What's going on at QNX?

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@earthlink.net> wrote:

I just downloaded, but have not yet installed, the 6.2 NC package.

From reading the documentation on the CD image, only the SE & PE versions
include PhAB, not the NC version.

So are we to understand that there are software products that were free with
6.1a that we now have to buy?

No, PhAB is included in 6.2 NC. It is the IDE (Eclipse based) that is not.

chris


Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@earthlink.net> wrote:

True. After all, QSSL is a business. They have to make money. I WANT them
to make money. I want them to continue to make wonderful software products
like QNX Version 4 for another 20 years at least.

So, let’s touch on a new issue. What is your “list price” for the SE & PE
products?

Actually, prices (for dev seats) are now quoted on the main page and have
shown up in all the press coverage (EETimes, etc).

This is from the posting on qnxZone.com

  • NC “Non-Commercial” - free for download
  • SE “Standard Edition” - $4,295 US
  • PE “Professional Edition” - $8,695 US

chris


Chris McKillop <cdm@qnx.com> “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:ae862a$khc$2@nntp.qnx.com

  • NC “Non-Commercial” - free for download
  • SE “Standard Edition” - $4,295 US
  • PE “Professional Edition” - $8,695 US

That’s one of the great benefits of working here. I’ve got a $12,000
(Canadian) development seat on two boxes here AND on my home machine.
That’s like an extra $36,000 per year that the tax man can’t say a thing
about. And I get free upgrades any time I want.

:wink:

Kris

chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/

“Kris Warkentin” <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:ae8a4t$oi5$1@nntp.qnx.com

That’s one of the great benefits of working here. I’ve got a $12,000
(Canadian) development seat on two boxes here AND on my home machine.
That’s like an extra $36,000 per year that the tax man can’t say a thing
about. And I get free upgrades any time I want.

:wink:

Kris

I don’t know about Canada, but in the US, technically, the tax man does have

something to say about it. If your employer provides you benefit for your
own personal use, then that is a taxable benefit. If it is provided for
business use but you also get to use it 50% of the time for personal use
then 50% of it’s value is taxable.

But I won’t tell. You may very well be safe in Canada anyway.

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:ae8an5$mi0$1@inn.qnx.com

“Kris Warkentin” <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:ae8a4t$oi5$> 1@nntp.qnx.com> …

That’s one of the great benefits of working here. I’ve got a $12,000
(Canadian) development seat on two boxes here AND on my home machine.
That’s like an extra $36,000 per year that the tax man can’t say a thing
about. And I get free upgrades any time I want.

:wink:

Kris

I don’t know about Canada, but in the US, technically, the tax man does
have
something to say about it. If your employer provides you benefit for your
own personal use, then that is a taxable benefit. If it is provided for
business use but you also get to use it 50% of the time for personal use
then 50% of it’s value is taxable.

Personal use would imply having a life outside of work right? Oh…okay.
I’m safe then. Whew

:wink:

Kris

But I won’t tell. You may very well be safe in Canada anyway.

Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote:

I don’t know about Canada, but in the US, technically, the tax man does
have
something to say about it. If your employer provides you benefit for your
own personal use, then that is a taxable benefit. If it is provided for
business use but you also get to use it 50% of the time for personal use
then 50% of it’s value is taxable.


Personal use would imply having a life outside of work right? Oh…okay.
I’m safe then. Whew

In that case, instead of paying extra taxes, you may be eligible
for tax deductions for your computer, your Internet connection,
your home, etc. if qssl can say those are work related.

Frank

Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote:

“Chris McKillop” <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:ae862a$khc$> 2@nntp.qnx.com> …

  • NC “Non-Commercial” - free for download
  • SE “Standard Edition” - $4,295 US
  • PE “Professional Edition” - $8,695 US

That’s one of the great benefits of working here. I’ve got a $12,000
(Canadian) development seat on two boxes here AND on my home machine.
That’s like an extra $36,000 per year that the tax man can’t say a thing
about. And I get free upgrades any time I want.

