The Consultant point of View

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
41

Robert Krten wrote:


Speaking strictly from a capitalistic point of view, you guys go ahead
and spread yourselves out. I’ll take the QNX work. I have no interest
in working on OSs other than QNX – they just suck too badly. I will,
however, diversify my QNX product offerings to create revenue streams so
that when the work is slow, the other streams keep coming in.

I’m with you Rob (although I’m not doing the consulting thing). I have
enough of a challenge keeping on top of QNX6 and C++, and spreading out
to other O/S’s (or languages) just impedes my progress on these two.

There is an interesting dichotomy here however, being that I am focused
on an O/S that rocks, and a language that sucks. Fortunately, although
C++ sucks, it doesn’t suck as bad (relative to other languages) as other
O/S’s do relative to QNX :wink:

42

Hi…

Robert Krten wrote:
<…>

Speaking strictly from a capitalistic point of view, you guys go ahead
and spread yourselves out. I’ll take the QNX work. I have no interest
in working on OSs other than QNX – they just suck too badly. I will,
however, diversify my QNX product offerings to create revenue streams so
that when the work is slow, the other streams keep coming in.

I am with you, and I agree as well. However, some would say that they
can not afford being unemployed! :slight_smile: A difference is however, that
knowing QNX and say, Linux, then you can back your technical advice with
actual experience (-this may be handy when you face a review meting with
government and otherwise ‘experts’ trying to shoot you down-). Who could
argue against that, when you know first had how much Linux sucks? As a
matter of fact, before I dealt with Linux, I always said that Linux
sucked, now that I can program drivers in L., now I know that L. is
actually worst than what I had though before… It is exceedingly
difficult to beat QNX’s hard real-time feature while being able to
develop drivers in user space at the same time. If tech. managers would
know what this means, I doubt that any one would actually advocate L.

Thanks for your two cents, however! :slight_smile:

Regards…

Miguel.

P.S. for RK: you should know that every one that gets a hold of your Nto
book (humm…, or is it mine now -since I paid for it? :slight_smile: goes ahead and
buys one. (what about a chapter on QNX’s handling of the PCI bus on the
next version? :slight_smile:

There’s some advice in there somewhere > :slight_smile: > (And these comments aren’t
directed at anyone in particular, just thought I’d interject at this
point with my $0.02 and this was a convenient thread to hijack).

Cheers,
-RK

Robert Krten, PARSE Software Devices +1 613 599 8316.
Realtime Systems Architecture, Books, Video-based and Instructor-led
Training and Consulting at > www.parse.com> .
Email my initials at parse dot com.

–

my opinions are mine, only mine, solely mine, and they are not related
in any possible way to the institution(s) in which I study and work.

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

43

Miguel Simon <simon@ou.edu> wrote:

Hi…

Robert Krten wrote:
…

Speaking strictly from a capitalistic point of view, you guys go ahead
and spread yourselves out. I’ll take the QNX work. I have no interest
in working on OSs other than QNX – they just suck too badly. I will,
however, diversify my QNX product offerings to create revenue streams so
that when the work is slow, the other streams keep coming in.

I am with you, and I agree as well. However, some would say that they
can not afford being unemployed! > :slight_smile: > A difference is however, that

Neither can I, which is why I’m encouraging them to diversify themselves
out of the QNX market :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

knowing QNX and say, Linux, then you can back your technical advice with
actual experience (-this may be handy when you face a review meting with
government and otherwise ‘experts’ trying to shoot you down-). Who could
argue against that, when you know first had how much Linux sucks? As a
matter of fact, before I dealt with Linux, I always said that Linux
sucked, now that I can program drivers in L., now I know that L. is
actually worst than what I had though before… It is exceedingly
difficult to beat QNX’s hard real-time feature while being able to
develop drivers in user space at the same time. If tech. managers would
know what this means, I doubt that any one would actually advocate L.

Yup; agree 100% – also, knowing other architectures is an advantage.
There are things that “the young 'uns” can learn from OS’s like VAX/VMS :slight_smile: even
though I wouldn’t use VAX/VMS for anything. VAX/VMS batch queues
come to mind as a “useful thing to know about”.

Thanks for your two cents, however! > :slight_smile:

Regards…

Miguel.

