Hello all,
I need your help to download QNX Desktop free.
I read in one newspaper in my country (Argentina) that is posible to get a
QNX Desktop free copy, downloading from : http://get.qnx.com/index.html but
my problem is: In that site I couldn´t find that version, I only can get a
trial for 30 days copy. Can anyone help me and say me where I can to
download a free copy of QNX for desktop (no commercial software)? Thanks a
lot.
Carcarañá.
From Argentina.
“Carcarañá” <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> wrote in message
news:cor9nc$f49$1@inn.qnx.com…
Hello all,
Please don’t cross post. Answered in other group.
I need your help to download QNX Desktop free.I read in one newspaper in my country (Argentina) that is posible to get a
QNX Desktop free copy, downloading from : > http://get.qnx.com/index.html
but
my problem is: In that site I couldn´t find that version, I only can get a
trial for 30 days copy. Can anyone help me and say me where I can to
download a free copy of QNX for desktop (no commercial software)? Thanks
a
lot.Carcarañá.
From Argentina.
\
Mario Charest wrote:
“Carcarañá” <> xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> > wrote in message
news:cor9nc$f49$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …Hello all,
Please don’t cross post. Answered in other group.
I need your help to download QNX Desktop free.
Answered in what other group?
The 6.21NC .iso is no longer at
http://download.qnx.com/download/qnxnc621.iso
John Nagle
Team Overbot
John Nagle <nagle@downside.com> wrote:
The 6.21NC .iso is no longer at
Some of the mirrors mentioned below are still working:
http://www.openqnx.com/Article116.html
Frank Liu wrote:
John Nagle <> nagle@downside.com> > wrote:
The 6.21NC .iso is no longer at
http://download.qnx.com/download/qnxnc621.iso
Some of the mirrors mentioned below are still working:
http://www.openqnx.com/Article116.html
Yes.
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/qnx/qnxnc/
is still good.
We’ve backed off from QNX 6.3 to 6.21NC, because
we feel the copy protection issues and the uncertainties
associated with the Harmon acquisition make using QNX6.3
too risky. We want others to be able to build our system
freely five years from now. With QNX 6.21, we can be confident
that will be possible.
If a true, uncrippled NC version of 6.3 were to be released,
we would consider upgrading, but in the current situation, the risks
are too high.
John Nagle
Team Overbot
I´m sorry and thanks.
“Mario Charest” <nowheretobefound@8thdimension.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:corbu1$g6i$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Carcarañá” <> xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx.xx> > wrote in message
news:cor9nc$f49$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Hello all,Please don’t cross post. Answered in other group.
I need your help to download QNX Desktop free.
I read in one newspaper in my country (Argentina) that is posible to get
a
QNX Desktop free copy, downloading from : > http://get.qnx.com/index.html
but
my problem is: In that site I couldn´t find that version, I only can get
a
trial for 30 days copy. Can anyone help me and say me where I can to
download a free copy of QNX for desktop (no commercial software)?
Thanks
a
lot.Carcarañá.
From Argentina.
\
John Nagle wrote:
If a true, uncrippled NC version of 6.3 were to be released,
we would consider upgrading, but in the current situation, the risks
are too high.
Just to be a little picky here, “crippled” and NC are one and the same imho. Me thinks the real issue you are talking about is the mistakes/bugs with diskboot and GCC that are stopping you from having an out-of-the-box build system, right?
Evan Hillas wrote:
John Nagle wrote:
If a true, uncrippled NC version of 6.3 were to be released,
we would consider upgrading, but in the current situation, the risks
are too high.
Just to be a little picky here, “crippled” and NC are one and the same
imho. Me thinks the real issue you are talking about is the
mistakes/bugs with diskboot and GCC that are stopping you from having an
out-of-the-box build system, right?
To be fair, 6.3 after expiration is more of a pain to use than 6.2.1 NC
was. PhAb still insists on qcc after expiration, where the 6.2.1 version
happily used gcc.
And the 6.2.1 window decorations were prettier IMHO…
Evan Hillas wrote:
John Nagle wrote:
If a true, uncrippled NC version of 6.3 were to be released,
we would consider upgrading, but in the current situation, the risks
are too high.
Just to be a little picky here, “crippled” and NC are one and the same
imho. Me thinks the real issue you are talking about is the
mistakes/bugs with diskboot and GCC that are stopping you from having an
out-of-the-box build system, right?
