QNX6 vs WinCE?

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

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

“Armin Steinhoff” <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:behpl7$p1h$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Alain Bonnefoy wrote:
Well,
About WinCE, despite a ridicul price, lot of those try to develop for
that OS regret there choice.
About QNX, my point of view is that there is a big problem with the
price policy since QRTP and more since Momentics.
If QSSL continues in that direction they run the risk to desappear from
the market like WindRiver did…

True … how can we compete against M$Soft based automation solutions
consisting of a SCADA system, Soft-PLCs (or similar) and a OS runtime
(no dev. system needed) if the first ‘runtime package’ of QNX6 costs
$12.000 ??


As far as I know, runtime and development prices have nothing to do with
each other. I don’t know where $12.000 comes from either. The SE is priced
at about $4K, the PE is about $8K. Those are development seat prices.

From QNX6 price list located at
http://www.swd.ru/qnx/howtobuy/prices/index.html, official QSS distributor
in Russian Federation:

6.2.1A QNX Momentics Standard Edition (SE), per 1 developer 7044 USD
6.2.1A QNX Professional Standard Edition (PE), per 1 developer 14260 USD

This is the prices source where i do look living in RF. Maybe QSS have
different prices but what’s the worth for me from it ?

The product packaging of QNX6 and its license policy is just a killer
for the automation market …

/me nods

I think it is more of the issue with the lack of policy. Except for SE and
PE price everything is ‘call us’ and that leaves too much freedom for
distributors especially in Europe to hike the prices as much as they like
or invent extortion schemes requiring you to buy stuff in bundles or do
other unreasonable things once you’re ‘on hook’. This is just waiting for
someone to sue them and the only reason why this did not happen yet is
that big players (who would sue) always have OEM agreements.

Oh sure, so let’s get rid of small and medium players. Linux and BSD are
awaiting.

// wbr

22

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

“Bill Caroselli” <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote in message
news:bekkma$3u8$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@attbi.com> > wrote in message
news:beka76$meg$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

The $5K is for maintaining your development seat (so you can upgrade to
newer versions of it). You can avoid paying that, but you’ll be stuck
with the version that you originally bought.


The problem here is this. Look at their track record. QSSL deosn’t come
out with fixes as often as they used to before they lost control of their own
business. So, you could spend $5000 for upgrade support AND GET NOTHING
FOR IT! But then if they come out with an update on the thirteenth month,
after your upgrade term has expired, your stuck paying for a whole new OS!

Let me see a show of hands (if any of you suckers are still around) how
many have had to do exactly what I’m talking about?


I think the idea behind this is the “insurance policy”. You pay home and car
insurance every month, even if nothing happens with them. If you stop paying
and next day a fire takes your house, you’re SOL. The idea is, you DON’T
stop paying after a year, you just keep going > :wink:

interesting idea… but customers expect a PRODUCT and dislike to be
Beta Tester for years with a moving Target and waiting monthes for very
important fixes…

I can understand that a company tries to charge customers annually like
melting a cow, but you will need 2 parties, and customers are free to
move to an other OS …

I have to say, this is quite an original business model. Nevertheless, some
(especially bigger) customers undoubtedly like it a lot more than
uncertainty of paying an unknown amount of un-budgeted money at undetermined
points in time when upgrades come out.

That’s your opinion…

I realize of course that small fish does not like that. C’est la vie…

Can you imagine that small fishes can grow ?? :wink:


Alas, this is why momentum is on the Windows/Linux side. Small fish likes
Windows because MS is big fish (so they can ride in their waves).

I agree for fishes which want to swimm in the main stream. Wait some
while and you will see what is main stream for realtime for these fishes
at next.

And small fish likes Linux because they can avoid paying altogether
(and ride in the bigger wave too).

Igor, why do you think why a city like Munich or the goverment in Japan
are deciding for Linux. It’s not only because of paying. They want to be
independent of the policy of one vendor who abused his position. Also,
they want to have the control about what they are installing…

  • Jutta
23

Armin

My I ask, who is “we”? What is your company?

“Armin Steinhoff” <a-steinhoff@web.de> wrote in message
news:belv1e$kfl$1@inn.qnx.com…

Nonsense … we have invested a lot in QNX6 solutions, but the OS vendor
is just in the process to remove the base of third party SOFTWARE!

Correct! In the early days QNX did everything possible to help out 3rd

party vendors.
Now they are doing everything possible to make life difficult for them.


So let me play a devil’s advocate… You night indeed stop wasting time
on
futile resistance. Just use something that is intended/marketed for your
market.

Sure … that’s exactly what we are doing!! But we are going to serve
BOTH markets as long as QNX6 is still a market for Third Parties.


Armin

24

“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:bel6ou$mu9$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Bill Caroselli” <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote in message
news:bekkma$3u8$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@attbi.com> > wrote in message
news:beka76$meg$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

The $5K is for maintaining your development seat (so you can upgrade
to
newer versions of it). You can avoid paying that, but you’ll be stuck
with
the version that you originally bought.


The problem here is this. Look at their track record. QSSL deosn’t come
out
with fixes as often as they used to before they lost control of their
own
business. So, you could spend $5000 for upgrade support AND GET NOTHING
FOR
IT! But then if they come out with an update on the thirteenth month,
after
your upgrade term has expired, your stuck paying for a whole new OS!

Let me see a show of hands (if any of you suckers are still around) how
many
have had to do exactly what I’m talking about?


I think the idea behind this is the “insurance policy”. You pay home and
car
insurance every month, even if nothing happens with them. If you stop
paying
and next day a fire takes your house, you’re SOL. The idea is, you DON’T
stop paying after a year, you just keep going > :wink:

This is true. But it is not marketed as an insurance policy. It is
marketed as an upgrade path.