P.S. for RK: you should know that every one that gets a hold of your Nto
book (humm…, or is it mine now -since I paid for it? > :slight_smile: > goes ahead and
buys one. (what about a chapter on QNX’s handling of the PCI bus on the
next version? > :slight_smile:

Excellent! :slight_smile:

The next version is already out – it was printed a few months ago, so I’ve
still got lots in stock… I’ll keep it in mind for the next version, however.
Thanks!

-RK

There’s some advice in there somewhere > :slight_smile: > (And these comments aren’t
directed at anyone in particular, just thought I’d interject at this
point with my $0.02 and this was a convenient thread to hijack).

Cheers,
-RK

Robert Krten, PARSE Software Devices +1 613 599 8316.
Realtime Systems Architecture, Books, Video-based and Instructor-led
Training and Consulting at > www.parse.com> .
Email my initials at parse dot com.

–

my opinions are mine, only mine, solely mine, and they are not related
in any possible way to the institution(s) in which I study and work.

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

–
Robert Krten, PARSE Software Devices +1 613 599 8316.
Realtime Systems Architecture, Books, Video-based and Instructor-led
Training and Consulting at www.parse.com.
Email my initials at parse dot com.

44

Agreed, kind of. I worked for a company that decided to switch to Linux.
They spent a year trying to write routines to try to make it real time. I
tried to expain what a mistake it was to switch away from QNX. (That’s why
I’m not there anymore.) To the best of my knowledge, they are still
fighting those battles two years after the project began.

I guess I would consider working with a more mature UNIX. I also have
worked with larger IBM system long before QNX. At times you have to follow
the money. But to be practicle, I’m not worth the kind of money I’m asking
for with any other operating system.

–
Bill Caroselli – 1(626) 824-7983
Q-TPS Consulting
QTPS@EarthLink.net


“Robert Krten” <nospam91@parse.com> wrote in message
news:a3a1m4$1d8$1@inn.qnx.com…

Miguel Simon <> simon@ou.edu> > wrote:
Hi…

Igor Kovalenko wrote:


…
Now I’ll give a free advice for desert. If you want to survive do not
lock yourself in ‘QNX-only’ business. Become an expert in few other
systems and offer choice. Wider audience = more customers, plain and
simple.

Agreed. This is a good advice that works even if you are employed and on
a payroll. About 10 months ago, our QNX RTP based GUI solution flopped
because -mostly- inept developers. Those inept developers claimed
‘expert’ status with Linux, and I lost my battle -and part of the
contract- because I did not know about Linux: could not retaliate. Now
I am one of the ‘experts’ in Linux as well, and some of the previous
‘experts’ can only claim ‘knowledge’ status. If a customer does not
want to follow the solid advice to go with QNX vs. other OS, no problem,
I’ll develop with their OS of choice! Just as Igor says: “Wider
audience = more customers”.

Speaking strictly from a capitalistic point of view, you guys go ahead
and spread yourselves out. I’ll take the QNX work. I have no interest
in working on OSs other than QNX – they just suck too badly. I will,
however, diversify my QNX product offerings to create revenue streams so
that when the work is slow, the other streams keep coming in.

There’s some advice in there somewhere > :slight_smile: > (And these comments aren’t
directed at anyone in particular, just thought I’d interject at this
point with my $0.02 and this was a convenient thread to hijack).

Cheers,
-RK

Robert Krten, PARSE Software Devices +1 613 599 8316.
Realtime Systems Architecture, Books, Video-based and Instructor-led
Training and Consulting at > www.parse.com> .
Email my initials at parse dot com.

45

Wait a minute Rennie!

C++ is the best language there is for programming (Holy crap is that going
to start a war!), with the sole exception of the need to write an
ultra-efficient processor bound routine. Admittedly, C++ requires a lot
more planning before you actually start coding. BUT, I think and new
project of any substancial size really requires planning before you start
cutting code.

Granted, I can probibly write a few hundred lines faster in C than C++. But
give me a minnion line project and I’ll write it in less than half the time
with C++ than with C. The trick is that you want to wrote code that
“almost” writes itself.

–
Bill Caroselli – 1(626) 824-7983
Q-TPS Consulting
QTPS@EarthLink.net


“Rennie Allen” <rallen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:3C589332.80108@csical.com…

Robert Krten wrote:

There is an interesting dichotomy here however, being that I am focused
on an O/S that rocks, and a language that sucks. Fortunately, although
C++ sucks, it doesn’t suck as bad (relative to other languages) as other
O/S’s do relative to QNX > :wink:

46

“Miguel Simon” <simon@ou.edu> wrote in message
news:3C58C559.64A8C707@ou.edu…

. . . . If tech. managers would
know what this means, I doubt that any one would actually advocate L.

