I’m wondering if we have to switch to 6.2.
Some problems are known in 6.1, some little bugs, some features not
perfectly managed, etc…
The biggest hole in 6.1 was certainly about development tools, and 6.2
seems to greatly fill the gap.
Technically, It seems to be interesting to switch to the last version.
But I think there is a big problem with the price and the way that QSSL
see its product.
It seems that there is no update prices. Why?
To buy a QNX Momentics SE is very expensive compare to the price of a
qrtp 6.0/6.1 licence.
The PE version’s price is absolutely dissuasive.
Maybe it’s a ‘market price’ but is there lot of companies agree to pay
the ticket for 5, 10 or even more developpers?
Why there is no possibility to exploit floating licences for the IDE?
But I think there is a big problem with the price and the way that QSSL
see its product.
It seems that there is no update prices. Why?
Alain, did you talk with QSSFrance ??
Our customers who own RTP 6.0/1 got notice from their QNX sales that
they will get the Momentics SE version as update… free of charge!
To buy a QNX Momentics SE is very expensive compare to the price of a
qrtp 6.0/ 6.1 licence.
Do you have price lists??
Today I got the newest price lists and there are no differences between
the old QRTP 6.0/1 prices. RT Modules are even some Euro cheaper now.
I really don’t understand your point…
The PE version’s price is absolutely dissuasive.
Maybe it’s a ‘market price’ but is there lot of companies agree to pay
the ticket for 5, 10 or even more developpers?
Have a look to prices of VxWorks e.g. and how many companies are
working with it… and of course, there is discount for qties
We have customers (QNX newbies) who worked with VxWorks in the past
and switched to QNX6 (PE) because of they are convienced that it’s
the future )
BTW, believe it or not, most customers who order our QNX6 based
products are ordering it for the PE version …
I was a little nonplussed by the new licensing in 6.2.0 as well.
We don’t use the IDE at all, but in 6.2.0 even the compiler (well, if
you invoke it through qcc) requires a license!
Now, please correct me if I’m misinformed [1] but I believe that FlexLM does
not do any sort of “license unification”, so that if I’m running
multiple builds on different hosts, or even the same host, I still take
up a license for each one [2].
In fact, if I have 5 licenses and I run “make -j 5”, my understanding is
that I could use up all five licenses inside a single build!
To me, that seems really unreasonable. Hopefully, I’m wrong (maybe the
proxy server helps with this?) Can someone clarify exactly how and when
qcc uses and/or shares licenses?
And, for my edification although we’re not using it, what about the IDE?
Thanks.
\
[1] I asked someone here knowledgeable about FlexLM, but haven’t
actually tried to verify this empirically.
[2] Unlike, for example, the ClearCase license manager where a single
user uses a single license, no matter how many different views she’s
working in, even on multiple different systems.
–
Paul D. Smith <pausmith@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT–HA Software Mthds & Tools
“Please remain calm…I may be mad, but I am a professional.” --Mad Scientist
These are my opinions—Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
I was a little nonplussed by the new licensing in 6.2.0 as well.
We don’t use the IDE at all, but in 6.2.0 even the compiler (well, if
you invoke it through qcc) requires a license!
tm> What is the difference between qcc and gcc anyway?
qcc is a replacement for the front-end of gcc; they both invoke the same
underlying tools (preprocessor, C and C++ compilers, assembler, linker).
qcc and gcc both manage the command line, decide which tools to invoke
based on the file name and other options, etc.
qcc groks the QNX_HOST and QNX_TARGET environment variables so you can
just set those and you don’t have to use gcc’s horrible -B option :-/,
and qcc passes slightly different default preprocessor macros, compiler
switches, etc. than the default gcc for your target.
I had some problems trying to change the default GCC to generate exactly the same code as qcc did when I tried to do this a while ago.
And of course, now qcc has FlexLM licensing built in .
–
Paul D. Smith <pausmith@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT–HA Software Mthds & Tools
“Please remain calm…I may be mad, but I am a professional.” --Mad Scientist
These are my opinions—Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
qcc groks the QNX_HOST and QNX_TARGET environment variables so you can
just set those and you don’t have to use gcc’s horrible -B option :-/,
and qcc passes slightly different default preprocessor macros, compiler
switches, etc. than the default gcc for your target.
I had some problems trying to change the default GCC to generate exactly the same code as qcc did when I tried to do this a while ago.
And of course, now qcc has FlexLM licensing built in > > .
Remember, by the FSF’s interpretation licensing stops dead at the process
boundary.