I have no problem with them charging for a support policy. But if it claims
to include an upgrade, the customer should be able to get one free upgrade
regardless of when it comes out.

25

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3F0DBD12.E222BE54@web.de> …

[…]
Notice, in industrial automation are used often SCADAs or SoftPLCs, that
means you don’t need Momentics.

It is unfortunate fact that for the last several years QNX has concentrated
so much on the IDE side of things that core OS had become somewhat of a
neglected ‘older daughter’, both technologically and ‘marketologically’. It
is understandable because the lack of tools was their biggest problem in the
past, plus they think they can make more money selling dev seats… It
appears their biggest customers don’t want to pay royalties for the runtimes
at all and prefer ‘buyouts’, so why bother.

So, from one extreme they swung into the opposite. Perhaps eventually they
will come to a balanced state, I hope not when it is too late. Nobody wants
to buy an expensive dev seat for a technically obsolete core OS…

But the “little guy” are also big companies which will need a single
QNX system. OTOH, small innovative companies which are often pioneers
for the “big dogs” can’t use QNX for non embedded systems…

The real joke is their marketing stragedy when distributing thousands of
QRTP and QNX6 NC CDs, even in PC Magazines. A system which is unwanted
for non embedded targets is normally not distributed in that way in
order to shock people if they really want to use it …

BTW, did you ever see demos or non commercial software distributed on
fairs or in magazines from Greenhill’s INTEGRITY, WindRiver’s VxWorks
or Jaluna’s C5 (based on CHORUS!) which can even be integrated into
Linux?

QNX is not the only RTOS and we have to accept the decision from QSSL
that they don’t want to take part in the rapidly growing open control
market with QNX target systems where realtime is requested much more
than in the past.

They don’t, apparently. They may be right in that. This market is selling
few runtimes to thousands of small customers, with no development seats.

No, not quite correct. At first customers will need a few licenses.
But when QNX is accepted in that market, they can get a lot of OEMs.
Have a look to market researches and you will see how many big dogs
are offering plug & play hardware/software solutions incl. SoftPLC
for non realtime systems today.

Maintaining adequate sales infrastructure for a company of 100 people

100 ??? are you sure that the number is correct?

and $20M annual sales is impractical. And competing with Linux & MS
in that area is even less practical.

competing or not… when they don’t see a market so the others will
be happy to cover the new realtime requirements

So they are concentrating on large customers with
custom hardware and high volumes, where neither MS nor Linux do not have a
lot of strong points.

that’s a limited market and they are not the only vendor… If customers
move, it’s too late to think about the lost automation market which was
their main income in the past…

If you are trying to sell and OS that even the OS vendor does not want to
sell in that market, you’re making a big marketing mistake. You’ll be
sailing against the wind.

sure, we are sailing against the wind more than 10 years and our
products and open source ports were often the argument for using QNX.
It was no marketing mistake as we own the technologies and can switch to
other OSes whenever we want. We are platform independent and QNX is
currently just the base for DACHS products, nothing else!

So let me play a devil’s advocate… You night indeed stop wasting time on
futile resistance. Just use something that is intended/marketed for your
market.

Our market is industrial automation and shrinking QNX shares are not a
real problem for us. Our customers and especially pot. customers are
very happy to get finally DACHS products not only for QNX …

  • Jutta
26

Bill Caroselli wrote:

Armin

My I ask, who is “we”? What is your company?

www.steinhoff-automation.com

  • it will be updated soon

BTW, latest QNX based product is DACHSview,
demos are availabe.

  • Jutta


“Armin Steinhoff” <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:belv1e$kfl$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Nonsense … we have invested a lot in QNX6 solutions, but the OS vendor
is just in the process to remove the base of third party SOFTWARE!

Correct! In the early days QNX did everything possible to help out 3rd
party vendors.
Now they are doing everything possible to make life difficult for them.

So let me play a devil’s advocate… You night indeed stop wasting time on
futile resistance. Just use something that is intended/marketed for your
market.

Sure … that’s exactly what we are doing!! But we are going to serve
BOTH markets as long as QNX6 is still a market for Third Parties.


Armin

27

“Armin Steinhoff” <a-steinhoff@web.de> wrote in message
news:belv1e$kfl$1@inn.qnx.com…

where neither MS nor Linux do not have a lot of strong points.

I can’t follow your logic here …

That ‘restrictive’ and ‘competitive’ market has specific requirements that
are not met very well by either MS or Linux. MS likes to makes their stuff
more prominent than the hardware it is running on. But auto manufacturers
are not inclined to show Windows logo on car dashboards… And Linux’s major
weakness there is intellectual property issue. A very large manufacturer has
very large exposure to potential copyright infringement claims. They can’t
afford the risk.

So competition there is easier for QNX. They have clean enough IP and they
are flexible on the branding. And there’s not so much dependency on 3rd
party software and drivers - big fish has its own hardware and drivers and
software (or QNX can afford to write it for them).

If you are trying to sell and OS that even the OS vendor does not want
to
sell in that market, you’re making a big marketing mistake.

Nonsense … we have invested a lot in QNX6 solutions, but the OS vendor
is just in the process to remove the base of third party SOFTWARE!

This has nothing to do with OUR marketing!

It has a lot to do with your marketing. And you like to say ‘nonsense’ a lot
for someone who does not see that…

You’ll be sailing against the wind.

So let me play a devil’s advocate… You night indeed stop wasting time
on
futile resistance. Just use something that is intended/marketed for your
market.

Sure … that’s exactly what we are doing!! But we are going to serve
BOTH markets as long as QNX6 is still a market for Third Parties.

Good luck.

