More updates

I Hate Laptops. I didn’t hit Send yet but it just goes whenever it feels
likt it. Anyway, . . .

Hi QNX

I’m a long time user of QNX, going on 15 years. Way back then there were
much more frequent updates of product software. Now I understand that evey
time you fix one thing you run the risk of breaking something else, but . .
… I think that to most software developers who are working with a still
relitivly new software product we would rather have most fixes sooner rather
than later. If a fix breaks something else I can always decide to undo the
fix.

And of couse its understood that if its beta software we have no real right
to complain. Even more so if you call it alpha software. It just seems
like the path through QSSL’s QA is way too long. And even when it is
finally released there are still very often bugs that your QA folks never
thought of testing. You should allow some developers to be alpha testers so
that you can get more/better/more complete feedback on bug fixes sooner
rather than later. That way when it finally does get through QA is has been
much more thoroughly tested than your own QA folks can do.

After all. RTP is almost a year old and there have only been 2 updates to
it? OK. Let me see a show of hands. Who agrees with me.

\

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

I agree on that. I don’t understand that 3/4 years after RTP came out my
Phindows still hangs all the time… fs-cifs still does not work properly…
etc… Maybe I’m wrong, but those seems small things that can be fixed and
would have a good impact in making people happier…
Markus

“Bill Caroselli” <Bill@Sattel.com> wrote in message
news:9cums0$2k3$1@inn.qnx.com

I Hate Laptops. I didn’t hit Send yet but it just goes whenever it feels
likt it. Anyway, . . .

Hi QNX

I’m a long time user of QNX, going on 15 years. Way back then there were
much more frequent updates of product software. Now I understand that
evey
time you fix one thing you run the risk of breaking something else, but .

. I think that to most software developers who are working with a still
relitivly new software product we would rather have most fixes sooner
rather
than later. If a fix breaks something else I can always decide to undo
the
fix.

And of couse its understood that if its beta software we have no real
right
to complain. Even more so if you call it alpha software. It just seems
like the path through QSSL’s QA is way too long. And even when it is
finally released there are still very often bugs that your QA folks never
thought of testing. You should allow some developers to be alpha testers
so
that you can get more/better/more complete feedback on bug fixes sooner
rather than later. That way when it finally does get through QA is has
been
much more thoroughly tested than your own QA folks can do.

After all. RTP is almost a year old and there have only been 2 updates to
it? OK. Let me see a show of hands. Who agrees with me.

\

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

\

Things were rather different when RTP was still called ‘Augusta’. They
did updates monthly and I remember 7 or so updates before it became
‘RTP’ and went public.

I don’t know what happened then. AFAIK they are working on 6.1 release
so may be they don’t want another patch…

  • igor

Markus Loffler wrote:

I agree on that. I don’t understand that 3/4 years after RTP came out my
Phindows still hangs all the time… fs-cifs still does not work properly…
etc… Maybe I’m wrong, but those seems small things that can be fixed and
would have a good impact in making people happier…
Markus

“Bill Caroselli” <> Bill@Sattel.com> > wrote in message
news:9cums0$2k3$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I Hate Laptops. I didn’t hit Send yet but it just goes whenever it feels
likt it. Anyway, . . .

Hi QNX

I’m a long time user of QNX, going on 15 years. Way back then there were
much more frequent updates of product software. Now I understand that
evey
time you fix one thing you run the risk of breaking something else, but .
.
. I think that to most software developers who are working with a still
relitivly new software product we would rather have most fixes sooner
rather
than later. If a fix breaks something else I can always decide to undo
the
fix.

And of couse its understood that if its beta software we have no real
right
to complain. Even more so if you call it alpha software. It just seems
like the path through QSSL’s QA is way too long. And even when it is
finally released there are still very often bugs that your QA folks never
thought of testing. You should allow some developers to be alpha testers
so
that you can get more/better/more complete feedback on bug fixes sooner
rather than later. That way when it finally does get through QA is has
been
much more thoroughly tested than your own QA folks can do.

After all. RTP is almost a year old and there have only been 2 updates to
it? OK. Let me see a show of hands. Who agrees with me.

