QNX Source: Migrating Linux to QNX

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
1

The opening sentence of the lastest QNX Source is not what I would
call an endering one … “Recent SCO legal action highlights some of
the risks and potential hidden costs of using and deploying
open-source products such as Linux”

This is not a good approach to attracting new customers. Especially
since the NC releases of QNX is, in part, spreading good will to same
people.

And the statement is quite wrong, the SCO incident is showing just
how robust the open-source approach is.


Cheers,
Evan

2

“Evan Hillas” <blarg@blarg.org> wrote in message
news:bkd38d$78g$1@inn.qnx.com…

The opening sentence of the lastest QNX Source is not what I would
call an endering one … “Recent SCO legal action highlights some of
the risks and potential hidden costs of using and deploying
open-source products such as Linux”

This is not a good approach to attracting new customers. Especially
since the NC releases of QNX is, in part, spreading good will to same
people.

And the statement is quite wrong, the SCO incident is showing just
how robust the open-source approach is.

I agree with Evan, I think using SCO legal action as a reference is, IHMO, a
cheap shot, below the belt ;-| But then again the QNX Source stuff will be
long forgotten in a few weeks…

Cheers,
Evan

3

Evan Hillas wrote:

The opening sentence of the lastest QNX Source is not what I would
call an endering one … “Recent SCO legal action highlights some of
the risks and potential hidden costs of using and deploying
open-source products such as Linux”

This is not a good approach to attracting new customers. Especially
since the NC releases of QNX is, in part, spreading good will to same
people.

And the statement is quite wrong, the SCO incident is showing just
how robust the open-source approach is.

Absolutely! Reference to SCO means QNX is buying in to SCO’s tactics of
spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Not at all what I expect from
QNX.

Norton Allen

4

Norton Allen <allen@huarp.harvard.edu> wrote:

Evan Hillas wrote:
The opening sentence of the lastest QNX Source is not what I would
call an endering one … “Recent SCO legal action highlights some of
the risks and potential hidden costs of using and deploying
open-source products such as Linux”

This is not a good approach to attracting new customers. Especially
since the NC releases of QNX is, in part, spreading good will to same
people.

And the statement is quite wrong, the SCO incident is showing just
how robust the open-source approach is.

Absolutely! Reference to SCO means QNX is buying in to SCO’s tactics of
spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Not at all what I expect from
QNX.

Everyone does it :slight_smile: RIAA: “We will sue you and you have to prove
that you don’t have MP3’s, by the way, please buy some CD’s from
our member companies” :slight_smile:

Some advocates of FreeBSD: “Use FreeBSD, we’ve done the whole lawsuite
thing with AT&T and our code is good” :slight_smile:

I smell “flamebait”!

Cheers,
-RK

–
[If replying via email, you’ll need to click on the URL that’s emailed to you
afterwards to forward the email to me – spam filters and all that]
Robert Krten, PDP minicomputer collector http://www.parse.com/~pdp8/

5

Evan Hillas wrote:

The opening sentence of the lastest QNX Source is not what I would
call an endering one … “Recent SCO legal action highlights some of
the risks and potential hidden costs of using and deploying
open-source products such as Linux”

I see only “risks and potential hidden costs” if sources of ‘open source
drivers’ are re-used by 80% in order to build a QNX driver … not to
talk about ‘intellectual properties’, software patents a.s.o.

This is not a good approach to attracting new customers.

That’s quite normal ‘Marketing by QSSL’ :slight_smile:

Armin

Especially since the NC releases of QNX is, in part, spreading good will to same
people.

And the statement is quite wrong, the SCO incident is showing just
how robust the open-source approach is.


Cheers,
Evan

6

Armin Steinhoff wrote:

Evan Hillas wrote:

The opening sentence of the lastest QNX Source is not what I would
call an endering one … “Recent SCO legal action highlights some of
the risks and potential hidden costs of using and deploying
open-source products such as Linux”


I see only “risks and potential hidden costs” if sources of ‘open source
drivers’ are re-used by 80% in order to build a QNX driver … not to
talk about ‘intellectual properties’, software patents a.s.o.