Hey, QNX HR? Please adjust this man’s salary (downward). Plus, he’s having
way too much fun, perhaps start charging admission?

:slight_smile:


:wink:

Kris

chris


Chris McKillop <> cdm@qnx.com> > “The faster I go, the behinder I get.”
Software Engineer, QSSL – Lewis Carroll –
http://qnx.wox.org/


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.

“Robert Krten” <nospam88@parse.com> wrote in message
news:ae8ecq$oqc$1@inn.qnx.com

Kris Warkentin <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote:
“Chris McKillop” <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:ae862a$khc$> 2@nntp.qnx.com> …

  • NC “Non-Commercial” - free for download
  • SE “Standard Edition” - $4,295 US
  • PE “Professional Edition” - $8,695 US

That’s one of the great benefits of working here. I’ve got a $12,000
(Canadian) development seat on two boxes here AND on my home machine.
That’s like an extra $36,000 per year that the tax man can’t say a thing
about. And I get free upgrades any time I want.

Hey, QNX HR? Please adjust this man’s salary (downward). Plus, he’s
having
way too much fun, perhaps start charging admission?

Now there’s a novel idea. Employers should charge the employees admission

to get to work.

I understand that in the big New York restaurants the waiters pay the
restaurant as much as $500 a night for the privilege of working. Of course
they get to keep their tips.

“Rennie Allen” <rallen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:3D076C77.50807@csical.com

Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) wrote:

Now there’s a novel idea. Employers should charge the employees
admission
to get to work.

I understand that in the big New York restaurants the waiters pay the
restaurant as much as $500 a night for the privilege of working. Of
course
they get to keep their tips.

I think they get to keep the tips at QSSL also > :slight_smile:

Rennie

Well then, that’s a taxable perk.

You guys must think that by adding more and more nonsense to this thread you
make it more valuable and easy to follow…

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:ae8llh$n0$1@inn.qnx.com

“Rennie Allen” <> rallen@csical.com> > wrote in message
news:> 3D076C77.50807@csical.com> …
Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) wrote:

Now there’s a novel idea. Employers should charge the employees
admission
to get to work.

I understand that in the big New York restaurants the waiters pay the
restaurant as much as $500 a night for the privilege of working. Of
course
they get to keep their tips.

I think they get to keep the tips at QSSL also > :slight_smile:

Rennie

Well then, that’s a taxable perk.

In article <ae862a$khc$2@nntp.qnx.com>, Chris McKillop wrote:

“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> QTPS@earthlink.net> > wrote:
True. After all, QSSL is a business. They have to make money. I WANT them
to make money. I want them to continue to make wonderful software products
like QNX Version 4 for another 20 years at least.

I do completely agree with this. QNX is somewhat fantastic and it was
love the first time I seen It (6.0). And the price…

  • NC “Non-Commercial” - free for download
  • SE “Standard Edition” - $4,295 US
  • PE “Professional Edition” - $8,695 US

is perfectly reasonable for business but cuts off those people like me
that just wants to experiment and enjoy a fantasting OS. I must admit
that 5000$ is a bit hight for me actually and a bit too hight if I think
I would only use it for testing, stupid things and expertise on a
realtime OS (I would accept istead a ‘NC’ licence for a lower price (say
100$) but that would include the full development suite).

I do understand that you DO business with this, but what could a guy do
with a ‘non commercial’ license?

  • expertise with your development suite
  • talk about this great stuff around
  • port software and produce free software for it (the only admitted
    license).

Thus, they grow the actual QNX community IMHO, and, when they’ll start
to make money with it, they’ll pay.

