BeOS versus QNX RTOS

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
21

thank you igor, you answered a lot of potential questions related to
qnx4/nto2 line :slight_smile:

“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@home.com> wrote in message
news:99h2tf$3k$1@inn.qnx.com…

Heh, I still remember the joke (about pilot in hell) accompanied release
of
3c509 driver > :wink:

Part of problem with Neutrino is that pretty much all of ‘original’ guys
who
wrote major parts of QNX4 are gone. So, when someone asks now ‘hey, why
don’t you just port you QNX4 stuff’ is it almost the same as to ask ‘port
Linux stuff’, might be even harder in fact > :wink:

For those who don’t know, keep in mind that people responsible for
original
design of filesystem, native networking, TCP/IP stack, Photon and
practically all drivers have left QSSL. There are very few real ‘last
mohicans’ left and bulk of Neutrino was designed by new generation of
developers. I suspect that at some point they had sort of internal ‘camps
conflict’ like Apple had once, which eventually resulted in exodus of most
senior developers of older generation. Nobody likes to be a dynosaur and
feel breath of young tigers on their neck …

The latter was purely my speculation of course, but I happen to be in very
speculative mood today > :wink:

  • igor

// wbr

22

Heh, I still remember the joke (about pilot in hell) accompanied release of
3c509 driver :wink:

Part of problem with Neutrino is that pretty much all of ‘original’ guys who
wrote major parts of QNX4 are gone. So, when someone asks now ‘hey, why
don’t you just port you QNX4 stuff’ is it almost the same as to ask ‘port
Linux stuff’, might be even harder in fact :wink:

For those who don’t know, keep in mind that people responsible for original
design of filesystem, native networking, TCP/IP stack, Photon and
practically all drivers have left QSSL. There are very few real ‘last
mohicans’ left and bulk of Neutrino was designed by new generation of
developers. I suspect that at some point they had sort of internal ‘camps
conflict’ like Apple had once, which eventually resulted in exodus of most
senior developers of older generation. Nobody likes to be a dynosaur and
feel breath of young tigers on their neck …

The latter was purely my speculation of course, but I happen to be in very
speculative mood today :wink:

  • igor

“Gabriel Coindreau” <gcoindreau@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:99gq9p$ola$1@inn.qnx.com…

Sorry to break the bad news to you but the ‘original’
Andrew would be ‘aboyd’ (Andrew Boyd > :slight_smile:

I still remember the flamewars about Net drivers and
nameloc > :wink:

Regards,

Gabriel


“Andrew Thomas” <> Andrew@cogent.ca> > wrote in message
news:> Voyager.010320150052.569373A@andrewhome.cogent.ca> …
Previously, Andrew wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:
I never could resist a good OS troll.

Thank-you gentlemen for your sincere outrage!

-I’m as big a fan of QNX as anyone.

Heh heh heh. lol

:wink:

Andrew

Just for clarity, I would like to point out that Andrew Stuart and I
are not the same person, despite having very similar signatures.

Just in case this wasn’t obvious. > :slight_smile:

Cheers,
The original Andrew

23

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

Heh, I still remember the joke (about pilot in hell) accompanied release of
3c509 driver > :wink:

Part of problem with Neutrino is that pretty much all of ‘original’ guys who
wrote major parts of QNX4 are gone.

Hmm … that explains why the design of the IPC of NTO is so weired.

So, when someone asks now ‘hey, why
don’t you just port you QNX4 stuff’ is it almost the same as to ask ‘port
Linux stuff’, might be even harder in fact > :wink:

For those who don’t know, keep in mind that people responsible for original
design of filesystem, native networking, TCP/IP stack, Photon and
practically all drivers have left QSSL.

IMHO … that’s the best situation to open up the sources of QNX4 :slight_smile:
… of course, excluding the kernel.

There are very few real ‘last
mohicans’ left and bulk of Neutrino was designed by new generation of
developers. I suspect that at some point they had sort of internal ‘camps
conflict’ like Apple had once, which eventually resulted in exodus of most
senior developers of older generation. Nobody likes to be a dynosaur and
feel breath of young tigers on their neck …

The problem seems to be that this bunch of ‘multimedia tigers’
doesn’t have deeper and practical industrial experiences in the
design of operation systems.