AMEN! This is why QSSL NEEDS to stay in the mainstream press.

47

“Bill Caroselli” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a3c5oq$jga$1@inn.qnx.com…

Agreed, kind of. I worked for a company that decided to switch to Linux.
They spent a year trying to write routines to try to make it real time. I
tried to expain what a mistake it was to switch away from QNX. (That’s
why
I’m not there anymore.) To the best of my knowledge, they are still
fighting those battles two years after the project began.

That’s one side of the coin, there are probably other battles they
don’t have to fight by switching to Linux.

I guess I would consider working with a more mature UNIX. I also have
worked with larger IBM system long before QNX. At times you have to
follow
the money. But to be practicle, I’m not worth the kind of money I’m
asking
for with any other operating system.

–
Bill Caroselli – 1(626) 824-7983
Q-TPS Consulting
QTPS@EarthLink.net


“Robert Krten” <> nospam91@parse.com> > wrote in message
news:a3a1m4$1d8$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Miguel Simon <> simon@ou.edu> > wrote:
Hi…

Igor Kovalenko wrote:


…
Now I’ll give a free advice for desert. If you want to survive do not
lock yourself in ‘QNX-only’ business. Become an expert in few other
systems and offer choice. Wider audience = more customers, plain and
simple.

Agreed. This is a good advice that works even if you are employed and
on
a payroll. About 10 months ago, our QNX RTP based GUI solution flopped
because -mostly- inept developers. Those inept developers claimed
‘expert’ status with Linux, and I lost my battle -and part of the
contract- because I did not know about Linux: could not retaliate.
Now
I am one of the ‘experts’ in Linux as well, and some of the previous
‘experts’ can only claim ‘knowledge’ status. If a customer does not
want to follow the solid advice to go with QNX vs. other OS, no
problem,
I’ll develop with their OS of choice! Just as Igor says: “Wider
audience = more customers”.

Speaking strictly from a capitalistic point of view, you guys go ahead
and spread yourselves out. I’ll take the QNX work. I have no
interest
in working on OSs other than QNX – they just suck too badly. I will,
however, diversify my QNX product offerings to create revenue streams so
that when the work is slow, the other streams keep coming in.

There’s some advice in there somewhere > :slight_smile: > (And these comments aren’t
directed at anyone in particular, just thought I’d interject at this
point with my $0.02 and this was a convenient thread to hijack).

Cheers,
-RK

Robert Krten, PARSE Software Devices +1 613 599 8316.
Realtime Systems Architecture, Books, Video-based and Instructor-led
Training and Consulting at > www.parse.com> .
Email my initials at parse dot com.

48

Bill Caroselli wrote:

Wait a minute Rennie!

C++ is the best language there is for programming (Holy crap is that going
to start a war!),

Really ? Have you ever used Ada 95 ? People complain that Ada is a
large complex language (and it is) but C++ is every bit as large and
complex, and nowhere near as coherent (admittedly with much discipline
one can maintain coherency in C++, but manual discipline takes a lot
more time than automated discipline, and that negatively impacts
productivity).

49

“Rennie Allen” <rallen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:3C59ADA2.50708@csical.com…

Bill Caroselli wrote:

Wait a minute Rennie!

C++ is the best language there is for programming (Holy crap is that
going
to start a war!),


Really ? Have you ever used Ada 95 ? People complain that Ada is a
large complex language (and it is) but C++ is every bit as large and
complex, and nowhere near as coherent (admittedly with much discipline
one can maintain coherency in C++, but manual discipline takes a lot
more time than automated discipline, and that negatively impacts
productivity).

I have to chime in with Rennie. I have used C++ and Ada for large projects
and Ada was by far the better choice. I really wish it would gain more
acceptance in the US and with colleges. Its also really well suited to an
embedded environment, I heard there was maybe going to be a version
available for RTP sometime.

Jerry

50

In article <a3c65v$jr9$1@inn.qnx.com>, Bill Caroselli wrote:

Wait a minute Rennie!

C++ is the best language there is for programming (Holy crap is that going
to start a war!),

Darn straight it’s a war !
Microsoft Visual Basic is still the king.
The KING I tell ya…

( hoping folks still have a sense of humor as he crawls toward
his home-made plywood bomb shelter with paper mache flowers )

–
Cowboy

Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?