The message from QSS is definately inconsistant; however, as long as 100% of the
modified driver source is made publicly available (in keeping with the terms of
the GPL), then there are no problems.

It is certainly cheezy to mention the SCO thing, and then (in the same document)
tout the benefits of deriving driver code from a GPL source base; OTOH you have
been known to compare QSS marketing in a negative light wrt Microsofts, and now
that QSS is apparently using M$ marketing tactics, you’re whining about it…

7

The message from QSS is definately inconsistant; however, as long as 100% of the
modified driver source is made publicly available (in keeping with the terms of
the GPL), then there are no problems.

It is certainly cheezy to mention the SCO thing, and then (in the same document)
tout the benefits of deriving driver code from a GPL source base; OTOH you have
been known to compare QSS marketing in a negative light wrt Microsofts, and now
that QSS is apparently using M$ marketing tactics, you’re whining about it…

Actually, if you read the intro on the talk, it is about people taking thier
linux drivers (GPL or not) and being able to easily re-use thier IP on QNX.
Not just drivers either, part of the talk is on Neutrino’s use of POSIX and
how you can use that to easily bring user-space apps over as well.

http://www.qnx.com/news/seminars/linux.html

chris

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

8

Rennie Allen wrote:

Armin Steinhoff wrote:

Evan Hillas wrote:

The opening sentence of the lastest QNX Source is not what I would
call an endering one … “Recent SCO legal action highlights some of
the risks and potential hidden costs of using and deploying
open-source products such as Linux”



I see only “risks and potential hidden costs” if sources of ‘open
source drivers’ are re-used by 80% in order to build a QNX driver …
not to talk about ‘intellectual properties’, software patents a.s.o.


The message from QSS is definately inconsistant; however, as long as
100% of the modified driver source is made publicly available (in
keeping with the terms of the GPL), then there are no problems.

It is certainly cheezy to mention the SCO thing, and then (in the same
document) tout the benefits of deriving driver code from a GPL source
base; OTOH you have been known to compare QSS marketing in a negative
light wrt Microsofts, and now that QSS is apparently using M$ marketing
tactics, you’re whining about it…

No … I don’t whining about it. The question is just why must QSSL
follow the dirty FUD tactic of M$ when they try to attract LINUX users?

That’s really brain damaged …

Armin

9

“Chris McKillop” <cdm@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:bkigdg$dhr$1@nntp.qnx.com…

The message from QSS is definately inconsistant; however, as long as
100% of the
modified driver source is made publicly available (in keeping with the
terms of
the GPL), then there are no problems.

It is certainly cheezy to mention the SCO thing, and then (in the same
document)
tout the benefits of deriving driver code from a GPL source base; OTOH
you have
been known to compare QSS marketing in a negative light wrt Microsofts,
and now
that QSS is apparently using M$ marketing tactics, you’re whining about
it…


Actually, if you read the intro on the talk, it is about people taking
thier
linux drivers (GPL or not) and being able to easily re-use thier IP on
QNX.
Not just drivers either, part of the talk is on Neutrino’s use of POSIX
and
how you can use that to easily bring user-space apps over as well.

http://www.qnx.com/news/seminars/linux.html

Still, QNX is proposing something to people who by implication are already
involved with Linux, using a cliche FUD statement. That will if anything,
annoy them very much and turn off the interest. Very short sighted and
unimaginative. The author of that statement also has mixed up the target
audiences… If this is for managers, the webcast should not be technical.
If this is for engineers, they don’t need such silly baits. And in any case,
QNX should have balls to propose their stuff because it is BETTER not
because SCO has a lawsuit…

Now that almost any company has some project going using Linux, the scare
tactics does not work even with managers anymore - they are more afraid to
use QNX than Linux because of the black sheep syndrome. But if you can show
a real technical and/or financial merit, anyone with brains will give it a
consideration.