However, the days of closed proprietary operating systems (base
technology) are over in an overlookable time frame (2-3 years IMHO).

It seems to me that all big players of the IT industry are teaming
up with the open source movement.

An interesting open source project driven by IBM is the Saw Mill
project.
http://i30www.ira.uka.de/main.html

“Saw Mill” is an interesting name and I wonder on what they are
sawing … :wink:

Armin

24

Gabriel Coindreau <gcoindreau@hotmail.com> wrote:


Sorry to break the bad news to you but the ‘original’
Andrew would be ‘aboyd’ (Andrew Boyd > :slight_smile:

I still remember the flamewars about Net drivers and
nameloc > :wink:

And the 3c509 card! :slight_smile:

-David

–
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com

25

Igor Kovalenko <kovalenko@home.com> wrote:

Part of problem with Neutrino is that pretty much all of ‘original’ guys who
wrote major parts of QNX4 are gone.

Some have, some haven’t. Dan & Gord are, of course, still around. The
senior architect for Neutrino goes back to at least early QNX4 days, and
probably QNX2 (though as a customer). Dan Hildebrandt was a senior
architect for both QNX4 & Neutrino, and we regret his passing away, but he
did influence the design of Neutrino. Of course, with the expansion of
the R&D team, there are also a lot of new bodies – but there are also
a lot of bodies in the team that worked with QNX4, even if they weren’t
involved in the design of QNX4.

-David

QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com

26

“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@home.com> wrote in message
news:99h2tf$3k$1@inn.qnx.com…

Heh, I still remember the joke (about pilot in hell) accompanied release
of
3c509 driver > :wink:

For the sake of the old days let me post the joke here from my archives:

–

Xref: quics quics.experts.net:2488
Newsgroups: quics.experts.net
Path: quics!aboyd
From: aboyd@qnx.com (Andrew Boyd)
Subject: 3Com509
Organization: QNX Software Systems
Message-ID: <DuE8DI.73@qnx.com>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:20:07 GMT

One day, a pilot dies [of extremely old age, naturally] and shows
up at the pearly gates of heaven. Unfortunately, St. Peter tells
him they’re having some paperwork problems, and could he hang out
in hell for six weeks?

The pilot, not entirely unaccustomed to dealing with paperwork
foulups in large regulatory organizations, agrees.

Down to hell he goes. The devil appears, and smugly asks the
pilot if he thinks it’s hot down there in hell. The pilot
replies, well, I used to fly commuters without air conditioning,
and it could get pretty hot up there in the cockpit, sometimes
hotter than this.

The devil, annoyed, cranks up the temperature, and asks the
pilot what he thinks of that. Well, says the pilot, I used to
fly ag sprayers in texas, and frankly, it got a heluva lot
warmer in that cockpit in summer than it is right now.

So, the devil cranks the temperature down. Way down. And
the devil asks the pilot if he thinks this is cold. And the
pilot replies, actually, I flew in minnesota for a couple of
winters, and the folks there wouldn’t even close the bathroom
window at this temperature.

The devil, pissed now, drops the temperature way, way down to
a few degrees above absolute zero. Pipes are bursting,
everything is frozen solid.

The pilot looks 'round in wonder, and says, “QNX has a driver
for the 3Com 509!”

see quics /usr/free/net/Net.ether509 and netinfo.

Following caveats apply:

  1. only lightly tested so far with 3Com509B-TPO … 10 mbit
    10baseT isa. I mean, really lightly tested. I just got
    it working today.

  2. doesn’t support 10base2 [coax] [yet]

  3. only supports one 509 card in a machine [so far]

  4. absolutely no free will was involved

–
aboyd@qnx.com

27

“David Gibbs” <dagibbs@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:99igsp$c3v$1@nntp.qnx.com…

Gabriel Coindreau <> gcoindreau@hotmail.com> > wrote:


Sorry to break the bad news to you but the ‘original’
Andrew would be ‘aboyd’ (Andrew Boyd > :slight_smile:

I still remember the flamewars about Net drivers and
nameloc > :wink:

And the 3c509 card! > :slight_smile:

And netmap, but I won the bet on that one :wink:

-David

–
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com

28

“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3ABCBD53.C6BFF83C@web_.de…

Part of problem with Neutrino is that pretty much all of ‘original’ guys
who
wrote major parts of QNX4 are gone.