– igor

28

“Jutta Steinhoff” <j-steinhoff@web.de> wrote in message
news:3F0EB653.5E13939F@web.de…

100 ??? are you sure that the number is correct?

About 120, last time i checked. That’s total head count.

and $20M annual sales is impractical. And competing with Linux & MS
in that area is even less practical.

competing or not… when they don’t see a market so the others will
be happy to cover the new realtime requirements

So they are concentrating on large customers with
custom hardware and high volumes, where neither MS nor Linux do not have
a
lot of strong points.

that’s a limited market and they are not the only vendor… If customers
move, it’s too late to think about the lost automation market which was
their main income in the past…

Yes, this is the main drawback of their approach. The are placing too many
eggs into too few baskets. Loss of few major customers can be fatal. No
strategy is without a flaw…

Our market is industrial automation and shrinking QNX shares are not a
real problem for us. Our customers and especially pot. customers are
very happy to get finally DACHS products not only for QNX …

I know you’re putting your eggs wisely :slight_smile:

Cheers,
– igor

29

nospam wrote:

Ian Zagorskih <> ianzag@megasignal.com> > wrote:
Oh sure, so let’s get rid of small and medium players. Linux and BSD are
awaiting.

no surprise, people come, people go:

http://www.openqnx.com/Article151.html

Sorry, but i cannot access www.openqnx.com. For my memory it always was so
(request timed out). I guess server is busy while servicing millions of
requests from QNX userland and i’m just unlucky :slight_smile:

// wbr

30

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

“Armin Steinhoff” <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:belv1e$kfl$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

where neither MS nor Linux do not have a lot of strong points.

I can’t follow your logic here …

That ‘restrictive’ and ‘competitive’ market has specific requirements that
are not met very well by either MS or Linux. MS likes to makes their stuff
more prominent than the hardware it is running on. But auto manufacturers
are not inclined to show Windows logo on car dashboards… And Linux’s major
weakness there is intellectual property issue.

What are these weaknesses with intellectual property issues ?? Or are
you just telling us FUDs??

A very large manufacturer has
very large exposure to potential copyright infringement claims.

This is a nice theory … I have different experiences.

They can’t afford the risk.

They simply are doing it …

So competition there is easier for QNX. They have clean enough IP and they
are flexible on the branding. And there’s not so much dependency on 3rd
party software and drivers - big fish has its own hardware and drivers and
software (or QNX can afford to write it for them).

You are dreaming …

sell in that market, you’re making a big marketing mistake.

Nonsense … we have invested a lot in QNX6 solutions, but the OS vendor
is just in the process to remove the base of third party SOFTWARE!

This has nothing to do with OUR marketing!



It has a lot to do with your marketing.

IMHO … you don’t know what the core of marketing is.

And you like to say ‘nonsense’ a lot for someone who does not see that…

Sorry … your statement was simply nonsense.

Armin

31

“Armin Steinhoff” <a-steinhoff@web.de> wrote in message
news:beogo1$joi$1@inn.qnx.com…

Igor Kovalenko wrote:
“Armin Steinhoff” <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:belv1e$kfl$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

where neither MS nor Linux do not have a lot of strong points.

I can’t follow your logic here …

That ‘restrictive’ and ‘competitive’ market has specific requirements
that
are not met very well by either MS or Linux. MS likes to makes their
stuff
more prominent than the hardware it is running on. But auto
manufacturers
are not inclined to show Windows logo on car dashboards… And Linux’s
major
weakness there is intellectual property issue.

What are these weaknesses with intellectual property issues ?? Or are
you just telling us FUDs??

You could not have just stopped at the end of the first sentence, could you?
Why is it that every time you pose a question it has to look like a blame?
This makes discussion with you about as pleasant as talking to a prosecutor.

Why would I be interested in FUD? I don’t own QNX stock or have any other
financial interest in this.
Now to your question… ever thought what could happen if SCO wins their
lawsuit against IBM?

A very large manufacturer has
very large exposure to potential copyright infringement claims.

This is a nice theory … I have different experiences.

They can’t afford the risk.

They simply are doing it …

Once upon a time BeOS had a network driver based on Linux tulip source. It
turned out to be pretty expensive driver for Be Inc. AFAIK, they were forced
to pay $1M to the driver author…

So competition there is easier for QNX. They have clean enough IP and
they
are flexible on the branding. And there’s not so much dependency on 3rd
party software and drivers - big fish has its own hardware and drivers
and
software (or QNX can afford to write it for them).

You are dreaming …

No, I am wasting my time. Lot of people have learned this, so I should have
known better…

– igor

32

Ian Zagorskih <ianzag@megasignal.com> wrote:

no surprise, people come, people go:

http://www.openqnx.com/Article151.html

Sorry, but i cannot access > www.openqnx.com> . For my memory it always was so
(request timed out). I guess server is busy while servicing millions of
requests from QNX userland and i’m just unlucky > :slight_smile:

no, openqnx server is not reliable.
no, it probably needs to wait for a few more years before achieving the
qnxstart momentum.

33

I’m not understanding Armin’s problem here. I’ve never had a problem of
getting a quote for a couple of runtime licenses of QNX. Are Armin’s
customers wanting to do development with the system they buy from Armin’s
company? In other words, they would then do C/C++ development, with some
SCADA or SoftPLC framework provided by Armin?

How come Armin can’t just buy runtimes for his customers and then distribute
them with his product?

I haven’t had my head in the pricing structure and requirements of QSSL as
of late, so please excuse my simpleton questions…

Kevin

“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:belbu8$rr4$1@inn.qnx.com…

“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3F0DBD12.E222BE54@web.de> …

[…]
Notice, in industrial automation are used often SCADAs or SoftPLCs, that
means you don’t need Momentics.