– igor

10

Still, QNX is proposing something to people who by implication are already
involved with Linux, using a cliche FUD statement. That will if anything,
annoy them very much and turn off the interest. Very short sighted and
unimaginative. The author of that statement also has mixed up the target
audiences… If this is for managers, the webcast should not be technical.
If this is for engineers, they don’t need such silly baits. And in any
case,
QNX should have balls to propose their stuff because it is BETTER not
because SCO has a lawsuit…

Now that almost any company has some project going using Linux, the scare
tactics does not work even with managers anymore - they are more afraid to
use QNX than Linux because of the black sheep syndrome. But if you can
show
a real technical and/or financial merit, anyone with brains will give it a
consideration.

– igor

I have to agree. Even though technacally QNX is better, the fact is people

are being succesfull in their embedded/RT Lunux apps or there would be a
backlash against it. You’d read about it a lot more.

This web seminar thingy looks like QSSL betting that SCO will prevail. It’s
too bad QSSL doesn’t have more confidence in themselves and their product.

Kevin

11

I’ve been sitting here working on things, and I had a few thoughts I wanted
to add.

If you’re going to attack Linux. Attack it. But attack it head on. It is
inferior product when compared the QNX in many ways. Stop with the cheap
shots with regards to legality. There is no respect in that.

If you have case studies as to how much it really costs to use Linux
compared to QNX. Show them. If you have industry examples how a product
was brought to market cheaper and faster, use it. If you want to show how
QNX is more reliable, faster, etc, etc. Do it. Make those claims. Make
'em loud and make 'em big and make 'em long. BE BOLD

I favor gettring aggressive against Linux. I think a problem that you will
have is that once it is chosen, it is more difficult to change directions.
I realize that this web seminar is supposed to help out with that, but they
aren’t going to change directions today because there is some threatened
lawsuit against it.

I think that if you want people to change today, you need to contrast the
product with yours. This is harder and much more difficult and even
expensive to do. But this is what needs to be done. Stop with the cheap
shots and get serious.

Kevin


“Kevin Stallard” <kevin@ffflyingrobots.com> wrote in message
news:bl9lg9$mpm$1@inn.qnx.com…

Still, QNX is proposing something to people who by implication are
already
involved with Linux, using a cliche FUD statement. That will if
anything,
annoy them very much and turn off the interest. Very short sighted and
unimaginative. The author of that statement also has mixed up the target
audiences… If this is for managers, the webcast should not be
technical.
If this is for engineers, they don’t need such silly baits. And in any
case,
QNX should have balls to propose their stuff because it is BETTER not
because SCO has a lawsuit…

Now that almost any company has some project going using Linux, the
scare
tactics does not work even with managers anymore - they are more afraid
to
use QNX than Linux because of the black sheep syndrome. But if you can
show
a real technical and/or financial merit, anyone with brains will give it
a
consideration.

– igor

I have to agree. Even though technacally QNX is better, the fact is
people
are being succesfull in their embedded/RT Lunux apps or there would be a
backlash against it. You’d read about it a lot more.

This web seminar thingy looks like QSSL betting that SCO will prevail.
It’s
too bad QSSL doesn’t have more confidence in themselves and their product.

Kevin

\

12

“QNX” <kevin@ffllyyiinnggrroobboottss…ccoomm> wrote in message
news:bla9je$7an$1@inn.qnx.com…

I’ve been sitting here working on things, and I had a few thoughts I
wanted
to add.

If you’re going to attack Linux. Attack it. But attack it head on. It
is
inferior product when compared the QNX in many ways. Stop with the cheap
shots with regards to legality. There is no respect in that.

If you have case studies as to how much it really costs to use Linux
compared to QNX. Show them. If you have industry examples how a product
was brought to market cheaper and faster, use it. If you want to show how
QNX is more reliable, faster, etc, etc. Do it. Make those claims. Make
'em loud and make 'em big and make 'em long. BE BOLD

I favor gettring aggressive against Linux. I think a problem that you
will
have is that once it is chosen, it is more difficult to change directions.
I realize that this web seminar is supposed to help out with that, but
they
aren’t going to change directions today because there is some threatened
lawsuit against it.