Hmm … that explains why the design of the IPC of NTO is so weired.

You can scratch that theory. Dan Dodge is still responsible for the kernel,
and IPC is a basic kernel function, so the same guy responsible for QNX 1,2
and 4, is responsible for 6 as well. Oh, and it isn’t weird, it is simply
much better than the old IPC IMO.

So, when someone asks now ‘hey, why
don’t you just port you QNX4 stuff’ is it almost the same as to ask
‘port
Linux stuff’, might be even harder in fact > :wink:

For those who don’t know, keep in mind that people responsible for
original
design of filesystem, native networking, TCP/IP stack, Photon and
practically all drivers have left QSSL.

IMHO … that’s the best situation to open up the sources of QNX4 > :slight_smile:
… of course, excluding the kernel.

Well, the assertion (on which you are commenting) that the original
designers have all left is simply not true (not that opening the sources
would be the answer even if it was).

There are very few real ‘last
mohicans’ left and bulk of Neutrino was designed by new generation of
developers. I suspect that at some point they had sort of internal
‘camps
conflict’ like Apple had once, which eventually resulted in exodus of
most
senior developers of older generation. Nobody likes to be a dynosaur and
feel breath of young tigers on their neck …

The problem seems to be that this bunch of ‘multimedia tigers’
doesn’t have deeper and practical industrial experiences in the
design of operation systems.

This is nonsense.

However, the days of closed proprietary operating systems (base
technology) are over in an overlookable time frame (2-3 years IMHO).

Ahhh, yes, you are so right. QSSL has really missed the “new economy”
ticket (you know the ticket, the one with ridiculous market valuations based
on no discernable source of revenue - the one in which Red Hat is a blue
chip stock).

29

“Rennie Allen” <rennieallen@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:99lnq2$a74$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3ABCBD53.C6BFF83C@web_.de…
Part of problem with Neutrino is that pretty much all of ‘original’
guys
who
wrote major parts of QNX4 are gone.

Hmm … that explains why the design of the IPC of NTO is so weired.

You can scratch that theory. Dan Dodge is still responsible for the
kernel,
and IPC is a basic kernel function, so the same guy responsible for QNX
1,2
and 4, is responsible for 6 as well. Oh, and it isn’t weird, it is simply
much better than the old IPC IMO.

I don’t think Dan is the only one responsible for kernel. And if you count
procnto, most of its developers are new people. Which is not bad thing as
per say.

IMHO … that’s the best situation to open up the sources of QNX4 > :slight_smile:
… of course, excluding the kernel.

Well, the assertion (on which you are commenting) that the original
designers have all left is simply not true (not that opening the sources
would be the answer even if it was).

Not all, but most of them. I could list some names here but don’t want to…

There are very few real ‘last
mohicans’ left and bulk of Neutrino was designed by new generation of
developers. I suspect that at some point they had sort of internal
‘camps
conflict’ like Apple had once, which eventually resulted in exodus of
most
senior developers of older generation. Nobody likes to be a dynosaur
and
feel breath of young tigers on their neck …

The problem seems to be that this bunch of ‘multimedia tigers’
doesn’t have deeper and practical industrial experiences in the
design of operation systems.

This is nonsense.

I did not imply anything like that either. My idea was that we should not
imply that if something worked on QNX4 it should ‘just work on QNX6’ because
it’s ‘their technology’…

However, the days of closed proprietary operating systems (base
technology) are over in an overlookable time frame (2-3 years IMHO).

Ahhh, yes, you are so right. QSSL has really missed the “new economy”
ticket (you know the ticket, the one with ridiculous market valuations
based
on no discernable source of revenue - the one in which Red Hat is a blue
chip stock).