\

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

\

Yeah. And I’m still waiting for the audio DDK so I can finally get my
sound card working.

regards,
rick

Markus Loffler wrote:

I agree on that. I don’t understand that 3/4 years after RTP came out my
Phindows still hangs all the time… fs-cifs still does not work properly…
etc… Maybe I’m wrong, but those seems small things that can be fixed and
would have a good impact in making people happier…
Markus

“Bill Caroselli” <> Bill@Sattel.com> > wrote in message
news:9cums0$2k3$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I Hate Laptops. I didn’t hit Send yet but it just goes whenever it feels
likt it. Anyway, . . .

Hi QNX

I’m a long time user of QNX, going on 15 years. Way back then there were
much more frequent updates of product software. Now I understand that
evey
time you fix one thing you run the risk of breaking something else, but .
.
. I think that to most software developers who are working with a still
relitivly new software product we would rather have most fixes sooner
rather
than later. If a fix breaks something else I can always decide to undo
the
fix.

And of couse its understood that if its beta software we have no real
right
to complain. Even more so if you call it alpha software. It just seems
like the path through QSSL’s QA is way too long. And even when it is
finally released there are still very often bugs that your QA folks never
thought of testing. You should allow some developers to be alpha testers
so
that you can get more/better/more complete feedback on bug fixes sooner
rather than later. That way when it finally does get through QA is has
been
much more thoroughly tested than your own QA folks can do.

After all. RTP is almost a year old and there have only been 2 updates to
it? OK. Let me see a show of hands. Who agrees with me.

\

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

\

“Igor Kovalenko” <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote in message
news:3AF30156.CBF3E32E@motorola.com

I don’t know what happened then. AFAIK they are working on 6.1 release
so may be they don’t want another patch…

This actually would make sense. If you put in features, you’d need to apply
bug fixes to the old version and the new version, which is a big pain…
So hope you’re right Igor and we get some fresh 6.1. update with a lot of
bugs fixed soon.
Markus

Would someone at QSSL care to comment before everyone leaves for the
weekend?


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

Markus Loffler wrote:

“Igor Kovalenko” <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF30156.CBF3E32E@motorola.com> …
I don’t know what happened then. AFAIK they are working on 6.1 release
so may be they don’t want another patch…

This actually would make sense. If you put in features, you’d need to apply
bug fixes to the old version and the new version, which is a big pain…
So hope you’re right Igor and we get some fresh 6.1. update with a lot of
bugs fixed soon. ^^^^^^

At http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr09_01-multi.html
from April 9th, 2001 is written:
“Embedded developers can now target multiple processor families
with less effort and less recoding thanks to the expanded
processor support of the QNX RTOS v6. […] General
availability of the QNX RTOS v6 is scheduled for June 2001.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
The QNX RTOS is a core component of the QNX realtime
platform, a complete, SELF-HOSTED DEVELOPMENT environment
that is available free of charge for non-commercial use…”

Did I understand correct that the June 2001 version is a self hosted
version for all supported processors?


What about an other release at the SAME DAY:
http://www.qnx.com/news/tpnews/apr09_01-meta.html ??

How does the CROSS DEVELOPMENT of MetaWare fit to the announced
July 2001 QNX RTOS v.6 version?


Just YESTERDAY I got info from an US customer who has talked with
QSSL support. The Support told him that they will include another
compiler in their next release … and that the Next release of
QNX RTP (6.0.1) will incude the Dinkum C/C++ libriaries."
^^^^^^

Hmmm… at http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/sep12_00-Dnkw.html is written
on Sept.12th, 2000:
“The Dinkumware C and C++ libraries will be available in the
fourth quarter of this year as part of the QNX realtime platform.”


Is anyone from QSSL able or willing to inform the users a month
before June what will be the correct release name (QNX RTOS v6.x.x)
of the June 2001 version (whatever month it will be in Ottawa :wink:
and what will be removed or will be included ???

Sorry, I’m really a little bit confused.

Jutta

Jutta, you need to learn to take marketing announcements a bit less
literally :wink:
Here is summary of what my fellow gipsy told me about next release:

  • it will indeed be based on Dinkum libraries;
  • it will be self-hosted on x86, just as now;
  • other architectures will be supported by cross-development from x86
    version;
  • Metaware has little to do with next release;
  • it does not matter what they call it, 6.1 or 6.0.1. They’re probably not
    sure themselves;

Big difference is, you won’t have to buy QNX4-based SDK or
Metrowerks/Metaware to experiment with non-x86 systems, since 6.1 will have
its own cross-environment for them. However Metaware might be useful since
they (unlike Metrowerks) apparently have their own compiler and it might be
better than GCC for embedded systems.