51

I know I’ve seen this discussion here before. Almost like Brigadoon.
Let me at least push the arguments off in the right direction.
THE RIGHT TOOL FOR THE RIGHT JOB. Now you have something to
hang your preferences on.

BTW, the best programming language (that I know of) when you
need some speed, but mostly compact code is Forth. Of course
I would rather sit in a five hour lecture by Bill Gates titled
“Why my products are the best” than program in Forth.





Previously, Bill Caroselli wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

Wait a minute Rennie!

C++ is the best language there is for programming (Holy crap is that going
to start a war!), with the sole exception of the need to write an
ultra-efficient processor bound routine. Admittedly, C++ requires a lot
more planning before you actually start coding. BUT, I think and new
project of any substancial size really requires planning before you start
cutting code.

Granted, I can probibly write a few hundred lines faster in C than C++. But
give me a minnion line project and I’ll write it in less than half the time
with C++ than with C. The trick is that you want to wrote code that
“almost” writes itself.

–
Bill Caroselli – 1(626) 824-7983
Q-TPS Consulting
QTPS@EarthLink.net


“Rennie Allen” <> rallen@csical.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3C589332.80108@csical.com> …
Robert Krten wrote:

There is an interesting dichotomy here however, being that I am focused
on an O/S that rocks, and a language that sucks. Fortunately, although
C++ sucks, it doesn’t suck as bad (relative to other languages) as other
O/S’s do relative to QNX > :wink:

\

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

52

Really ? Have you ever used Ada 95 ? People complain that Ada is a
large complex language (and it is) but C++ is every bit as large and
complex, and nowhere near as coherent (admittedly with much discipline
one can maintain coherency in C++, but manual discipline takes a lot
more time than automated discipline, and that negatively impacts
productivity).

I have to chime in with Rennie. I have used C++ and Ada for large projects
and Ada was by far the better choice. I really wish it would gain more
acceptance in the US and with colleges. Its also really well suited to an
embedded environment, I heard there was maybe going to be a version
available for RTP sometime.

I while ago I decided to look at Ada and was impressed by it.
I investigated porting the GNU Ada compiler to RTP but it’s
written in Ada :wink: It needs to be cross compiled, which kind
of turn me off.

Jerry
\

53

Hi…

Alain Bonnefoy wrote:

…

There is another problem about the fact that QNX doesn’t communicate about their
product.
When we choosed QRTP, we had to justify our choice against our hierarchy, and
today, even though our product is not finished, they are not confident and waits
for the result. If our product is not good enough, our choice will be involved.
I’m sure we will have the same difficulties with our customers. No doubt that
they will ask us why QRTP, and no doubt that we will have some doubt about its
reliability.

Agree. Next week I have to go before yet another review meeting to
defend and justify my choice of QNX. I believe that people get afraid of
what they do not know, and since few people have ever heard of QNX…
Goes to say that QNX is not out there as much. Nonetheless, I have seen
QNX adds in Embedded Magazine and other places, but it may be too
little.

Regards…

Miguel.

If we have choosen WinCE, I’m sure that nobody would asked any question!

Alain.

54

Hi…

Alec Saunders wrote:

…

Yes, QNX is not a name-brand. However, in awareness surveys amongst embedded
operating systems developers (our key audience), we rank 5th in awareness
globally, and in North America, and 3rd in awareness in Europe. We’d like
that awareness to be higher amongst developers, and also amongst business
decision makers in the organizations where they work. It’s my team’s job to

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is a key issue, Alec. In our research projects, PIs do not want to
fail since that would be utterly disastrous. So they overrule technical
arguments for -most falsely so- ‘fail-free and proven’ arguments, and
QNX goes out the door. No arguing when this is the case, or else you
have to do what Bill C. said he did: leave the environment. Is ironic,
isn’t it? Overrule using QNX for Linux based system based-on/because-of
‘fail-free and proven’ type arguments! :slight_smile: What can you do? Makes me
laugh every time!

Regards…

Miguel.


make that happen.

–
Alec Saunders (> alecs@qnx.com> )
VP Marketing, QNX Software Systems Limited

–

my opinions are mine, only mine, solely mine, and they are not related
in any possible way to the institution(s) in which I study and work.