Limiting the actual possibility of the NC distribution may be a wrong
marketing strategy. I do not do marketing but I immagine THIS scenario:

  • complete ‘free for NC’ edition

one user downloads it. If feels immediately impressed with it and
starts to download software and mainly develop software for
expertise with it. Since the software must remain free, it actually
“documents” and makes free examples for your OS.
Since it have the best around software (and IDE, a reliable library…)
it starts to be ‘dependend’ :slight_smile:. Once it starts to do commercial things
it will immediately know WHAT these standard and professional ed. do
provide. As the user would probably use software found onto the
professional ed., there are more probability that it will
immediately buy it instead of asking himself ‘why doing this big
step if I don’t know how I can improve with an IDE?’.

I’ve downloaded and installed the 6.2 release yesterday. I’ve
immediately noted these ‘warnings’ about the license. After that I’ve
started to note those missing things around, like the cross platform
development tools, the dinkum c++ library and so on. As I was using
them, I’m now dependent and I would probably buy immediately at least the
Standard ed., but (as a single) I just cannot efford it.

How an user could remain impressed of your great multiplatform Makefile
strategy if it cannot use it?

As some of my projects was using the dinkum c++ library, I bet that now
(with only g++2.9x and it’s sucking c++ library) I couldn’t compile them
anymore. Even removing the dinkum c++ library only evidence the lack of a
reliable and standard c++ compiler. Sadly, I used 6.x for serveral
months for several hours a day as a pure hobbist and now I feel a bit
spoiled. Tomorrow I’ll probably put back 6.1a again…

These are just my 2c.
Sincerly…


wave++ (Yuri D’Elia)
Software Developer @ ubiest.com

Jim Lambert wrote:

I’d like to see development licensing mature into two different development
license models. One, charge the developer a large development fee so they
can develop a set-top box that will retail for $49.95. The developer is
saying “ok, give me a large upfront fee but I’m going to need you to really
lower your production price to make it feasible for me to produce this box”.
The second one that I have yet to see is to give a developer a lower or even
zero cost development license but that developer then gets zero or a very
small % off the retail price at production time.

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn’t want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn’t have been an issue. I don’t
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.

Jim,

Unlike Bill I don’t believe that QSSL has given up on the low volume
high royalty market, however, they are definately not in the position of
addressing it right now. I’m not sure what the problem is, but I think
it has to do with the whole “no cost” thing. I believe that QSSL fears
that by offering a lower development seat model, that unscrupulous
customers may not pay the higher runtime costs associated with the lower
cost development seat, and simply sell their software. This is very
difficult to police. QSSL needs to come up with a model that assures
them of their revenue stream from low vol/high royalty market. I’m not
sure what this model is, but I’m thinking that a NC version that has
diminished HRT capabilities might be one way of doing this. The
tinkerers/experimenters won’t care about the poor HRT performance (so
long as they know the commercial product doesn’t suffer), and this might
achieve the desirable exposure, while allowing QSSL to once again base
their revenue stream (at least partially) on run-time royalties (which
would allow a “pay me now - or pay me later” pricing model).

As an outsider, these latest changes to the distribution model, appear
to be headed in the above direction.

Rennie

Yuri D’Elia <wavexx@hydra.ubiest.com> wrote:

realtime OS (I would accept istead a ‘NC’ licence for a lower price (say
100$) but that would include the full development suite).

This is a good idea. Instead of giving away free stripped down version
for NC, you can charge a small fee and give a full version for NC.
Since it is NC, it won’t affect your SE/PE sales. Since it is full
version, it will be a better advertise for your SE/PE. The software
produced will be more compatible (cdm won’t have to re-create his
3rd party CD …)

Frank Liu <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote:

(cdm won’t have to re-create his 3rd party CD …)

Hey! Let’s give credit where credit is due here :wink:, the 3rd party CD was a team
effort by many here at QSSL, and not to diminish the amount of work that Chris put
into this thing, but I put a good 2+ weeks into it myself (full time, including weekends).
Other people here put alot of effort into it here as well. I wouldn’t call it
cdm’s CD, I’d call it the communities CD that was started by QSS R&D engineers. The
next version will likely have even more from contributions from the community (I hope,
after all this is why we did it, to help make it easier for you guys to get the comminuty
really rolling). The success of this CD in the long run will ultimately be up to
the community as much as anything anyone at QSS does. When Bill gets the online
repository on QDN going, the submissions that appear there will be on the next CD,
so get your stuff ready to go :slight_smile:.