We had that ‘new economy’ in Russia few years ago. So called ‘pyramid’
schemes… Even government played that game and believe you or not whole
bunch of respectable western banks bought huge volumes of those ‘stocks’
(with guaranteed 100% annual rate) … until one morning (Aug 18, 1998)
everyone was told that they might use their ‘stock’ as toilet paper because
government defaulted… Next day local currency went from 1/6 USD to 1/30
USD. Now tell me about ‘economic crisis’ :wink:

Happy nightmares,

  • igor
30

Rennie Allen wrote:

“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3ABCBD53.C6BFF83C@web_.de…
Part of problem with Neutrino is that pretty much all of ‘original’
guys who wrote major parts of QNX4 are gone.

Hmm … that explains why the design of the IPC of NTO is so weired.

You can scratch that theory. Dan Dodge is still responsible for the kernel,
and IPC is a basic kernel function, so the same guy responsible for QNX 1,2
and 4, is responsible for 6 as well. Oh, and it isn’t weird, it is simply
much better than the old IPC IMO.

I’m talking about the design of the QNX6 IPC and not about
technological details.

The design of the QNX4 IPC is much better …
as you know:
‘the architecture makes the difference …’

[ clip … ]

However, the days of closed proprietary operating systems (base
technology) are over in an overlookable time frame (2-3 years IMHO).

Ahhh, yes, you are so right. QSSL has really missed the “new economy”
ticket (you know the ticket, the one with ridiculous market valuations based
on no discernable source of revenue - the one in which Red Hat is a blue
chip stock).

Oh … your reply has nothing to do with my complete statement,
because my statement has nothing to do with the ‘new economy’ hypes.

I wrote:
/ However, the days of closed proprietary operating systems (base
/ technology) are over in an overlookable time frame (2-3 years
/ IMHO). It seems to me that all big players of the IT industry
/ are teaming up with the open source movement.
/ An interesting open source project driven by IBM is the Saw Mill
/ project.
/ http://i30www.ira.uka.de/main.html
/ “Saw Mill” is an interesting name and I wonder on what they are
/ sawing … :wink:

Yes … you can clip it away, you can close your eyes … but the
development goes on as demonstrated by
http://www.mvista.com/products/realtime.html

Armin

31

Armin Steinhoff wrote:

Rennie Allen wrote:

You can scratch that theory. Dan Dodge is still responsible for the kernel,
and IPC is a basic kernel function, so the same guy responsible for QNX 1,2
and 4, is responsible for 6 as well. Oh, and it isn’t weird, it is simply
much better than the old IPC IMO.

I’m talking about the design of the QNX6 IPC and not about
technological details.

The design of the QNX4 IPC is much better …
as you know:
‘the architecture makes the difference …’

Using your own words, this is ‘blanket statement’ Armin.

/ project.
/ > http://i30www.ira.uka.de/main.html
/ “Saw Mill” is an interesting name and I wonder on what they are
/ sawing … > :wink:

Yes SawMill is intersting project. And it is not the only project based
on L4 u-kernel. There is half dozen of others and they are all
interesting but none of them yet reached the level of completeness and
stability to compete seriously.

Yes … you can clip it away, you can close your eyes … but the
development goes on as demonstrated by
http://www.mvista.com/products/realtime.html

That is pathetic. Penguins do not fly. They are fat and slow. The URL
you mention explains that too and then offers ‘realtime scheduler’ which
will make penguin move his wings faster but still will not let it fly.

I also think Rennie mentioned ‘new economy’ and RedHat because it is
closely related to ‘Linux syndrome’. Everything with word ‘Linux’ in it
was so hot that it immediately gave companies tickets into ‘new
economy’. Look at your Montavista example. A company which claims it has
years of experience with realtime & embedded systems decides to make
money by trying to hack Linux into something usable for realtime. They
should know that it would be much better to use a system designed for
realtime, but nevertheless they stick to the ‘Linux’ buzzword despite
all obvious design deficiences. Why not, it is hot and it is free, who
cares about ‘architecture makes the difference’…

Russians used to say ‘Even vinegar is sweet when it is free’ :wink:

  • igor
32

Previously, David Gibbs wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

Some have, some haven’t. Dan & Gord are, of course, still around…

Does anyone else sense something strange about where this
discussion is going. I too would be concerned if all of a
companies senior techies jumped ship, but what is being
discussed here is not even close to typical turn over in
this industry. Have we all forgotten when we were young
and spry, and would stay up all night writing software
because it was fun? When I first met Dan and Gordon we were
all in our twenties. Isn’t it possible that some of the new
recruits, fresh out of college, will write better software
than we ever dreamed of. They are future you know.


Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com

33

“Mitchell Schoenbrun” <maschoen@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.010326144428.31325B@schoenbrun.com…

Does anyone else sense something strange about where this
discussion is going. I too would be concerned if all of a
companies senior techies jumped ship, but what is being
discussed here is not even close to typical turn over in
this industry. Have we all forgotten when we were young
and spry, and would stay up all night writing software
because it was fun? When I first met Dan and Gordon we were
all in our twenties. Isn’t it possible that some of the new
recruits, fresh out of college, will write better software
than we ever dreamed of. They are future you know.

Shhh! Mitch don’t tell them that.

–
Bill Caroselli - Sattel Global Networks
1-818-709-6201 ext 122

34

Mitchell Schoenbrun wrote:

Previously, David Gibbs wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

Some have, some haven’t. Dan & Gord are, of course, still around…

Does anyone else sense something strange about where this
discussion is going. I too would be concerned if all of a
companies senior techies jumped ship, but what is being
discussed here is not even close to typical turn over in
this industry. Have we all forgotten when we were young
and spry, and would stay up all night writing software
because it was fun?

Hmm… it’s still fun for me … even when not doing at night :slight_smile:

When I first met Dan and Gordon we were
all in our twenties. Isn’t it possible that some of the new
recruits, fresh out of college, will write better software
than we ever dreamed of.

Well … at first let them use C++ for e.g. the Photon library
and you will see what better software they will produce :slight_smile:
From this point of view … QSSL looks like an old company!

However … thinking ‘open minded’ and being ‘creative’ is not
bound to the age. So I don’t believe that ‘being in the twenties’
is a prerequisite for better software …

Armin

35

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

Armin Steinhoff wrote:

Rennie Allen wrote:

[clip…]

Yes SawMill is intersting project. And it is not the only project based
on L4 u-kernel. There is half dozen of others and they are all
interesting but none of them yet reached the level of completeness and
stability to compete seriously.

Yes … it has not yet reached the level of completeness and
stability to compete seriously. It’s only a question of time …

Yes … you can clip it away, you can close your eyes … but the
development goes on as demonstrated by
http://www.mvista.com/products/realtime.html


That is pathetic. Penguins do not fly. They are fat and slow.

Yes they are today fat and slow :slight_smile: … but read the article down
to its end. A fat but preemptive Linux kernel has the potential to
become much faster.

BTW … how fat is actually the process manager together with the
kernel of QNX6? Would be interesting to see how deep that animal
‘procnto’ must fly …

The URL you mention explains that too and then offers ‘realtime scheduler’ which
will make penguin move his wings faster but still will not let it fly.

I also think Rennie mentioned ‘new economy’ and RedHat because it is
closely related to ‘Linux syndrome’. Everything with word ‘Linux’ in it
was so hot that it immediately gave companies tickets into ‘new
economy’. Look at your Montavista example. A company which claims it has
years of experience with realtime & embedded systems decides to make
money by trying to hack Linux into something usable for realtime. They
should know that it would be much better to use a system designed for
realtime, but nevertheless they stick to the ‘Linux’ buzzword despite
all obvious design deficiences. Why not, it is hot and it is free, who
cares about ‘architecture makes the difference’…

Well, it is free and you will get all information and the sources
of the OS … that means no one can stop you and screw you up by
‘information hiding’… and our day by day experience is that
companies hate more and more being dependent because of hided
information by OS vendor.

IMHO … this is the core of the ‘LINUX syndrom’ and not the ‘new
economy hypes’.