I know they are working on many improvements and fixes as well, but don’t
want to second guess which ones will actually go into release. Things that
most certainly will be updated/fixed are QNET and NFS.

  • igor

“Jutta Steinhoff” <j-steinhoff@web.de> wrote in message
news:3AF41617.E18EAA0F@web.de

Markus Loffler wrote:

“Igor Kovalenko” <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF30156.CBF3E32E@motorola.com> …
I don’t know what happened then. AFAIK they are working on 6.1 release
so may be they don’t want another patch…

This actually would make sense. If you put in features, you’d need to
apply
bug fixes to the old version and the new version, which is a big pain…
So hope you’re right Igor and we get some fresh 6.1. update with a lot
of
bugs fixed soon. ^^^^^^


At > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr09_01-multi.html
from April 9th, 2001 is written:
“Embedded developers can now target multiple processor families
with less effort and less recoding thanks to the expanded
processor support of the QNX RTOS v6. […] General
availability of the QNX RTOS v6 is scheduled for June 2001.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
The QNX RTOS is a core component of the QNX realtime
platform, a complete, SELF-HOSTED DEVELOPMENT environment
that is available free of charge for non-commercial use…”

Did I understand correct that the June 2001 version is a self hosted
version for all supported processors?


What about an other release at the SAME DAY:
http://www.qnx.com/news/tpnews/apr09_01-meta.html > ??

How does the CROSS DEVELOPMENT of MetaWare fit to the announced
July 2001 QNX RTOS v.6 version?


Just YESTERDAY I got info from an US customer who has talked with
QSSL support. The Support told him that they will include another
compiler in their next release … and that the Next release of
QNX RTP (6.0.1) will incude the Dinkum C/C++ libriaries."
^^^^^^

Hmmm… at > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/sep12_00-Dnkw.html > is written
on Sept.12th, 2000:
“The Dinkumware C and C++ libraries will be available in the
fourth quarter of this year as part of the QNX realtime platform.”


Is anyone from QSSL able or willing to inform the users a month
before June what will be the correct release name (QNX RTOS v6.x.x)
of the June 2001 version (whatever month it will be in Ottawa > :wink:
and what will be removed or will be included ???

Sorry, I’m really a little bit confused.

Jutta

Igor, thanks for comments.
I’m used to QSSL marketing bubbles, but problem is, what to tell to
newbies when they look for orientation in that chaos when there are even
contrary announcements the same day… ?

Before deciding for a solution under a new OS or just starting with it
you will normally know what’s the future or what is to expect in a long
run with it…

Our customers dislike adventures or never boring dynamical OSes with
pre-programmed surprises… unfortunately they are looking for reliable
statements … :frowning:

Jutta


Igor Kovalenko wrote:

Jutta, you need to learn to take marketing announcements a bit less
literally > :wink:
Here is summary of what my fellow gipsy told me about next release:

  • it will indeed be based on Dinkum libraries;
  • it will be self-hosted on x86, just as now;
  • other architectures will be supported by cross-development from x86
    version;
  • Metaware has little to do with next release;
  • it does not matter what they call it, 6.1 or 6.0.1. They’re probably
    not sure themselves;

Big difference is, you won’t have to buy QNX4-based SDK or
Metrowerks/Metaware to experiment with non-x86 systems, since 6.1 will have
its own cross-environment for them. However Metaware might be useful since
they (unlike Metrowerks) apparently have their own compiler and it might be
better than GCC for embedded systems.

I know they are working on many improvements and fixes as well, but don’t
want to second guess which ones will actually go into release. Things that
most certainly will be updated/fixed are QNET and NFS.