Dave Rempel

I’d like to see development licensing mature into two different development
license models. One, charge the developer a large development fee so they
can develop a set-top box that will retail for $49.95. The developer is
saying “ok, give me a large upfront fee but I’m going to need you to really
lower your production price to make it feasible for me to produce this box”.
The second one that I have yet to see is to give a developer a lower or even
zero cost development license but that developer then gets zero or a very
small % off the retail price at production time.

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn’t want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn’t have been an issue. I don’t
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.

JMHO,

Jim

“Yuri D’Elia” <wavexx@hydra.ubiest.com> wrote in message
news:slrnaggu48.ggv.wavexx@hydra.hydra.ubi.intra

In article <ae862a$khc$> 2@nntp.qnx.com> >, Chris McKillop wrote:
“Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <> QTPS@earthlink.net> > wrote:
True. After all, QSSL is a business. They have to make money. I WANT
them
to make money. I want them to continue to make wonderful software
products
like QNX Version 4 for another 20 years at least.

I do completely agree with this. QNX is somewhat fantastic and it was
love the first time I seen It (6.0). And the price…

  • NC “Non-Commercial” - free for download
  • SE “Standard Edition” - $4,295 US
  • PE “Professional Edition” - $8,695 US

is perfectly reasonable for business but cuts off those people like me
that just wants to experiment and enjoy a fantasting OS. I must admit
that 5000$ is a bit hight for me actually and a bit too hight if I think
I would only use it for testing, stupid things and expertise on a
realtime OS (I would accept istead a ‘NC’ licence for a lower price (say
100$) but that would include the full development suite).

I do understand that you DO business with this, but what could a guy do
with a ‘non commercial’ license?

  • expertise with your development suite
  • talk about this great stuff around
  • port software and produce free software for it (the only admitted
    license).

Thus, they grow the actual QNX community IMHO, and, when they’ll start
to make money with it, they’ll pay.

Limiting the actual possibility of the NC distribution may be a wrong
marketing strategy. I do not do marketing but I immagine THIS scenario:

  • complete ‘free for NC’ edition

one user downloads it. If feels immediately impressed with it and
starts to download software and mainly develop software for
expertise with it. Since the software must remain free, it actually
“documents” and makes free examples for your OS.
Since it have the best around software (and IDE, a reliable library…)
it starts to be ‘dependend’ > :slight_smile:> . Once it starts to do commercial things
it will immediately know WHAT these standard and professional ed. do
provide. As the user would probably use software found onto the
professional ed., there are more probability that it will
immediately buy it instead of asking himself ‘why doing this big
step if I don’t know how I can improve with an IDE?’.

I’ve downloaded and installed the 6.2 release yesterday. I’ve
immediately noted these ‘warnings’ about the license. After that I’ve
started to note those missing things around, like the cross platform
development tools, the dinkum c++ library and so on. As I was using
them, I’m now dependent and I would probably buy immediately at least the
Standard ed., but (as a single) I just cannot efford it.

How an user could remain impressed of your great multiplatform Makefile
strategy if it cannot use it?