I think that if you want people to change today, you need to contrast the
product with yours. This is harder and much more difficult and even
expensive to do. But this is what needs to be done. Stop with the cheap
shots and get serious.

Many people I talk to think of QNX6 as a Linux with a 8000$ price tag…

Kevin


“Kevin Stallard” <> kevin@ffflyingrobots.com> > wrote in message
news:bl9lg9$mpm$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Still, QNX is proposing something to people who by implication are
already
involved with Linux, using a cliche FUD statement. That will if
anything,
annoy them very much and turn off the interest. Very short sighted and
unimaginative. The author of that statement also has mixed up the
target
audiences… If this is for managers, the webcast should not be
technical.
If this is for engineers, they don’t need such silly baits. And in any
case,
QNX should have balls to propose their stuff because it is BETTER not
because SCO has a lawsuit…

Now that almost any company has some project going using Linux, the
scare
tactics does not work even with managers anymore - they are more
afraid
to
use QNX than Linux because of the black sheep syndrome. But if you can
show
a real technical and/or financial merit, anyone with brains will give
it
a
consideration.

– igor

I have to agree. Even though technacally QNX is better, the fact is
people
are being succesfull in their embedded/RT Lunux apps or there would be a
backlash against it. You’d read about it a lot more.

This web seminar thingy looks like QSSL betting that SCO will prevail.
It’s
too bad QSSL doesn’t have more confidence in themselves and their
product.

Kevin



\

13

The webcast itself was rather short of expectations too. The usual ritual
talk about the microkernel vs monolithic for an appetizer, as if people
still haven’t figured that out a decade after Mach3… Then goes the entree
served in form of a statement that an ethernet driver was ported in some 12
hours while preserving 80% of the original code. Great, except there was no
details whatsoever, save for few macros to make already OS-independent code
compile. The rest 20% (that would be the point of such a presentation IMHO)
were left as an exsercize for the audience… Then the desert came - ‘we
will gladly answer any questions…’

I did not know what to ask, still feeling like I haven’t ate anything when
the dinner was over. I’ve been tempted to ask why the hell people would
consider moving in the first place, since I haven’t noticed an answer to
that main question anywhere in the menu… but decided not to make a public
scandal. So, no tip for you this time. Stale food that was not even good
when it was fresh anyway, thank you very much.

– igor

P.S.
I’ve been down that road three times myself and I know there is more to
tell and to do to help people along…

“QNX” <kevin@ffllyyiinnggrroobboottss…ccoomm> wrote in message
news:bla9je$7an$1@inn.qnx.com…

I’ve been sitting here working on things, and I had a few thoughts I
wanted
to add.

If you’re going to attack Linux. Attack it. But attack it head on. It
is
inferior product when compared the QNX in many ways. Stop with the cheap
shots with regards to legality. There is no respect in that.

If you have case studies as to how much it really costs to use Linux
compared to QNX. Show them. If you have industry examples how a product
was brought to market cheaper and faster, use it. If you want to show how
QNX is more reliable, faster, etc, etc. Do it. Make those claims. Make
'em loud and make 'em big and make 'em long. BE BOLD

I favor gettring aggressive against Linux. I think a problem that you
will
have is that once it is chosen, it is more difficult to change directions.
I realize that this web seminar is supposed to help out with that, but
they
aren’t going to change directions today because there is some threatened
lawsuit against it.

I think that if you want people to change today, you need to contrast the
product with yours. This is harder and much more difficult and even
expensive to do. But this is what needs to be done. Stop with the cheap
shots and get serious.

Kevin


“Kevin Stallard” <> kevin@ffflyingrobots.com> > wrote in message
news:bl9lg9$mpm$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Still, QNX is proposing something to people who by implication are
already
involved with Linux, using a cliche FUD statement. That will if
anything,
annoy them very much and turn off the interest. Very short sighted and
unimaginative. The author of that statement also has mixed up the
target
audiences… If this is for managers, the webcast should not be
technical.
If this is for engineers, they don’t need such silly baits. And in any
case,
QNX should have balls to propose their stuff because it is BETTER not
because SCO has a lawsuit…

Now that almost any company has some project going using Linux, the
scare
tactics does not work even with managers anymore - they are more
afraid
to
use QNX than Linux because of the black sheep syndrome. But if you can
show
a real technical and/or financial merit, anyone with brains will give
it
a
consideration.