Russians used to say ‘Even vinegar is sweet when it is free’ > :wink:

Igor, free of charge is not very important for our customer base,
but free access for own developments and customising what ever is
needed w/o custom engineering and dependency from the OS vendor is
what “open” means today…

So most guys here don’t prefer vinegar, even when it’s free :wink:

Armin

36

Armin,
let me tell you a little about our own experience… I don’t know about the
MontaVista product, but this is about RT-Linux. Here at my department we do
real-time development for RT-Linux and QNX. I happy every day that I’m on
the QNX side.
This is not really all about speed or responsiveness of the operating
system. QNX just has a design that is so much better to use. For example,
you can use OS function calls only very limited in your RT Linux real-time
task. Debugging is limited. If the real-time task crashes the whole system
crashes. And what is most important: Whenever there is a new version of
Linux, a new version of Linux or RT-Linux, problems start… Our RT Linux
guy just had to reinstall an older version of Linux from scratch because the
versions of RT-Linux and Linux didn’t work together. Often, our software
needs to be adapted to new versions of RT-Linux. The is no real standard…
people can just change stuff in a new version and your software doesn’t work
anymore. Sure you can look into the sources… but you really wanna look
through thousands of lines of code to find your problem…?
Finally, we develop our RT software in C++… What do you think about Linux
header files defining global variables with the name “private” (or was it
something similar), so that compiling C++ doesn’t work?

Sure you are still able to develop solutions, I just wanted to point out the
disadvantages…
Markus


“Armin Steinhoff” <A-Steinhoff@web_.de> wrote in message
news:3AC06E8A.5F24AF0A@web_.de…

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

Armin Steinhoff wrote:

Rennie Allen wrote:

[clip…]
Yes SawMill is intersting project. And it is not the only project based
on L4 u-kernel. There is half dozen of others and they are all
interesting but none of them yet reached the level of completeness and
stability to compete seriously.

Yes … it has not yet reached the level of completeness and
stability to compete seriously. It’s only a question of time …

Yes … you can clip it away, you can close your eyes … but the
development goes on as demonstrated by
http://www.mvista.com/products/realtime.html


That is pathetic. Penguins do not fly. They are fat and slow.

Yes they are today fat and slow > :slight_smile: > … but read the article down
to its end. A fat but preemptive Linux kernel has the potential to
become much faster.

BTW … how fat is actually the process manager together with the
kernel of QNX6? Would be interesting to see how deep that animal
‘procnto’ must fly …

The URL you mention explains that too and then offers ‘realtime
scheduler’ which
will make penguin move his wings faster but still will not let it fly.

I also think Rennie mentioned ‘new economy’ and RedHat because it is
closely related to ‘Linux syndrome’. Everything with word ‘Linux’ in it
was so hot that it immediately gave companies tickets into ‘new
economy’. Look at your Montavista example. A company which claims it has
years of experience with realtime & embedded systems decides to make
money by trying to hack Linux into something usable for realtime. They
should know that it would be much better to use a system designed for
realtime, but nevertheless they stick to the ‘Linux’ buzzword despite
all obvious design deficiences. Why not, it is hot and it is free, who
cares about ‘architecture makes the difference’…

Well, it is free and you will get all information and the sources
of the OS … that means no one can stop you and screw you up by
‘information hiding’… and our day by day experience is that
companies hate more and more being dependent because of hided
information by OS vendor.

IMHO … this is the core of the ‘LINUX syndrom’ and not the ‘new
economy hypes’.

Russians used to say ‘Even vinegar is sweet when it is free’ > :wink:

Igor, free of charge is not very important for our customer base,
but free access for own developments and customising what ever is
needed w/o custom engineering and dependency from the OS vendor is
what “open” means today…

So most guys here don’t prefer vinegar, even when it’s free > :wink:

Armin

37

BTW … how fat is actually the process manager together with the
kernel of QNX6? Would be interesting to see how deep that animal
‘procnto’ must fly …

I looked at my /.boot file. It is about 550K.
Looking at /boot/build/qnxbasedma.build, you see it contains the kernel,
process manager, a couple of file systems, standard C library, some drivers,
as far as I understand.
Markus

38

Well, it is free and you will get all information and the sources
of the OS … that means no one can stop you and screw you up by
‘information hiding’… and our day by day experience is that

One of the bedrock principles of good software engineering, is
information hiding. You don’t get “screwed up” by information hiding,
you are freed to think at a different level of abstraction.

companies hate more and more being dependent because of hided
information by OS vendor.