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

55

“Miguel Simon” <simon@ou.edu> wrote in message
news:3C5B8A24.913A58DD@ou.edu…

This is a key issue, Alec. In our research projects, PIs do not want to
fail since that would be utterly disastrous. So they overrule technical
arguments for -most falsely so- ‘fail-free and proven’ arguments, and
QNX goes out the door. No arguing when this is the case, or else you
have to do what Bill C. said he did: leave the environment. Is ironic,
isn’t it? Overrule using QNX for Linux based system based-on/because-of
‘fail-free and proven’ type arguments! > :slight_smile: > What can you do? Makes me
laugh every time!

No doubt, QNX visibility is low compared to Linux. I don’t know that we can
ever generate more noise than the Linux juggernaut, but we can certainly
work to make certain that amongst the decisionmakers, the information
necessary to decide FOR QNX is available. For instance, Dedicated Systems
has recently published two highly complimentary reviews of QNX – one on the
OS itself, and one comparing it to Windows CE. Dedicated Systems normally
charges readers for these reports, but we paid them a substantial flat fee
to make them available to anyone.

We’re also working to make sure that we have visibility with key technical
and business publications. We recently hired a new public relations agency,
Schwartz Communications, to help with this, and we’ve quintupled the dollars
assigned to public relations. Schwartz is also the company that brought Red
Hat to prominence as the perceived lead company of the Linux movement.

And, of course, there are the advertising and other outreach efforts I
mentioned in an earlier message. All in all, I think we’re going in the
right direction, but the results of these efforts will take time to be seen.

–
Alec Saunders (alecs@qnx.com)
VP Marketing, QNX Software Systems Limited

56

“Alec Saunders” <alecs@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:a3hh13$gm4$1@inn.qnx.com…

No doubt, QNX visibility is low compared to Linux. I don’t know that we
can
ever generate more noise than the Linux juggernaut, but we can certainly
work to make certain that amongst the decisionmakers, the information
necessary to decide FOR QNX is available. For instance, Dedicated Systems
And, of course, there are the advertising and other outreach efforts I
mentioned in an earlier message. All in all, I think we’re going in the
right direction, but the results of these efforts will take time to be
seen.

SNIP

Alec Saunders (> alecs@qnx.com> )
VP Marketing, QNX Software Systems Limited

Alec
It could be that with a little bit of backup the consultants could
become an important part of your marketing.
This might be a Win/Win/Win ( QNX/Consultants/Clients ) game.

Pat

57

“Patrick J, (Pat) Hogan” <pjhogan@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:a3i063$prb$1@inn.qnx.com…

It could be that with a little bit of backup the consultants could
become an important part of your marketing.

I’m game. What do you have in mind?

–
Alec Saunders (alecs@qnx.com)
VP Marketing, QNX Software Systems Limited

58

Alec
It could be that with a little bit of backup the consultants could
become an important part of your marketing.
This might be a Win/Win/Win ( QNX/Consultants/Clients ) game.

Pat

I’ve been reading this thread for several days now and have been thinking
about this whole thing quite a bit.
I’ve been working on a hybrid electric armored tracked vehcile (a tank) QNX
was chosen several years ago for the vehicle control system. I signed on a
year ago to help them finish with some additional development work and get a
newer version of this vehicle out the door.

The my boss picked the OS and began architecting the system did a great job.
His problem was getting developers who understood the architecture of the OS
and the system. He had a terrible time. Many of the developers were
vxworks guys, the concepts were new (even to my boss who admits the S/R/R
stuff was hard to get a hold). It took me a lot of work to convience my
boss that IPC was fast and a perferred way to communicate, rather than
tforking and using pointers to objects in a different thread.

The system was successful, we just had the vehicle roll out cerimony a week
or so ago, it was great, once some basic programming problems were found, it
is working just like it is advertised.

The company has standardized on VxWorks and their home grown “OE” layer that
allows them to write code on an NT box and then re-compile on VxWorks. I
don’t quite undrestand why this is so desirable, but they think this is the
way to go. The thing that I realized is that they do not care about
underlying OS architecture, they actually want to abstract it out of
existance. I don’t understand this. Seems to me that part of a products
success depends on the OS. It seems to me that there are lot of people who
don’t think that way. Why?

After seeing all the discussions here, I think this is an important question
to answer.

As for me, what I see is a need to be at the descision level when companies
are deciding how to move forward with a product. I don’t think I’m going to
find a lot of QNX work because a lot of companies are going to decide to go
there, rather, I see that I need to position myself in a roll to help
companies make the decision to go with QNX and then provide some level of
development support during their development cycle.