  • igor

“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF41617.E18EAA0F@web.de> …

Markus Loffler wrote:

“Igor Kovalenko” <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF30156.CBF3E32E@motorola.com> …
I don’t know what happened then. AFAIK they are working on 6.1 release
so may be they don’t want another patch…

This actually would make sense. If you put in features, you’d need to
apply
bug fixes to the old version and the new version, which is a big pain…
So hope you’re right Igor and we get some fresh 6.1. update with a lot
of bugs fixed soon. ^^^^^^


At > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr09_01-multi.html
from April 9th, 2001 is written:
“Embedded developers can now target multiple processor families
with less effort and less recoding thanks to the expanded
processor support of the QNX RTOS v6. […] General
availability of the QNX RTOS v6 is scheduled for June 2001.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
The QNX RTOS is a core component of the QNX realtime
platform, a complete, SELF-HOSTED DEVELOPMENT environment
that is available free of charge for non-commercial use…”

Did I understand correct that the June 2001 version is a self hosted
version for all supported processors?


What about an other release at the SAME DAY:
http://www.qnx.com/news/tpnews/apr09_01-meta.html > ??

How does the CROSS DEVELOPMENT of MetaWare fit to the announced
July 2001 QNX RTOS v.6 version?


Just YESTERDAY I got info from an US customer who has talked with
QSSL support. The Support told him that they will include another
compiler in their next release … and that the Next release of
QNX RTP (6.0.1) will incude the Dinkum C/C++ libriaries."
^^^^^^

Hmmm… at > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/sep12_00-Dnkw.html > is written
on Sept.12th, 2000:
“The Dinkumware C and C++ libraries will be available in the
fourth quarter of this year as part of the QNX realtime platform.”


Is anyone from QSSL able or willing to inform the users a month
before June what will be the correct release name (QNX RTOS v6.x.x)
of the June 2001 version (whatever month it will be in Ottawa > :wink:
and what will be removed or will be included ???

Sorry, I’m really a little bit confused.

Jutta

Can anyone actually enlighten me about these Dinkum libraries? The libraries
RTP has included now seem to work just fine… What’s the reason for
switching? Are the Dinkum libraries included in the free package of RTP?
Thanks
Markus

“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@home.com> wrote in message
news:9d1qcv$sn3$1@inn.qnx.com

Jutta, you need to learn to take marketing announcements a bit less
literally > :wink:
Here is summary of what my fellow gipsy told me about next release:

  • it will indeed be based on Dinkum libraries;
  • it will be self-hosted on x86, just as now;
  • other architectures will be supported by cross-development from x86
    version;
  • Metaware has little to do with next release;
  • it does not matter what they call it, 6.1 or 6.0.1. They’re probably not
    sure themselves;

Big difference is, you won’t have to buy QNX4-based SDK or
Metrowerks/Metaware to experiment with non-x86 systems, since 6.1 will
have
its own cross-environment for them. However Metaware might be useful since
they (unlike Metrowerks) apparently have their own compiler and it might
be
better than GCC for embedded systems.

I know they are working on many improvements and fixes as well, but don’t
want to second guess which ones will actually go into release. Things that
most certainly will be updated/fixed are QNET and NFS.

  • igor

“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF41617.E18EAA0F@web.de> …

Markus Loffler wrote:

“Igor Kovalenko” <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF30156.CBF3E32E@motorola.com> …
I don’t know what happened then. AFAIK they are working on 6.1
release
so may be they don’t want another patch…

This actually would make sense. If you put in features, you’d need to
apply
bug fixes to the old version and the new version, which is a big
pain…
So hope you’re right Igor and we get some fresh 6.1. update with a lot
of
bugs fixed soon. ^^^^^^


At > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr09_01-multi.html
from April 9th, 2001 is written:
“Embedded developers can now target multiple processor families
with less effort and less recoding thanks to the expanded
processor support of the QNX RTOS v6. […] General
availability of the QNX RTOS v6 is scheduled for June 2001.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
The QNX RTOS is a core component of the QNX realtime
platform, a complete, SELF-HOSTED DEVELOPMENT environment
that is available free of charge for non-commercial use…”

Did I understand correct that the June 2001 version is a self hosted
version for all supported processors?


What about an other release at the SAME DAY:
http://www.qnx.com/news/tpnews/apr09_01-meta.html > ??

How does the CROSS DEVELOPMENT of MetaWare fit to the announced
July 2001 QNX RTOS v.6 version?


