some.

Debbie – these are just my perceptions, and probably the last I’ll make on
this topic > :slight_smile: > – Kane

OK, that’s my last to cents …

Armin

“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:39FDD333.68842882@web_.de…


Debbie Kane wrote:

“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:39FD49E7.16D3BADC@web_.de…

Hi,

The explanation below isn’t clear and is
missleading … IMHO.

…

So QNX RTP has been downloaded by 400.000
developers of embedded systems ?
I’m not convinced!

I doubt it says anywhere that the QNX RTP has been downloaded by
embedded
developers only? There probably aren’t 400,000 embedded developers in
existence.

Regardless of who downloads, QNX’s core audience has not changed

1% (?) of 400.000 are the core … and the “rest”
working for the desktop are just misleaded ?

  • we offer realtime technology for embedded development.

Hm … what means ‘embedded development’? IMHO …
QSSL is offering a development environment
targeting embedded systems, too … but ‘embedded
system’ doesn’t mean always ‘small footprints’.

And … what is UNIQUE with the support of embedded
systems?

What’s really UNIQUE is that QNX RTP can support
systems from high performance SMP workstations
down to deeply embedded systems … and that is a
real broad PLATFORM! There is no other RTOS in the market
which can do that.

So why restricting QNX RTP to embedded systems only ???

I believe it’s called targeted positioning…

Sorry … there is no visible target. Why SMP? Why
X-Window compatibility?
X-Window is useless for non-desktop apps. Is Quake
an embedded application?

The focus on ‘embedded systems’ with a ‘small
footprint’ is confusing …


Under PRODUCTS is to find on the homepage

QNX® realtime platform
“…designed specifically for embedded
developers…”

→ AND THAT is really NOT true and extremely
missleading!

QNX 4 Realtime Suite
"… This flexible architecture lets you scale QNX
down for
lean embedded systems, or scale it out to create a
virtual
super-computer orchestrating hundreds of
processors… "

→ so QNX4 is covering a broader range of
applications ???

QNX users are more and more confused and we get
many calls from customers who want to switch to
Neutrino because they have the impression that
QNX4 is dead end. The next confusion for them is
to read that it’s designed specifically for
embedded developers… so, what to do e.g. with
non embedded systems in Automation Industry??

The old one seems to be dead end, the new one
seems not really useful… have they to switch to
RT Linux ??

How to convience such guys that Neutrino will be
more potential for their applications than QNX 4
when it’s hard to find such info on your homepage
?

IMHO, UNIQUE is really the support of a broad
range of targets … and that
meets the reality of Neutrino (QNX6) based
products.
What’s the problem to point it out??

Armin

6

Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:

Hm … what is the target of the Augusta ‘movement’ ?

What’s Augusta Armin?

I have read your posts about our product naming with some interest, and I
thought you had some valid points, but this is the second time you have
dragged out a code name that is no longer in use at all.

If you are concerned with confusion about our product naming, stop
contributing to it. We do not make a product called Augusta.

7

pete@qnx.com wrote:

Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:

Hm … what is the target of the Augusta ‘movement’ ?

What’s Augusta Armin?

I have read your posts about our product naming with some interest, and I
thought you had some valid points, but this is the second time you have
dragged out a code name that is no longer in use at all.

If you are concerned with confusion about our product naming, stop
contributing to it. We do not make a product called Augusta.

You’re being picky Pete. There was something called Augusta and it was
predecessor of RTP. Yes, there is no such product now, but there is
certainly an idea behind RTP which could be called ‘Augusta movement’
too, since that name was used for many things, including mailing list
name.

Armin is right that QNX does not emphasize enough some really unique
qualities of RTP/Neutrino, particularly its scalability and uniformity
through very wide range of configurations. OTOH, I suspect that QNX
talks mostly about lower-end of scale because that’s what is implemented
better at the moment and that’s what makes most commercial sense anyway.
In that sense, avoiding too much talks about high-end might be wise
idea, because RTP really needs LOT of work yet before it could even
theoretically compete with Solaris and such in that area.

Premature statements about how well RTP scales up would just expose it
to competition which it can’t yet win and avoiding battles which you
can’t win is an old wisdom Armin :wink: Look at the struggle BeOS went
through and now at their frantic efforts to re-orient themselves (BeIA
vs BeOS). Doesn’t it tell you anything?

Cheers,

  • igor
8

Igor Kovalenko <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote:

If you are concerned with confusion about our product naming, stop
contributing to it. We do not make a product called Augusta.