It is unfortunate fact that for the last several years QNX has
concentrated
so much on the IDE side of things that core OS had become somewhat of a
neglected ‘older daughter’, both technologically and ‘marketologically’.
It
is understandable because the lack of tools was their biggest problem in
the
past, plus they think they can make more money selling dev seats… It
appears their biggest customers don’t want to pay royalties for the
runtimes
at all and prefer ‘buyouts’, so why bother.

So, from one extreme they swung into the opposite. Perhaps eventually they
will come to a balanced state, I hope not when it is too late. Nobody
wants
to buy an expensive dev seat for a technically obsolete core OS…

But the “little guy” are also big companies which will need a single
QNX system. OTOH, small innovative companies which are often pioneers
for the “big dogs” can’t use QNX for non embedded systems…

The real joke is their marketing stragedy when distributing thousands of
QRTP and QNX6 NC CDs, even in PC Magazines. A system which is unwanted
for non embedded targets is normally not distributed in that way in
order to shock people if they really want to use it …

BTW, did you ever see demos or non commercial software distributed on
fairs or in magazines from Greenhill’s INTEGRITY, WindRiver’s VxWorks
or Jaluna’s C5 (based on CHORUS!) which can even be integrated into
Linux?

QNX is not the only RTOS and we have to accept the decision from QSSL
that they don’t want to take part in the rapidly growing open control
market with QNX target systems where realtime is requested much more
than in the past.

They don’t, apparently. They may be right in that. This market is selling
few runtimes to thousands of small customers, with no development seats.
Maintaining adequate sales infrastructure for a company of 100 people and
$20M annual sales is impractical. And competing with Linux & MS in that
area
is even less practical. So they are concentrating on large customers with
custom hardware and high volumes, where neither MS nor Linux do not have a
lot of strong points.

If you are trying to sell and OS that even the OS vendor does not want to
sell in that market, you’re making a big marketing mistake. You’ll be
sailing against the wind.

So let me play a devil’s advocate… You night indeed stop wasting time on
futile resistance. Just use something that is intended/marketed for your
market.

– igor

34

Kevin Stallard wrote:

I’m not understanding Armin’s problem here. I’ve never had a problem of
getting a quote for a couple of runtime licenses of QNX.

Kevin, no problem when you as customer have bought Momentics.

We are discussing about customers who don’t_need_Momentics_at_all.
A quote for 3 runtimes for such a customer is much higher than $10K!

I can’t imagine that a QNX target system would be interesting for you
when you have a single application and you are considering using QNX…

Are Armin’s customers wanting to do development with the system
they buy from Armin’s company?

In general, our company provides for development of C/C++ applications
many different QNX-based APIs. We offer also open source interpreters
like C-Talk and Python etc. as well as M$-based visual programmimg tools
(workbenches) which are working with QNX-based Targets (runtime
environment).

There are also different other companies which offer QNX or M$ based
SCADAs, Visualizations etc. with QNX Targets as well as M$-based
IEC61131-3 workbenches or other workbenches with QNX Targets.

That means, developers using e.g. IEC61131-3 or DACHSview workbenches
(SoftPLCs in general), C-Talk or Python don’t need Momentics.
That’s also the case for SCADA or Visualization users.

Customers who want just a QNX Target (runtime) system because of
developing nothing in C will not need Mometics, so it’s an overhead for
these customers when they are forced to buy Momentics + annual support
… and for customers who don’t need qties it’s not acceptable!

FYI, it’s not usual that 3rd party products like boards with QNX
drivers, APIs, configurators, QNX-based targets or whatever are offerd
incl. QNX developer’s seats or runtimes! Notice, 3rd parties are not QNX
distributors !
BTW, if each 3rd party product would be “bundled” with a QNX runtime, so
the users will be happy to buy at the end many QNX runtimes for one and
the same PC, just because of integrating products from different 3rd
party vendors :wink:

OTOH, you have a lot of options with runtime modules. How to guess what
a customer will need at the end for his complete application?

In other words, they would then do C/C++ development, with some
SCADA or SoftPLC framework provided by Armin?

??
Kevin, can you imagine that there are e. g. visual development systems
which have nothing to do with C/C++? BTW, such systems are available
since years and are not an invention from Armin :wink:

If you are interested to program a client/server application in C-Talk
just send an email to me and we will send you the C-Talk interpreter.
You can also get the DACHSview demo if you like …


How come Armin can’t just buy runtimes for his customers and then distribute
them with his product?

As said already, each owner of Momentics can order Runtime Licenses. But
how to box-shift a sheet of paper and sticker for installation when a
customer expects software ??

QSSx is not willing to provide original CDs with QNX Runtime Module
Licenses for such customers!

  • my proposal was to offer bundles with 5 or 10 runtime module licenses
    including a QNX runtime-CD (at max. 2-3 standard runtime module license
    versions). QSSL could even box-shift such a bundle in an online shop.

I haven’t had my head in the pricing structure and requirements of QSSL as
of late, so please excuse my simpleton questions…

I think I’ve explained already in previous emails …

  • Jutta


Kevin

“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@attbi.com> > wrote in message
news:belbu8$rr4$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3F0DBD12.E222BE54@web.de> …

[…]
Notice, in industrial automation are used often SCADAs or SoftPLCs, that
means you don’t need Momentics.

It is unfortunate fact that for the last several years QNX has concentrated
so much on the IDE side of things that core OS had become somewhat of a
neglected ‘older daughter’, both technologically and ‘marketologically’.
It is understandable because the lack of tools was their biggest problem in
the past, plus they think they can make more money selling dev seats… It
appears their biggest customers don’t want to pay royalties for the
runtimes at all and prefer ‘buyouts’, so why bother.