– igor

I have to agree. Even though technacally QNX is better, the fact is
people
are being succesfull in their embedded/RT Lunux apps or there would be a
backlash against it. You’d read about it a lot more.

This web seminar thingy looks like QSSL betting that SCO will prevail.
It’s
too bad QSSL doesn’t have more confidence in themselves and their
product.

Kevin



\

14

Mario Charest wrote:
[ clip …]

Many people I talk to think of QNX6 as a Linux with a 8000$ price tag…

With the kernel version 2.6 of LINUX (includes some of the ‘low latency
patches’ and ‘kernel preemption patches’) … that’s the case in some
extent :slight_smile:

Cheers

Armin

15

Kevin Stallard wrote:

QSSL, you guys need to get your crap together. This looks bad. You’re a
technology company…you shouldn’t be making mistakes like this!

Before you get too up-in-arms about that, it might be prudent to note that
it could be any number of factors that resulted in the late delivery of the
mail. I did get an email for the web seminar, and it was in the morning
the day of the seminar.

16

Mario Charest wrote:

consider myself and extension of QSS task force… If I wanted to have them

QSS task force ? Is this a new movie starring the next governor of
California :wink:

17

Today I just received an email inviting me to join this web seminar. Yes
that’s right…it’s October 1st and I got an invite via email to join the
seminar on September 29th. Did anyone else get this?

QSSL, you guys need to get your crap together. This looks bad. You’re a
technology company…you shouldn’t be making mistakes like this!

Kevin

“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:blcd5g$o29$1@inn.qnx.com…

The webcast itself was rather short of expectations too. The usual ritual
talk about the microkernel vs monolithic for an appetizer, as if people
still haven’t figured that out a decade after Mach3… Then goes the
entree
served in form of a statement that an ethernet driver was ported in some
12
hours while preserving 80% of the original code. Great, except there was
no
details whatsoever, save for few macros to make already OS-independent
code
compile. The rest 20% (that would be the point of such a presentation
IMHO)
were left as an exsercize for the audience… Then the desert came - ‘we
will gladly answer any questions…’

I did not know what to ask, still feeling like I haven’t ate anything when
the dinner was over. I’ve been tempted to ask why the hell people would
consider moving in the first place, since I haven’t noticed an answer to
that main question anywhere in the menu… but decided not to make a
public
scandal. So, no tip for you this time. Stale food that was not even good
when it was fresh anyway, thank you very much.

– igor

P.S.
I’ve been down that road three times myself and I know there is more to
tell and to do to help people along…

“QNX” <kevin@ffllyyiinnggrroobboottss…ccoomm> wrote in message
news:bla9je$7an$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
I’ve been sitting here working on things, and I had a few thoughts I
wanted
to add.

If you’re going to attack Linux. Attack it. But attack it head on. It
is
inferior product when compared the QNX in many ways. Stop with the
cheap
shots with regards to legality. There is no respect in that.

If you have case studies as to how much it really costs to use Linux
compared to QNX. Show them. If you have industry examples how a
product
was brought to market cheaper and faster, use it. If you want to show
how
QNX is more reliable, faster, etc, etc. Do it. Make those claims.
Make
'em loud and make 'em big and make 'em long. BE BOLD

I favor gettring aggressive against Linux. I think a problem that you
will
have is that once it is chosen, it is more difficult to change
directions.
I realize that this web seminar is supposed to help out with that, but
they
aren’t going to change directions today because there is some threatened
lawsuit against it.

I think that if you want people to change today, you need to contrast
the
product with yours. This is harder and much more difficult and even
expensive to do. But this is what needs to be done. Stop with the
cheap
shots and get serious.