As some of my projects was using the dinkum c++ library, I bet that now
(with only g++2.9x and it’s sucking c++ library) I couldn’t compile them
anymore. Even removing the dinkum c++ library only evidence the lack of a
reliable and standard c++ compiler. Sadly, I used 6.x for serveral
months for several hours a day as a pure hobbist and now I feel a bit
spoiled. Tomorrow I’ll probably put back 6.1a again…

These are just my 2c.
Sincerly…


wave++ (Yuri D’Elia)
Software Developer @ ubiest.com

Kris Warkentin <kewarken@qnx.com> wrote:

“Chris McKillop” <> cdm@qnx.com> > wrote in message
news:ae862a$khc$> 2@nntp.qnx.com> …

  • NC “Non-Commercial” - free for download
  • SE “Standard Edition” - $4,295 US
  • PE “Professional Edition” - $8,695 US

That’s one of the great benefits of working here. I’ve got a $12,000
(Canadian) development seat on two boxes here AND on my home machine.
That’s like an extra $36,000 per year that the tax man can’t say a thing
about. And I get free upgrades any time I want.

Hmm… I think I’d better tell rev can about that benefit… might be a
taxable benefit… :slight_smile:

-David

QNX Training Services
http://www.qnx.com/support/training/
Please followup in this newsgroup if you have further questions.

That’s a good point. I do work from home some mornings and evenings and
occasionally telecommute. I should look into that. Thanks!

Kris

“Frank Liu” <liug@mama.indstate.edu> wrote in message
news:ae8d8c$nlv$1@inn.qnx.com

Kris Warkentin <> kewarken@qnx.com> > wrote:

I don’t know about Canada, but in the US, technically, the tax man does
have
something to say about it. If your employer provides you benefit for
your
own personal use, then that is a taxable benefit. If it is provided
for
business use but you also get to use it 50% of the time for personal
use
then 50% of it’s value is taxable.


Personal use would imply having a life outside of work right?
Oh…okay.
I’m safe then. Whew

In that case, instead of paying extra taxes, you may be eligible
for tax deductions for your computer, your Internet connection,
your home, etc. if qssl can say those are work related.

Frank

“Jim Lambert” <jlambert@futurex.com> wrote in message
news:aeahba$e37$1@inn.qnx.com

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn’t want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn’t have been an issue. I don’t
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.

JMHO,

Jim

You’re right Jim, they don’t. If you can sell 5000 run times a month they

DON’T want to deal with you. And for the record, me either.

I’m back at a previous employer. We are working on a great QNX4 product.
We bought several hundred RT licenses several years ago and got a good price
for them. To date we’ve sold only a small percentage of that.

Thank God QNX4 is a mature and stable product. Because the company we
bought those licenses from does exist any more.

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 09:43:46 -0700, “Jim Lambert” <jlambert@futurex.com> wrote:

I’d like to see development licensing mature into two different development
license models. One, charge the developer a large development fee so they
can develop a set-top box that will retail for $49.95. The developer is
saying “ok, give me a large upfront fee but I’m going to need you to really
lower your production price to make it feasible for me to produce this box”.
The second one that I have yet to see is to give a developer a lower or even
zero cost development license but that developer then gets zero or a very
small % off the retail price at production time.

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn’t want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn’t have been an issue. I don’t
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.

I would be interested to know if these scenarios
were discussed with your salesrep?

On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 12:10:06 -0700, “Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)” <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote:

“Jim Lambert” <> jlambert@futurex.com> > wrote in message
news:aeahba$e37$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

This would have worked for us since we sell systems that cost $100,000 but
didn’t want to have to pay $50,000 upfront for developer licenses and
full-price production QNX licenses wouldn’t have been an issue. I don’t
think QNX cares about developers that want to develop large systems using
their software as a piece of the system.

JMHO,

Jim

You’re right Jim, they don’t. If you can sell 5000 run times a month they
DON’T want to deal with you. And for the record, me either.

I’m not sure what you mean here?
I know I will go around the block many times for 5000 runtimes/month…

I’m back at a previous employer. We are working on a great QNX4 product.
We bought several hundred RT licenses several years ago and got a good price
for them. To date we’ve sold only a small percentage of that.

Thank God QNX4 is a mature and stable product. Because the company we
bought those licenses from does exist any more.