So, from one extreme they swung into the opposite. Perhaps eventually they
will come to a balanced state, I hope not when it is too late. Nobody
wants to buy an expensive dev seat for a technically obsolete core OS…

But the “little guy” are also big companies which will need a single
QNX system. OTOH, small innovative companies which are often pioneers
for the “big dogs” can’t use QNX for non embedded systems…

The real joke is their marketing stragedy when distributing thousands of
QRTP and QNX6 NC CDs, even in PC Magazines. A system which is unwanted
for non embedded targets is normally not distributed in that way in
order to shock people if they really want to use it …

BTW, did you ever see demos or non commercial software distributed on
fairs or in magazines from Greenhill’s INTEGRITY, WindRiver’s VxWorks
or Jaluna’s C5 (based on CHORUS!) which can even be integrated into
Linux?

QNX is not the only RTOS and we have to accept the decision from QSSL
that they don’t want to take part in the rapidly growing open control
market with QNX target systems where realtime is requested much more
than in the past.

They don’t, apparently. They may be right in that. This market is selling
few runtimes to thousands of small customers, with no development seats.
Maintaining adequate sales infrastructure for a company of 100 people and
$20M annual sales is impractical. And competing with Linux & MS in that area
is even less practical. So they are concentrating on large customers with
custom hardware and high volumes, where neither MS nor Linux do not have a
lot of strong points.

If you are trying to sell and OS that even the OS vendor does not want to
sell in that market, you’re making a big marketing mistake. You’ll be
sailing against the wind.

So let me play a devil’s advocate… You night indeed stop wasting time on
futile resistance. Just use something that is intended/marketed for your
market.

– igor

35

qnxstart_@yahoo.nospam.com wrote:

Ian Zagorskih <> ianzag@megasignal.com> > wrote:
no surprise, people come, people go:

http://www.openqnx.com/Article151.html

Sorry, but i cannot access > www.openqnx.com> . For my memory it always was so
(request timed out). I guess server is busy while servicing millions of
requests from QNX userland and i’m just unlucky > :slight_smile:


no, openqnx server is not reliable.
no, it probably needs to wait for a few more years before achieving the
qnxstart momentum.

For all who don’t get access to the given link:


Cybermetrix to migrate CyFlex to Linux
Posted by: newsagent on Jul 11, 2003 - 05:39 AM

Cybermetrix’ CyFlex is a world-class, highly flexible test system
currently in use at major engineering facilities in the U.S. and around
the world. See our past news item for details about CyFlex. Cybermetrix
recently struck a deal with Concurrent Engineering FL to port its
flagship CyFlex product to RedHawk Linux real-time operating system. The
new product is targeted for release in the 4th quarter of this calendar
year.

Christine Mullholand, CEO of Cybermetrix, said “Using Concurrent’s
RedHawk Linux as a highly deterministic platform for CyFlex will ensure
our customers continue to enjoy reliable, well-supported, and high
performance test and measurement systems - with theadded benefits of
Concurrent’s tools, applications and worldwide support.”

Concurrent takes Redhat and then tweaks it for realtime operation and
calls it Redhawk and packages it with their hardware. Using Linux will
provide CyberMetrix with a marketing advantage over QNX thanks to
Linux’s popularity in recent years.

36

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

“Armin Steinhoff” <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:beogo1$joi$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Igor Kovalenko wrote:
“Armin Steinhoff” <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:belv1e$kfl$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

where neither MS nor Linux do not have a lot of strong points.

I can’t follow your logic here …

That ‘restrictive’ and ‘competitive’ market has specific requirements that
are not met very well by either MS or Linux. MS likes to makes their stuff
more prominent than the hardware it is running on. But auto manufacturers
are not inclined to show Windows logo on car dashboards… And Linux’s
major weakness there is intellectual property issue.

What are these weaknesses with intellectual property issues ?? Or are
you just telling us FUDs??


You could not have just stopped at the end of the first sentence, could you?
Why is it that every time you pose a question it has to look like a blame?
This makes discussion with you about as pleasant as talking to a prosecutor.

What I dislike, is that it sounds as if you “warn” using Linux because
of intellectual property issues. Intellectual property issues are common
in the states since every ‘bullsh …’ can be patented. So everyone who
writes a piece of software isn’t in a secure situation.
When you point out especially that “Linux’s major weakness there is
intellectual property issue” so it’s just like telling FUD for me,
sorry.

BTW, it’s a quite normal NA behaviour to sue an other company.


Why would I be interested in FUD? I don’t own QNX stock or have any other
financial interest in this.
Now to your question… ever thought what could happen if SCO wins their
lawsuit against IBM?

I’m sure it will end like the xyBSD vs. AT&T story …

FYI, SCO has been disallowed to tell in Germany that SCO code is part
of LINUX !


A very large manufacturer has
very large exposure to potential copyright infringement claims.

This is a nice theory … I have different experiences.

They can’t afford the risk.

They simply are doing it …

Once upon a time BeOS had a network driver based on Linux tulip source. It
turned out to be pretty expensive driver for Be Inc. AFAIK, they were forced
to pay $1M to the driver author…

Interesting, it can only happen when they didn’t read the specific open
source GPL in advance…


So competition there is easier for QNX. They have clean enough IP and they
are flexible on the branding. And there’s not so much dependency on 3rd
party software and drivers - big fish has its own hardware and drivers
and software (or QNX can afford to write it for them).

You are dreaming …


No, I am wasting my time. Lot of people have learned this, so I should have
known better…

I have learned that big companies have also financial restrictions and
are dealing with very different customers, that means they have to
provide a lot of very different hardware/software configurations at
minimal costs.
These big companies can’t support a dozen different niche OSes … so
they are working with external partners which provide the appropriate
specific KNOW-HOW.

Being big doesn’t mean you can develop everything … why is e.g. IBM
not developing their own embedded OS? Are they not big enough?