Just YESTERDAY I got info from an US customer who has talked with
QSSL support. The Support told him that they will include another
compiler in their next release … and that the Next release of
QNX RTP (6.0.1) will incude the Dinkum C/C++ libriaries."
^^^^^^

Hmmm… at > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/sep12_00-Dnkw.html > is written
on Sept.12th, 2000:
“The Dinkumware C and C++ libraries will be available in the
fourth quarter of this year as part of the QNX realtime platform.”


Is anyone from QSSL able or willing to inform the users a month
before June what will be the correct release name (QNX RTOS v6.x.x)
of the June 2001 version (whatever month it will be in Ottawa > :wink:
and what will be removed or will be included ???

Sorry, I’m really a little bit confused.

Jutta

No, they’re not really fine. Try doing TCL or Perl tests suite. And I
heard things get only worse with C++. Then there’s question of standards
compliance. It’s a lot of work to make libraries to comply with evolving
standards and I guess QNX wanted to get that monkey off their back.

By the way, POSIX standards will soon be superceeded by Single Unix
Specification and looking at draft it appears QNX has a lot of catch up
work to do…

  • igor

Markus Loffler wrote:

Can anyone actually enlighten me about these Dinkum libraries? The libraries
RTP has included now seem to work just fine… What’s the reason for
switching? Are the Dinkum libraries included in the free package of RTP?
Thanks
Markus

“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@home.com> > wrote in message
news:9d1qcv$sn3$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Jutta, you need to learn to take marketing announcements a bit less
literally > :wink:
Here is summary of what my fellow gipsy told me about next release:

  • it will indeed be based on Dinkum libraries;
  • it will be self-hosted on x86, just as now;
  • other architectures will be supported by cross-development from x86
    version;
  • Metaware has little to do with next release;
  • it does not matter what they call it, 6.1 or 6.0.1. They’re probably not
    sure themselves;

Big difference is, you won’t have to buy QNX4-based SDK or
Metrowerks/Metaware to experiment with non-x86 systems, since 6.1 will
have
its own cross-environment for them. However Metaware might be useful since
they (unlike Metrowerks) apparently have their own compiler and it might
be
better than GCC for embedded systems.

I know they are working on many improvements and fixes as well, but don’t
want to second guess which ones will actually go into release. Things that
most certainly will be updated/fixed are QNET and NFS.

  • igor

“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF41617.E18EAA0F@web.de> …

Markus Loffler wrote:

“Igor Kovalenko” <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF30156.CBF3E32E@motorola.com> …
I don’t know what happened then. AFAIK they are working on 6.1
release
so may be they don’t want another patch…

This actually would make sense. If you put in features, you’d need to
apply
bug fixes to the old version and the new version, which is a big
pain…
So hope you’re right Igor and we get some fresh 6.1. update with a lot
of
bugs fixed soon. ^^^^^^


At > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr09_01-multi.html
from April 9th, 2001 is written:
“Embedded developers can now target multiple processor families
with less effort and less recoding thanks to the expanded
processor support of the QNX RTOS v6. […] General
availability of the QNX RTOS v6 is scheduled for June 2001.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
The QNX RTOS is a core component of the QNX realtime
platform, a complete, SELF-HOSTED DEVELOPMENT environment
that is available free of charge for non-commercial use…”

Did I understand correct that the June 2001 version is a self hosted
version for all supported processors?


What about an other release at the SAME DAY:
http://www.qnx.com/news/tpnews/apr09_01-meta.html > ??

How does the CROSS DEVELOPMENT of MetaWare fit to the announced
July 2001 QNX RTOS v.6 version?


Just YESTERDAY I got info from an US customer who has talked with
QSSL support. The Support told him that they will include another
compiler in their next release … and that the Next release of
QNX RTP (6.0.1) will incude the Dinkum C/C++ libriaries."
^^^^^^

Hmmm… at > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/sep12_00-Dnkw.html > is written
on Sept.12th, 2000:
“The Dinkumware C and C++ libraries will be available in the
fourth quarter of this year as part of the QNX realtime platform.”


Is anyone from QSSL able or willing to inform the users a month
before June what will be the correct release name (QNX RTOS v6.x.x)
of the June 2001 version (whatever month it will be in Ottawa > :wink:
and what will be removed or will be included ???

Sorry, I’m really a little bit confused.