You’re being picky Pete. There was something called Augusta and it was
predecessor of RTP. Yes, there is no such product now,

Words like predecessor' and phrases like no such product now’ imply that
Augusta was a product, and it never was. Augusta was a code name like
Chicago and Memphis. It was not a `predecessor’ to RTP… it was the code
name for RTP.

There has been a discussion here specifically about confusion as it relates
to product naming, and that confusion can only be increased by using the name
Augusta.

If you want to characterize me as being picky for asking you not to use that
name, then I’m picky, but you still should not use that name unless you are
intentionally trying to add to the confusion.

9

pete@qnx.com wrote:

Igor Kovalenko <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote:

If you are concerned with confusion about our product naming, stop
contributing to it. We do not make a product called Augusta.

You’re being picky Pete. There was something called Augusta and it was
predecessor of RTP. Yes, there is no such product now,

Words like predecessor' and phrases like no such product now’ imply that
Augusta was a product, and it never was. Augusta was a code name like
Chicago and Memphis. It was not a `predecessor’ to RTP… it was the code
name for RTP.

OK … I will try to make it more clear. My
perception is that many of that multi media stuff
which are included in RTP have its roots from the
trial to bring NTO to the Amiga desktop … isn’t
it? So no one should tell me that
QSSL has never targeted or isn’t targeting the
desktop market.

There has been a discussion here specifically about confusion as it relates
to product naming, and that confusion can only be increased by using the name
Augusta.

Agreed …

If you want to characterize me as being picky for asking you not to use that
name, then I’m picky, but you still should not use that name unless you are
intentionally trying to add to the confusion.

Sorry, my understanding was that Augusta has
something to do with the
Amiga/Phoenix thing …

Armin

10

pete@qnx.com wrote:

Igor Kovalenko <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote:

If you are concerned with confusion about our product naming, stop
contributing to it. We do not make a product called Augusta.

You’re being picky Pete. There was something called Augusta and it was
predecessor of RTP. Yes, there is no such product now,

Words like predecessor' and phrases like no such product now’ imply that
Augusta was a product, and it never was. Augusta was a code name like
Chicago and Memphis. It was not a `predecessor’ to RTP… it was the code
name for RTP.

There has been a discussion here specifically about confusion as it relates
to product naming, and that confusion can only be increased by using the name
Augusta.

If you want to characterize me as being picky for asking you not to use that
name, then I’m picky, but you still should not use that name unless you are
intentionally trying to add to the confusion.

I agree in general, but by ‘picky’ I meant that you’re paying too much
attention to naming issue in this thread, while the subject is not
naming at all.

  • igor
11

Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:


pete@qnx.com > wrote:

OK … I will try to make it more clear. My
perception is that many of that multi media stuff
which are included in RTP have its roots from the
trial to bring NTO to the Amiga desktop … isn’t
it? So no one should tell me that
QSSL has never targeted or isn’t targeting the
desktop market.

Without getting into what the `excuse’ was to do it, most of the multimedia
stuff in RTP is very suitable for what is expected of many embedded devices
today.

We identified some time ago new classes of embedded' devices that we thought we would like to get some market share in. Among those were consumer electronics’ devices.

It just happens that if you have what it takes to get into a high definition
television set or a DVD player or a settop box or game console, the desktop
isn’t all that much different. Of course having what it takes is not solely
a matter of software, but includes also having the appropriate hardware.

My personal view is that the capabilities of `embedded’ hardware is
getting closer and closer to what used to be strictly desktop.

RTP also reflects more closely what current hardware can do. Many of the
features RTP supports are simply things that most modern PC systems can do,
but which were pipe dreams when the feature set for 1.14 was decided.

With the exception of 3D, pretty much everything that is new in 2.0 was done
as a custom job for someone under 1.14 at one time or another.

The main reason we are trying to make RTP more `desktopy’ is that it is it’s
own development system. In the past, people have complained about how
confusing our pricing structure and modular licensing were, particularly
when it came to putting together development seats. Aside from confusion
over naming, I’m sure you would agree that RTP addresses the development
seat problem.

I think that is where the `platform’ concept comes in. It’s not just an OS
or a GUI or a development system, but all of them in the same bundle.

Sorry, my understanding was that Augusta has
something to do with the
Amiga/Phoenix thing …

Augusta was just a code name for an unnamed product. Don’t be surprised if
you see private qdn groups in the future with names like Pebble Beach' or Glen Abbey’.

There were a lot of Phoenix members in the Augusta beta but it wasn’t
exclusive to them. Their participation was quite helpful because they did
not have previous exposure to `QNX’ so they could look at things with a
fresh eye.