Igor, you and me have an other perspective: you are currently co-worker
of a big fish, we are 3rd party. Reality is that big fishes are asking
also 3rd parties for custom engineering and have also no problems
integrating e.g. our DACHS products with their own hardware… as you
know, also the company for which you are working.

Armin

37

How come Armin can’t just buy runtimes for his customers and then
distribute
them with his product?

As said already, each owner of Momentics can order Runtime Licenses. But
how to box-shift a sheet of paper and sticker for installation when a
customer expects software ??

Ahh, I think I get it. You aren’t sending them hardware. You want to send
them a CD that they then install. I suppose you can’t make a self
installing CD that includes a QNX runtime, because you would have to make
sure it didn’t get used and abused in ways that would upset QSSL…

I’m used to QNX being used on some hardware. You do all the installation
when the product is built, and you ship it…

Yes…I would agree that you don’t want to write an application using QNX.
Even if they did change their pricing policy, it doesn’t make much
sense…

Kevin

QSSx is not willing to provide original CDs with QNX Runtime Module
Licenses for such customers!

  • my proposal was to offer bundles with 5 or 10 runtime module licenses
    including a QNX runtime-CD (at max. 2-3 standard runtime module license
    versions). QSSL could even box-shift such a bundle in an online shop.


    I haven’t had my head in the pricing structure and requirements of QSSL
    as
    of late, so please excuse my simpleton questions…

I think I’ve explained already in previous emails …

  • Jutta



    Kevin

“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@attbi.com> > wrote in message
news:belbu8$rr4$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3F0DBD12.E222BE54@web.de> …

[…]
Notice, in industrial automation are used often SCADAs or SoftPLCs,
that
means you don’t need Momentics.

It is unfortunate fact that for the last several years QNX has
concentrated
so much on the IDE side of things that core OS had become somewhat of
a
neglected ‘older daughter’, both technologically and
‘marketologically’.
It is understandable because the lack of tools was their biggest
problem in
the past, plus they think they can make more money selling dev
seats… It
appears their biggest customers don’t want to pay royalties for the
runtimes at all and prefer ‘buyouts’, so why bother.

So, from one extreme they swung into the opposite. Perhaps eventually
they
will come to a balanced state, I hope not when it is too late. Nobody
wants to buy an expensive dev seat for a technically obsolete core
OS…

But the “little guy” are also big companies which will need a single
QNX system. OTOH, small innovative companies which are often
pioneers
for the “big dogs” can’t use QNX for non embedded systems…

The real joke is their marketing stragedy when distributing
thousands of
QRTP and QNX6 NC CDs, even in PC Magazines. A system which is
unwanted
for non embedded targets is normally not distributed in that way in
order to shock people if they really want to use it …

BTW, did you ever see demos or non commercial software distributed
on
fairs or in magazines from Greenhill’s INTEGRITY, WindRiver’s
VxWorks
or Jaluna’s C5 (based on CHORUS!) which can even be integrated into
Linux?

QNX is not the only RTOS and we have to accept the decision from
QSSL
that they don’t want to take part in the rapidly growing open
control
market with QNX target systems where realtime is requested much more
than in the past.

They don’t, apparently. They may be right in that. This market is
selling
few runtimes to thousands of small customers, with no development
seats.
Maintaining adequate sales infrastructure for a company of 100 people
and
$20M annual sales is impractical. And competing with Linux & MS in
that area
is even less practical. So they are concentrating on large customers
with
custom hardware and high volumes, where neither MS nor Linux do not
have a
lot of strong points.

If you are trying to sell and OS that even the OS vendor does not want
to
sell in that market, you’re making a big marketing mistake. You’ll be
sailing against the wind.

So let me play a devil’s advocate… You night indeed stop wasting
time on
futile resistance. Just use something that is intended/marketed for
your
market.

– igor

38

Kevin Stallard wrote:

How come Armin can’t just buy runtimes for his customers and
then distribute them with his product?

As said already, each owner of Momentics can order Runtime Licenses. But
how to box-shift a sheet of paper and sticker for installation when a
customer expects software ??

Ahh, I think I get it. You aren’t sending them hardware.

yes, if you are talking about complete PC systems.

APIs, SCADAS, SoftPLCs, fieldbus systems etc. are normaly offered w/o PC
and it’s up to the system integrator, the machine manufacturer or OEM to
install it into his application or embedded system which he sells.

BTW, if OpenOffice will be available for QNX, so each user, if not using
NC for private use, would have to buy at least Momentics SE [if possible
w/o Support (updates)] for $4000 - $7000 (dependent from which QNXsub
or distributor he has to buy). It would clearly prevent the commercial
use of OpenOffice on a QNX platform …

You want to send them a CD that they then install.

no, we don’t want :wink:)
Customers will need simply a QNX runtime with original software as you
can get e.g. for your office PC or for industrial PCs from different OS
vendors.
Do you would buy the M$ Developer Network subscription from M$ when you
want to run MS-Word or any industrial COTS system ??

I suppose you can’t make a self
installing CD that includes a QNX runtime, because you would have to make
sure it didn’t get used and abused in ways that would upset QSSL…

That’s not the problem … as told already, we are not QNX distributor!
Think about all legal issues when you box-shift a QNX license sheet and
lable and you are burning yourself the “original” CD for installing…

Notice, it’s a difference if you resell a complete device or application
incl. an installed QNX runtime or if you resell a QNX product (license)
separately which comes w/o CD or diskette from the vendor…

If abusing of QNX runtimes is an issue, then QSSL should stop providing
the NC version :wink: OTOH, who guarantees that all Momentics customers
are using the software legally?