Jutta

“Igor Kovalenko” <Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> wrote in message
news:3AF6F789.A1EE1F53@motorola.com

No, they’re not really fine. Try doing TCL or Perl tests suite. And I
heard things get only worse with C++. Then there’s question of standards
compliance. It’s a lot of work to make libraries to comply with evolving
standards and I guess QNX wanted to get that monkey off their back.

By the way, POSIX standards will soon be superceeded by Single Unix
Specification and looking at draft it appears QNX has a lot of catch up
work to do…

Standard are rarely standard, they are moving targets ;-(
I think it’s time to create a standard that defines what a standard
outta be.

  • igor

Markus Loffler wrote:

Can anyone actually enlighten me about these Dinkum libraries? The
libraries
RTP has included now seem to work just fine… What’s the reason for
switching? Are the Dinkum libraries included in the free package of RTP?
Thanks
Markus

“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@home.com> > wrote in message
news:9d1qcv$sn3$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Jutta, you need to learn to take marketing announcements a bit less
literally > :wink:
Here is summary of what my fellow gipsy told me about next release:

  • it will indeed be based on Dinkum libraries;
  • it will be self-hosted on x86, just as now;
  • other architectures will be supported by cross-development from x86
    version;
  • Metaware has little to do with next release;
  • it does not matter what they call it, 6.1 or 6.0.1. They’re probably
    not
    sure themselves;

Big difference is, you won’t have to buy QNX4-based SDK or
Metrowerks/Metaware to experiment with non-x86 systems, since 6.1 will
have
its own cross-environment for them. However Metaware might be useful
since
they (unlike Metrowerks) apparently have their own compiler and it
might
be
better than GCC for embedded systems.

I know they are working on many improvements and fixes as well, but
don’t
want to second guess which ones will actually go into release. Things
that
most certainly will be updated/fixed are QNET and NFS.

  • igor

“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF41617.E18EAA0F@web.de> …

Markus Loffler wrote:

“Igor Kovalenko” <> Igor.Kovalenko@motorola.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3AF30156.CBF3E32E@motorola.com> …
I don’t know what happened then. AFAIK they are working on 6.1
release
so may be they don’t want another patch…

This actually would make sense. If you put in features, you’d need
to
apply
bug fixes to the old version and the new version, which is a big
pain…
So hope you’re right Igor and we get some fresh 6.1. update with a
lot
of
bugs fixed soon. ^^^^^^


At > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr09_01-multi.html
from April 9th, 2001 is written:
“Embedded developers can now target multiple processor families
with less effort and less recoding thanks to the expanded
processor support of the QNX RTOS v6. […] General
availability of the QNX RTOS v6 is scheduled for June 2001.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
The QNX RTOS is a core component of the QNX realtime
platform, a complete, SELF-HOSTED DEVELOPMENT environment
that is available free of charge for non-commercial use…”

Did I understand correct that the June 2001 version is a self hosted
version for all supported processors?


What about an other release at the SAME DAY:
http://www.qnx.com/news/tpnews/apr09_01-meta.html > ??

How does the CROSS DEVELOPMENT of MetaWare fit to the announced
July 2001 QNX RTOS v.6 version?


Just YESTERDAY I got info from an US customer who has talked with
QSSL support. The Support told him that they will include another
compiler in their next release … and that the Next release of
QNX RTP (6.0.1) will incude the Dinkum C/C++ libriaries."
^^^^^^

Hmmm… at > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/sep12_00-Dnkw.html > is written
on Sept.12th, 2000:
“The Dinkumware C and C++ libraries will be available in the
fourth quarter of this year as part of the QNX realtime platform.”


Is anyone from QSSL able or willing to inform the users a month
before June what will be the correct release name (QNX RTOS v6.x.x)
of the June 2001 version (whatever month it will be in Ottawa > :wink:
and what will be removed or will be included ???

Sorry, I’m really a little bit confused.

Jutta

Would someone from QSSL care to comment about their philosophy on updates?

“Bill Caroselli” <Bill@Sattel.com> wrote in message
news:9cv48g$avu$1@inn.qnx.com

Would someone at QSSL care to comment before everyone leaves for the
weekend?