But we also included quite a number of old time QNX developers though, and of
course everyone here was used to the QNX4 way of things, so we also had
people using it that were used to to the old ways.

I hope this answers some of your questions.

12

Sign me up for the private “Guinness” qdn group, please… :slight_smile:

-Warren


<pete@qnx.com> wrote in message news:8tq1lu$fhb$1@nntp.qnx.com…
| Augusta was just a code name for an unnamed product. Don’t be surprised if
| you see private qdn groups in the future with names like Pebble Beach' or | Glen Abbey’.

13

pete@qnx.com wrote:

Armin Steinhoff <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote:

pete@qnx.com > wrote:

[ clip … ]

I hope this answers some of your questions.

Yes … indeed. Thanks a lot.

Armin

14

pete@qnx.com wrote:
…

The main reason we are trying to make RTP more `desktopy’ is that it is it’s
own development system. In the past, people have complained about how
confusing our pricing structure and modular licensing were, particularly
when it came to putting together development seats. Aside from confusion
over naming, I’m sure you would agree that RTP addresses the development
seat problem.

I’m curious: How does it address the development seat problem.

15

it’s free? and includes all??

Previously, Alex Cellarius wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:
{ pete@qnx.com wrote:
{ …
{ > The main reason we are trying to make RTP more `desktopy’ is that it is it’s
{ > own development system. In the past, people have complained about how
{ > confusing our pricing structure and modular licensing were, particularly
{ > when it came to putting together development seats. Aside from confusion
{ > over naming, I’m sure you would agree that RTP addresses the development
{ > seat problem.
{
{ I’m curious: How does it address the development seat problem.
{

–
Pat Ford email: pford@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: http://www.qnx.com
(613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terence Matthews
(613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8

16

Pat Ford wrote:

it’s free? and includes all??

Free for non-commercial use.
When you start development or have a approved project etc etc
(gray area), then you still have to pay for dev seats.
(In a croaky voice :slight_smile: )… In the old days, there was the eval system,
where customers could get effectively the same thing.
(full s/w, free for eval, period of about 2-3 months).

RTP is still modular, same as QNX4.
Pricing is confidential, so I am not going to go into
specifics, but the reason I’m curious about Pete’s point is that
as far as I can see, structurally there is no difference
between QNX4 & RTP (in terms of dev seat/modular split &
differences).

Previously, Alex Cellarius wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:
{ > pete@qnx.com > wrote:
{ …
{ > The main reason we are trying to make RTP more `desktopy’ is that it is it’s
{ > own development system. In the past, people have complained about how
{ > confusing our pricing structure and modular licensing were, particularly
{ > when it came to putting together development seats. Aside from confusion
{ > over naming, I’m sure you would agree that RTP addresses the development
{ > seat problem.
{
{ I’m curious: How does it address the development seat problem.
{

–
Pat Ford email: > pford@qnx.com
QNX Software Systems, Ltd. WWW: > http://www.qnx.com
(613) 591-0931 (voice) mail: 175 Terence Matthews
(613) 591-3579 (fax) Kanata, Ontario, Canada K2M 1W8

17

Alex Cellarius <acellarius@systems104.co.za> wrote:

pete@qnx.com > wrote:
…
The main reason we are trying to make RTP more `desktopy’ is that it is it’s
own development system. In the past, people have complained about how
confusing our pricing structure and modular licensing were, particularly
when it came to putting together development seats. Aside from confusion
over naming, I’m sure you would agree that RTP addresses the development
seat problem.

I’m curious: How does it address the development seat problem.

OK… sorry… I retract the statement. It addresses the development seat
problem I was thinking of at the time, but not all conceivable development
seat problems.

18

Just a couple of things:

  1. QNX (or what ever their name is) is focused on the embedded market,
    however, like what happened with Be, who said “we will focus on being a
    MediaOS”, aka we’ll be the IRIX for Intel, they were and still are being
    hammered by Microsoft. Unless QNX moves quickly the same thing may
    happen to them.
  2. People are going to use it for a generic OS regardless of whether it
    is a server/development/mediaOS, hence these issue must be addresseed,
    ie, ya have a good product, reap the rewards by supporting the generic
    OS user.
  3. I have used BeOS and after 4 years they still donot have a “bloody
    great idea” scheme set up to encourage developers to port/develope for
    their particular plaform. QNX is in a position where they can offer such
    an incentive scheme, jump on the opportunity now to grab future
    programmers and companies.

kiwiunixman