Our experience shows that illegal use of software happens in industry
regardless if software was bought legally or not, c’est la vie…


I’m used to QNX being used on some hardware.

… and you buy it from QSSx, right?

You do all the installation
when the product is built, and you ship it…

Kevin, I assume that you buy hardware and QNX 3rd party products w/o any
QNX licenses, isn’t it? In the same way, non C/C++ programmers would
like to buy for their application, too!

I can’t imagine that you would buy a complete car incl. annual
inspection when you will need only the wheels… you would just look
for an other shop which offers wheels also separately. But when you will
decide later for a car, I don’t think you would go back to the car
vendor who didn’t sell wheels to you…

Yes…I would agree that you don’t want to write an application using QNX.

??
It’s up to the customer to decide how to write an application… we
provide “only” C-APIs, non C-APIs and workbenches for QNX Target systems
… and BTW, for machines which have to be changed very often, visual
programming is done much faster and has many advantages. Industrial
automation has a spectrum from embedded device up to huge plants, and
there are veeeery different requirements.


Even if they did change their pricing policy, it doesn’t make much
sense…

Sorry, I can’t follow you.

  • Jutta



Kevin


QSSx is not willing to provide original CDs with QNX Runtime Module
Licenses for such customers!

  • my proposal was to offer bundles with 5 or 10 runtime module licenses
    including a QNX runtime-CD (at max. 2-3 standard runtime module license
    versions). QSSL could even box-shift such a bundle in an online shop.


    I haven’t had my head in the pricing structure and requirements of QSSL
    as of late, so please excuse my simpleton questions…

I think I’ve explained already in previous emails …

  • Jutta



    Kevin

“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@attbi.com> > wrote in message
news:belbu8$rr4$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3F0DBD12.E222BE54@web.de> …

[…]
Notice, in industrial automation are used often SCADAs or SoftPLCs,
that means you don’t need Momentics.

It is unfortunate fact that for the last several years QNX has
concentrated so much on the IDE side of things that core OS
had become somewhat of a neglected neglected
‘older daughter’, both technologically and ‘marketologically’.
It is understandable because the lack of tools was their
biggest problem in the past,
the past, plus they think they can make more money selling
dev seats… It appears their
biggest customers don’t want to pay royalties for the
runtimes at all and prefer ‘buyouts’, so why bother.

So, from one extreme they swung into the opposite. Perhaps eventually
they will come to a balanced state, I hope not when it is too late.
Nobody wants to buy an expensive dev seat for a technically obsolete
core OS…

But the “little guy” are also big companies which will need a single
QNX system. OTOH, small innovative companies which are often
pioneers
for the “big dogs” can’t use QNX for non embedded systems…

The real joke is their marketing stragedy when distributing
thousands of
QRTP and QNX6 NC CDs, even in PC Magazines. A system which is
unwanted
for non embedded targets is normally not distributed in that way
in order to shock people if they really want to use it …

BTW, did you ever see demos or non commercial software distributed
on fairs or in magazines from Greenhill’s INTEGRITY, WindRiver’s
VxWorks or Jaluna’s C5
(based on CHORUS!) which can even be integrated into Linux?

QNX is not the only RTOS and we have to accept the decision from
QSSL that they don’t want to take part in the rapidly growing
open control
market with QNX target systems where realtime is requested much
more than in the past.

They don’t, apparently. They may be right in that. This market is
selling
few runtimes to thousands of small customers, with no development
seats.
Maintaining adequate sales infrastructure for a company of
100 people and $20M annual sales is impractical. And competing
with Linux & MS in that area is even less
practical. So they are concentrating on large customers with
custom hardware and high volumes, where neither MS nor Linux
do not have a lot of strong points.

If you are trying to sell and OS that even the OS vendor does not
want to sell in that market, you’re making a big marketing mistake.
You’ll be sailing against the wind.

So let me play a devil’s advocate… You night indeed stop wasting
time on futile resistance.
Just use something that is intended/marketed for your market.

– igor

39

I’m used to QNX being used on some hardware.

… and you buy it from QSSx, right?

No. QNX is installed on a some custom hardware that is developed (whether
it be a slot machine or the vehicle control system of hybrid electric battle
tank). The customer does no installation, just turn on what ever it is that
was purchased and use it. The OEM installs a OS runtime that was purchased
from QSSL and ships it to the customer. Customer plugs it in and turns it
on. OEM manages software upgrades in the form of firmware updates.

You do all the installation
when the product is built, and you ship it…

Kevin, I assume that you buy hardware and QNX 3rd party products w/o any
QNX licenses, isn’t it? In the same way, non C/C++ programmers would
like to buy for their application, too!

No. I buy QNX runtimes and install them on end products.

I can’t imagine that you would buy a complete car incl. annual
inspection when you will need only the wheels… you would just look
for an other shop which offers wheels also separately. But when you will
decide later for a car, I don’t think you would go back to the car
vendor who didn’t sell wheels to you…

Yes…I would agree that you don’t want to write an application using
QNX.

??
It’s up to the customer to decide how to write an application… we
provide “only” C-APIs, non C-APIs and workbenches for QNX Target systems
… and BTW, for machines which have to be changed very often, visual
programming is done much faster and has many advantages. Industrial
automation has a spectrum from embedded device up to huge plants, and
there are veeeery different requirements.

Jutta, this is what I’m saying. Your customers are doing development on
QNX. Sounds like you have an opportunity to reduce the amount of
programming your customers do, thus you can eliminate the need for their
purchasing of development seats. You can buy runitmes that go with your
system and sell it as a complete package. Create your own CD with the qnx
runtime and they plug it in and install it.

Sounds like QSSL has created an opportunity for you to inovate a little…

Kevin

Even if they did change their pricing policy, it doesn’t make much
sense…

Sorry, I can’t follow you.