I don’t know how to do this yet. But I think QNX is the only way to go, and
as long as QSSL is going to hire and support the kind of big guns that it
has as of recent, I’m going to continue to develop my ability to convince
otherse to go with it. I need to be more articulate, and I would like to
have QSSL’s help in doing so.

The WinCE evaluation article is a good start. What about VxWorks?

Kevin

59

“Kevin Stallard” <kevin@ffflyingrobots.com> wrote in message
news:a3nij3$oi7$1@inn.qnx.com…

The company has standardized on VxWorks and their home grown “OE” layer
that
allows them to write code on an NT box and then re-compile on VxWorks. I
don’t quite undrestand why this is so desirable, but they think this is
the
way to go. The thing that I realized is that they do not care about
underlying OS architecture, they actually want to abstract it out of
existance. I don’t understand this. Seems to me that part of a products
success depends on the OS. It seems to me that there are lot of people
who
don’t think that way. Why?

There is an argument for abstracting the OS out of existance. Providing the
following conditions are true:

  1. you don’t care about the reliability of the OS
  2. you don’t require any real-time performance from the OS
  3. you intend to code most of the OS responsibities into your application
  4. you intend to hire programmers that aren’t specialists in anything
  5. you want to port your application to as many platforms as possible
    without regard to OS

I’m guessing that if someone is develloping tanks, it’s ultimately for the
military. What the hell. If you can afford to spend $125 for a hammer and
$650 for a toilet seat then how can you possibly be disappointed by all of
the development efforts necessary to develope platform independant code.

Of course, my opinion may be slightly biased.

–
Bill Caroselli – 1(626) 824-7983
Q-TPS Consulting
QTPS@EarthLink.net

60

“Alec Saunders” <alecs@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:a3k8oc$ct5$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Patrick J, (Pat) Hogan” <> pjhogan@shaw.ca> > wrote in message
news:a3i063$prb$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

It could be that with a little bit of backup the consultants could
become an important part of your marketing.

I’m game. What do you have in mind?

–
Alec Saunders (> alecs@qnx.com> )
VP Marketing, QNX Software Systems Limited

Oops!! There I go again spouting off before my ducks are lined up.
Now I have to try to write something cogent, or at least intelligible. I
have been lurking around the QNX newsgroups for quite a while, but not too
many of the people here know me so I’ll offer a brief introduction so that
my perspective may be understood.

I’m located in western Canada, and I have been in the Process Control
business for the last 30+ years. I was introduced to QNX2 in 1987 by a
controls system vendor who had built a capable PC based MMI for their DCS.
QNX impressed us enough that we adopted it for our own apps. QNX4 made
things even better.

My concern with QNX and consulting stems from the fact that I’m about to
take early retirement An “offer I can’t refuse” that will give me time to
“poke” at some things, and maybe figure out what I want to be when I grow
up. I won’t make it as a Fireman or Cowboy, so computers and control are
likely to stay in the picture Like many of the folks in this group, I
really resent being forced to accept sub-optimal solutions because of
Microsoft FUD and the ignorance of the decision makers. If QNX can get it’s
marketing “stuff” together my life may be happier.

I know that I’m “preaching to the choir”, but QNX should “own” the
controller, Scada, and data collection business. Your name recognition may
be growing in some venues but in this “neck of the woods” QNX is almost
unknown. This observation is based on acquaintance with a lot of people in
the tech’ manufacturing, research, and education business.

Many of the people who frequent these newsgroups have spent years where
the “rubber meets the road” struggling with apps and customers. They know
where QNX does well and if it comes up short. An ongoing, brainstorming,
sort of dialog with these folks could be a good idea.

So let’s start:: Problem - Improve QNX name recognition

Off the Wall Idea #1 – Show up at the Western Canada Robotic Games with
a QNX powered robot and a display explaining real time computing. Show up
with stickers, T shirts, and ball caps. Bring RTP CDROMS.
The audience:
-“Techie” students from Junior High to Graduate school

  • Engineer Dads (and Moms) dragging kids along to see that technology
    means more than computer games.
  • Teachers and Academics of all stripes
  • Just folks, but they’re here, not at the Mall, maybe they can learn
    that M$ doesn’t provide for everything that
    computers must do.

Who’s next

Pat

p.s Shouldn’t an MS spell checker recognize FUD as a word