Of course this has nothing to with the term “information hiding” as it
applies to software engineering.

Igor, free of charge is not very important for our customer base,
but free access for own developments and customising what ever is
needed w/o custom engineering and dependency from the OS vendor is
what “open” means today…

Well, we would qualify as one of your “customer base”, and we have
absolutely no problems whatsoever with having another reliable
organization maintaining the code on the other side of an abstract
interface which is highly modular, and in no way restricts us from doing
anything we would ever want to do. The cost to us for this maintenance
is many orders of magnitude less than it would be for us to do it
ourselves (and far less than it would cost another organization to do
with Linux since Linux isn’t designed from the ground up to do the job
at hand).

If QSSL has to go up against a company that is trying to shoe horn Linux
into an RT platform, QSSL will win, since their costs will be orders of
magnitude lower (due to the inherent design of the product, and it’s
suitability to the purpose). Initially, the low entry cost may lure
customers away, but the high maintenance costs, and product failures
will bring them back (and a large portion of their code will port very
easily on the return trip, due to the improved Linux compatibility).

39

Well … at first let them use C++ for e.g. the Photon library
and you will see what better software they will produce > :slight_smile:

Huh ? Since when did a language create better programmers ? Not even the
most ardent proponent of engineered languages (of which C++ is not a set
member) will claim that using a language (such as Eiffel or Ada) will
somehow create good programmers from bad. Languages like Ada will
completely frustrate bad programmers, perhaps causing them to choose a
different line of work (usually as C++ programmers, unfortunately).

Photon is written in ‘C’ in order to be as small, and efficient as
possible, so that it would be appropriate for deeply embedded systems.
I am currently writing a C++ library for Photon, and I can guarantee you
that small size and efficient execution are not in its set of positive
attributes (economy of syntax, maintainability, and consiseness are).

However … thinking ‘open minded’ and being ‘creative’ is not
bound to the age. So I don’t believe that ‘being in the twenties’
is a prerequisite for better software …

On this, we agree; but neither is “being in the twenties or teens”
exclusionary of “better software” either.

40

What he said!

I left my last job becuase they were moving all future development to Linux.
They have already spend 2-3 man years writing application code that is a
built in feature in QNX. Besides that, EVERYTHING that was writting had
kludges in it to get around OS bugs.

–
Bill Caroselli - Sattel Global Networks
1-818-709-6201 ext 122



“Markus Loffler” <loffler@ces.clemson.edu> wrote in message
news:99pp6e$6h6$1@inn.qnx.com…

Armin,
let me tell you a little about our own experience… I don’t know about
the
MontaVista product, but this is about RT-Linux. Here at my department we
do
real-time development for RT-Linux and QNX. I happy every day that I’m on
the QNX side.
This is not really all about speed or responsiveness of the operating
system. QNX just has a design that is so much better to use. For example,
you can use OS function calls only very limited in your RT Linux real-time
task. Debugging is limited. If the real-time task crashes the whole system
crashes. And what is most important: Whenever there is a new version of
Linux, a new version of Linux or RT-Linux, problems start… Our RT Linux
guy just had to reinstall an older version of Linux from scratch because
the
versions of RT-Linux and Linux didn’t work together. Often, our software
needs to be adapted to new versions of RT-Linux. The is no real
standard…
people can just change stuff in a new version and your software doesn’t
work
anymore. Sure you can look into the sources… but you really wanna look
through thousands of lines of code to find your problem…?
Finally, we develop our RT software in C++… What do you think about
Linux
header files defining global variables with the name “private” (or was it
something similar), so that compiling C++ doesn’t work?

Sure you are still able to develop solutions, I just wanted to point out
the
disadvantages…
Markus