  • Jutta




    Kevin


    QSSx is not willing to provide original CDs with QNX Runtime Module
    Licenses for such customers!

  • my proposal was to offer bundles with 5 or 10 runtime module
    licenses
    including a QNX runtime-CD (at max. 2-3 standard runtime module
    license
    versions). QSSL could even box-shift such a bundle in an online shop.


    I haven’t had my head in the pricing structure and requirements of
    QSSL
    as of late, so please excuse my simpleton questions…

I think I’ve explained already in previous emails …

  • Jutta



    Kevin

“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@attbi.com> > wrote in message
news:belbu8$rr4$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
“Jutta Steinhoff” <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote in message
news:> 3F0DBD12.E222BE54@web.de> …

[…]
Notice, in industrial automation are used often SCADAs or
SoftPLCs,
that means you don’t need Momentics.

It is unfortunate fact that for the last several years QNX has
concentrated so much on the IDE side of things that core OS
had become somewhat of a neglected neglected
‘older daughter’, both technologically and ‘marketologically’.
It is understandable because the lack of tools was their
biggest problem in the past,
the past, plus they think they can make more money selling
dev seats… It appears their
biggest customers don’t want to pay royalties for the
runtimes at all and prefer ‘buyouts’, so why bother.

So, from one extreme they swung into the opposite. Perhaps
eventually
they will come to a balanced state, I hope not when it is too
late.
Nobody wants to buy an expensive dev seat for a technically
obsolete
core OS…

But the “little guy” are also big companies which will need a
single
QNX system. OTOH, small innovative companies which are often
pioneers
for the “big dogs” can’t use QNX for non embedded systems…

The real joke is their marketing stragedy when distributing
thousands of
QRTP and QNX6 NC CDs, even in PC Magazines. A system which is
unwanted
for non embedded targets is normally not distributed in that way
in order to shock people if they really want to use it …

BTW, did you ever see demos or non commercial software
distributed
on fairs or in magazines from Greenhill’s INTEGRITY, WindRiver’s
VxWorks or Jaluna’s C5
(based on CHORUS!) which can even be integrated into Linux?

QNX is not the only RTOS and we have to accept the decision from
QSSL that they don’t want to take part in the rapidly growing
open control
market with QNX target systems where realtime is requested much
more than in the past.

They don’t, apparently. They may be right in that. This market is
selling
few runtimes to thousands of small customers, with no development
seats.
Maintaining adequate sales infrastructure for a company of
100 people and $20M annual sales is impractical. And competing
with Linux & MS in that area is even less
practical. So they are concentrating on large customers with
custom hardware and high volumes, where neither MS nor Linux
do not have a lot of strong points.

If you are trying to sell and OS that even the OS vendor does not
want to sell in that market, you’re making a big marketing
mistake.
You’ll be sailing against the wind.

So let me play a devil’s advocate… You night indeed stop wasting
time on futile resistance.
Just use something that is intended/marketed for your market.

– igor

40

Kevin Stallard wrote:

I’m used to QNX being used on some hardware.

… and you buy it from QSSx, right?

No. QNX is installed on a some custom hardware that is developed (whether
it be a slot machine or the vehicle control system of hybrid electric battle
tank). The customer does no installation, just turn on what ever it is that
was purchased and use it. The OEM installs a OS runtime that was purchased
from QSSL and ships it to the customer. Customer plugs it in and turns it
on. OEM manages software upgrades in the form of firmware updates.

ok, sounds like you buy complete devices (machines) which runs already
under QNX


You do all the installation
when the product is built, and you ship it…

Kevin, I assume that you buy hardware and QNX 3rd party products w/o any
QNX licenses, isn’t it? In the same way, non C/C++ programmers would
like to buy for their application, too!

No. I buy QNX runtimes and install them on end products.

… on what end product if you buy devices incl. QNX as mentioned
above? Sorry, but I can’t follow you…


I can’t imagine that you would buy a complete car incl. annual
inspection when you will need only the wheels… you would just look
for an other shop which offers wheels also separately. But when you will
decide later for a car, I don’t think you would go back to the car
vendor who didn’t sell wheels to you…

Yes…I would agree that you don’t want to write an application using
QNX.

??
It’s up to the customer to decide how to write an application… we
provide “only” C-APIs, non C-APIs and workbenches for QNX Target systems
… and BTW, for machines which have to be changed very often, visual
programming is done much faster and has many advantages. Industrial
automation has a spectrum from embedded device up to huge plants, and
there are veeeery different requirements.

Jutta, this is what I’m saying. Your customers are doing development on
QNX.

No … some of our customers don’t develop on QNX!


Sounds like you have an opportunity to reduce the amount of
programming your customers do,

Yes … they are working on a much higher level of programming.


thus you can eliminate the need for their
purchasing of development seats.

Kevin, if they don’t need a C-developer’s seat for QNX, Solaris, Linux,
M$ or whatever, they will need an other programming environment.

BTW, also Workbenches, SCADA systems etc. cost money, so it’s not a
question of eliminating costs, it’s a question of specific requirements
of the enduser.

BTW, programming of QNX based SoftPLCs e.g. gives also engineers access
to QNX who are not
able to progam in C, but that’s not the only reason for using the 5
IEC61131-3 programming languages.


You can buy runitmes that go with your
system and sell it as a complete package. Create your own CD with the qnx
runtime and they plug it in and install it.

Sounds like QSSL has created an opportunity for you to inovate a little…

Thanks for your advise, but it seems you didn’t understand what I
wrote :wink:

Anyway, I hope you have learned at least that C-programming (by
developer’s seats) is not the only way of writing QNX applications and
that non-C development environments need only a QNX runtime and not
Momentics.

  • Jutta