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

Hi…

Jutta Steinhoff wrote:

^^^^^^

At > http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr09_01-multi.html
from April 9th, 2001 is written:
“Embedded developers can now target multiple processor families
with less effort and less recoding thanks to the expanded
processor support of the QNX RTOS v6. […] General
availability of the QNX RTOS v6 is scheduled for June 2001.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
The QNX RTOS is a core component of the QNX realtime
platform, a complete, SELF-HOSTED DEVELOPMENT environment
that is available free of charge for non-commercial use…”

Did I understand correct that the June 2001 version is a self hosted
version for all supported processors?

With hope, you will be right. That would make QNX6 the ‘de facto’ system
for embedded development. However, it may very well be that whey they
meant was that code developed under QNX6 will indeed run under any of
the other targets when compiled with the appropriate libraries. Now
about these libraries, will they be available for free?? With hope,
yes, but rather unlikely?. :slight_smile:

M.


Miguel Simon
Research Engineer
School of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering
University of Oklahoma
http://www.amerobotics.ou.edu/

The best things about standards are that there are so many different ones to
choose from.


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



“Mario Charest” <mcharest@deletezinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9d7frp$b6f$1@inn.qnx.com

Standard are rarely standard, they are moving targets ;-(
I think it’s time to create a standard that defines what a standard
outta be.

Well the SUS (Single Unix Spec) is intended to supercede POSIX, X/Open and
SVID. It looks like most vendors are actively supporting the idea and
working on both the standard and implementation. One will have much less
excuses for not implementing it when that is done…

Of course there’s still all the multimedia stuff which is not covered there.
But there are several projects underway and eventually something will
materialize.

  • igor

“Bill Caroselli” <Bill@Sattel.com> wrote in message
news:9dv69t$40s$1@inn.qnx.com

The best things about standards are that there are so many different ones
to
choose from.


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



“Mario Charest” <> mcharest@deletezinformatic.com> > wrote in message
news:9d7frp$b6f$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Standard are rarely standard, they are moving targets ;-(
I think it’s time to create a standard that defines what a standard
outta be.

Igor Kovalenko <kovalenko@home.com> wrote:
: Well the SUS (Single Unix Spec) is intended to supercede POSIX, X/Open and
: SVID. It looks like most vendors are actively supporting the idea and
: working on both the standard and implementation. One will have much less
: excuses for not implementing it when that is done…

: Of course there’s still all the multimedia stuff which is not covered there.
: But there are several projects underway and eventually something will
: materialize.

Curious, any URL to those “projects” ?

Perhaps I should have included a smilie ;~{


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


“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@home.com> wrote in message
news:9dvt41$go3$1@inn.qnx.com

Well the SUS (Single Unix Spec) is intended to supercede POSIX, X/Open and
SVID. It looks like most vendors are actively supporting the idea and
working on both the standard and implementation. One will have much less
excuses for not implementing it when that is done…



“Bill Caroselli” <> Bill@Sattel.com> > wrote in message
news:9dv69t$40s$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
The best things about standards are that there are so many different
ones to choose from.

Alain Magloire wrote:

Igor Kovalenko <> kovalenko@home.com> > wrote:
: Well the SUS (Single Unix Spec) is intended to supercede POSIX, X/Open and
: SVID. It looks like most vendors are actively supporting the idea and
: working on both the standard and implementation. One will have much less
: excuses for not implementing it when that is done…

: Of course there’s still all the multimedia stuff which is not covered there.
: But there are several projects underway and eventually something will
: materialize.

Curious, any URL to those “projects” ?

On video side the new DRI, Xvideo and Xrender extension solve many of X
limitations (3D, accelerated video, anti-aliasing, translucent image
compositions, etc). When they are finished they probably will find their
way into standards. (note also, Xinerama allows X to do those cool
Photon tricks with windows spanning/dragging over multiply screens, but
nobody seems particularly interested in it :wink:

On audio side, ALSA is approaching 1.0 (Suse hired 2 main developers
full time to finalize it and merge into Linux kernel). It is also
getting better on OSS compatibility so it will probably become de-facto
standard someday. Then there is OpenAL pushed by Creative and LOKI which
takes care about 3D sound and other exotic stuff.

There’s also something called Linux Input Project which supposedly will
clean up current mess with input support on Linux. That is just Linux of
course but other Unixes are less relevant in this area anyway.

I’m sure you’ll find URLs :slight_smile:

  • Igor