All qcc is doing is invoking other GPL’d programs, it is not modifying
them in any way. You’re right, that any changes that QSSL makes to the
compiler itself (any changes they make to GPL’d code) must be
distributed under the GPL. But if you write a program that runs a GPL’d
program, your program is not impacted in any way by the license of the
GPL’d program.
–
Paul D. Smith <pausmith@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT–HA Software Mthds & Tools
“Please remain calm…I may be mad, but I am a professional.” --Mad Scientist
These are my opinions—Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
All qcc is doing is invoking other GPL’d programs, it is not modifying
them in any way. You’re right, that any changes that QSSL makes to the
compiler itself (any changes they make to GPL’d code) must be
distributed under the GPL. But if you write a program that runs a GPL’d
program, your program is not impacted in any way by the license of the
GPL’d program.
Ok, now I get it qcc is not an alternate gcc, but rather just a wrapper that
invokes gcc. I’m a little thick sometimes
All qcc is doing is invoking other GPL’d programs, it is not modifying
them in any way. You’re right, that any changes that QSSL makes to the
compiler itself (any changes they make to GPL’d code) must be
distributed under the GPL. But if you write a program that runs a GPL’d
program, your program is not impacted in any way by the license of the
GPL’d program.
tm> Ok, now I get it qcc is not an alternate gcc, but rather just a
tm> wrapper that invokes gcc. I’m a little thick sometimes
You’ve almost got it .
Your use of “gcc” is ambiguous: there are two things. GCC (GNU Compiler
Collection) is the name of the entire compiler package, which includes a
preprocessor and compilers for various languages, including C, C++,
Objective-C, and maybe others depending on which version of the product
you have. The thing to remember here is that each of these things are
independent programs, and can be invoked individually.
“gcc” is also the name of a program, the thing you actually invoke
(usually) to compile some code. The thing to remember about this is
that it’s just a thin layer; all it does is examine your command line,
environment variables, etc. and decide how to invoke each of the real
components (cpp, cc1, cc1plus, etc.) Then it calls fork/exec or
system() or whatever to actually compile the file.
“qcc” is a replacement for the latter thing, that small front-end
program. It doesn’t use any of the code of the front-end program “gcc”,
so it doesn’t fall under the GPL for that reason. And it doesn’t link
with any code from the GCC project, either: it just invokes the programs
as completely separate entities, just like “gcc”, and so it doesn’t fall
under the GPL for that reason either.
–
Paul D. Smith <pausmith@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT–HA Software Mthds & Tools
“Please remain calm…I may be mad, but I am a professional.” --Mad Scientist
These are my opinions—Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
But I think there is a big problem with the price and the way that
QSSL
see its product.
It seems that there is no update prices. Why?
Alain, did you talk with QSSFrance ??
What info did you get from the French sub. ??
We received some commercial proposals to upgrade our 6.1 to 6.2. You
could understand that I cannot give more precise informations, as this
proposals concern many points about our contract.
But up to now, we didn’t get any support contract. I suppose that the
free updates depend on these contracts. Quite normal.
cheers,
Alain.
Our customers who own RTP 6.0/1 got notice from their QNX sales that to
hey will get the Momentics SE version as update… free of charge!
So, is it possible to download the 6.2 from a qnx repository? except
the non-commercial web edition.
I understood that our (commercial > > QNX 6.1 customers got shipped
the new QNX 6.2 (Momentics SE) CD.
We don’t use the IDE at all, but in 6.2.0 even the compiler (well, if
you invoke it through qcc) requires a license!
You know, things are MUCH simpler, better, faster, and more productive in
the self-hosted rather then x-dev environment. There are no license issues
in the self-hosted environment.
We don’t use the IDE at all, but in 6.2.0 even the compiler (well, if
you invoke it through qcc) requires a license!
c> You know, things are MUCH simpler, better, faster, and more
c> productive in the self-hosted rather then x-dev environment. There
c> are no license issues in the self-hosted environment.
c> Give it a try, you’ll be pleasantly surprised.
Well, if you can figure out how to run it on my Solaris boxes I might.
And, if you can figure out how to get ClearCase, Purify, and our other
3rd party development tools to run on it I might.
Without those things, there’s no way self-hosted can be “simpler,
better, faster, or more productive” in our environment.
–
Paul D. Smith <pausmith@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT–HA Software Mthds & Tools
“Please remain calm…I may be mad, but I am a professional.” --Mad Scientist
These are my opinions—Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
)