Kevin


“Kevin Stallard” <> kevin@ffflyingrobots.com> > wrote in message
news:bl9lg9$mpm$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Still, QNX is proposing something to people who by implication are
already
involved with Linux, using a cliche FUD statement. That will if
anything,
annoy them very much and turn off the interest. Very short sighted
and
unimaginative. The author of that statement also has mixed up the
target
audiences… If this is for managers, the webcast should not be
technical.
If this is for engineers, they don’t need such silly baits. And in
any
case,
QNX should have balls to propose their stuff because it is BETTER
not
because SCO has a lawsuit…

Now that almost any company has some project going using Linux, the
scare
tactics does not work even with managers anymore - they are more
afraid
to
use QNX than Linux because of the black sheep syndrome. But if you
can
show
a real technical and/or financial merit, anyone with brains will
give
it
a
consideration.

– igor

I have to agree. Even though technacally QNX is better, the fact is
people
are being succesfull in their embedded/RT Lunux apps or there would be
a
backlash against it. You’d read about it a lot more.

This web seminar thingy looks like QSSL betting that SCO will prevail.
It’s
too bad QSSL doesn’t have more confidence in themselves and their
product.

Kevin





\

18

“Armin Steinhoff” <a-steinhoff@web.de> wrote in message
news:blemc6$edn$1@inn.qnx.com…

Mario Charest wrote:
[ clip …]

Many people I talk to think of QNX6 as a Linux with a 8000$ price tag…

The people I work for are now using QNX4 and will be switching to Linux, I
just got hired and have no intention of getting into this as I don’t
consider myself and extension of QSS task force… If I wanted to have them
lean toward QNX6 instead I wouldn’t know how nor have any data to make any
serious statement for QNX6 over Linux.

With the kernel version 2.6 of LINUX (includes some of the ‘low latency
patches’ and ‘kernel preemption patches’) … that’s the case in some
extent > :slight_smile:

Cheers

Armin

19

“Armin Steinhoff” <a-steinhoff@web.de> wrote in message
news:blemc6$edn$1@inn.qnx.com…

Mario Charest wrote:
[ clip …]

Many people I talk to think of QNX6 as a Linux with a 8000$ price tag…

With the kernel version 2.6 of LINUX (includes some of the ‘low latency
patches’ and ‘kernel preemption patches’) … that’s the case in some
extent > :slight_smile:

To some extent indeed. The NPTL is a huge improvement over the unfamous
linux threads, but still not quite suitabe for hard realtime. They now (in
2.6) have fast mutexes (futexes) but still no priority inversion control for
them. If you signal a condvar, there’s no guarantee it will wake up the
thread with highest priority. Calls to control scheduling behavior exist,
but have no effect. Also the kernel preemption patch was found to be
improving average latencies, but not the worst case (I’ve seen claims that
the worst case jitter on 2.4 kernel with preemption patch applied is the
same as on stock RedHat, which is 100,000us).

If you write a classic producer/consumer example and benchmark it, it will
run much slower on Linux than QNX. How much slower would depend on
architecture and syncrhonisation method but it would be significant
difference (about 2x to 4x on 2.6 kernel I think - haven’t tried that
version yet).

So Linux is getting there, but they have a way to go yet. Most of the
problem really comes from the fact that principal developers have no much
interest in realtime behavior. They optimize things for average case, not
for the worst (and those optimisations tend to be mutually exclusive).
Things on realtime front get done by sidekicks and they always are limited
by what amount of determinism the kernel allows, because nobody wants to
stray too much from the mainline - that would kill the business case for
using Linux kernel in the first place.

– igor

20

“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:blacdu$998$1@inn.qnx.com…

Many people I talk to think of QNX6 as a Linux with a 8000$ price tag…

My only hope those people do realize all potential consequences of their
choice whatever it will be.



If someone is developing s/w that requires a lot of work in drivers’ field
then Linux may be a wrong choice because it is very hard to make your driver
not violating GPL. Here is a story on Linksys
http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0309.3/0904.html

Sure Cisco who is behind Linksys now, has a deep pocket, but some companies
do not have room for error.