If the restrictions in diskboot and QCC are treated as bugs and
fixed, then that’s fine. If they’re considered “features” and stay,
that’s not good.
Each new release of QNX since 6.0 has been more restrictive than
the last in its free version. One has to assume that the free
versions are being phased out. Certainly, going to “get.qnx.com”
gives one that impression.
When I complain about this, it’s worth recalling that for
every complaint, there are typically ten people who didn’t complain
but stopped using the product. (Ref: “A Complaint is a Gift”,
by Barlow and Moller).
QNX people: quit worrying about being pirated, and worry more about
becoming irrelevant. The real-time Linux variants aren’t a joke
any more.
John Nagle
Team Overbot
John Nagle wrote:
Evan Hillas wrote:
[ clip …]
When I complain about this, it’s worth recalling that for
every complaint, there are typically ten people who didn’t complain
but stopped using the product. (Ref: “A Complaint is a Gift”,
by Barlow and Moller).
!
QNX people: quit worrying about being pirated, and worry more about
becoming irrelevant. The real-time Linux variants aren’t a joke
any more.
That’s true as long as you are using plain ISA bus systems.
The trouble starts with PCI systems if you have to share ‘PCI
interrupts’ between LINUX and its real-time extension (RTAI, RTLinux e.g)
The real-time extensions don’t have control about the behavior of the
interrupt handlers of the LINUX site.
That’s simply a design problem which can’t be solved … so take care
about this if you are dealing with the RT-Linuxes.
Regards
Armin
John Nagle
Team Overbot
John Nagle wrote:
If the restrictions in diskboot and QCC are treated as bugs and
fixed, then that’s fine. If they’re considered “features” and stay,
that’s not good.
Of course they’re mistakes. Clearly, the lack of “Safe mode” is not what was intended and you were even told as much. As for QCC vs GCC, that’s a similar deal in that they have to smooth over the switching between the two compilers when in/out of NC/PE modes.
Evan
“Armin Steinhoff” <a-steinhoff@web.de> wrote in message
news:cp19ho$3i$1@inn.qnx.com…
John Nagle wrote:
Evan Hillas wrote:[ clip …]
When I complain about this, it’s worth recalling that for
every complaint, there are typically ten people who didn’t complain
but stopped using the product. (Ref: “A Complaint is a Gift”,
by Barlow and Moller).!
QNX people: quit worrying about being pirated, and worry more about
becoming irrelevant. The real-time Linux variants aren’t a joke
any more.That’s true as long as you are using plain ISA bus systems.
The trouble starts with PCI systems if you have to share ‘PCI interrupts’
between LINUX and its real-time extension (RTAI, RTLinux e.g)
There are also interrupt real-time issuse with QNX6 when interrupt are
shared on the PCI bus and InterruptAttached event is used. Probably not as
bad as the Linux stuff which I’m not familiar with, still.
The real-time extensions don’t have control about the behavior of the
interrupt handlers of the LINUX site.That’s simply a design problem which can’t be solved … so take care
about this if you are dealing with the RT-Linuxes.Regards
Armin
John Nagle
Team Overbot
John Nagle <nagle@downside.com> wrote:
JN > Frank Liu wrote:
John Nagle <> nagle@downside.com> > wrote:
The 6.21NC .iso is no longer at
http://download.qnx.com/download/qnxnc621.iso
Some of the mirrors mentioned below are still working:
http://www.openqnx.com/Article116.html
JN > Yes.
JN > http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/qnx/qnxnc/
JN > is still good.
JN > We’ve backed off from QNX 6.3 to 6.21NC, because
JN > we feel the copy protection issues and the uncertainties
JN > associated with the Harmon acquisition make using QNX6.3
JN > too risky.
We want others to be able to build our system
JN > freely five years from now. With QNX 6.21, we can be confident
JN > that will be possible.
Hi John
Does this qualify under the “Free for Non-Commercial Use” clause?
I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. But that does push the definition.
I would be interested in hearing from QSSL about this. I have had some
interesting ideas about distributing propotional disks that would include
a free QNX run-time. Although the user wouldn’t be able to get to the OS,
and even though I wouldn’t be making any money on the product, I
assumed that this would not be what the “Free for Non-Commercial Use”
clause was there for.
JN > If a true, uncrippled NC version of 6.3 were to be released,
JN > we would consider upgrading, but in the current situation, the risks
JN > are too high.
Evan Hillas wrote:
John Nagle wrote:
If the restrictions in diskboot and QCC are treated as bugs and
fixed, then that’s fine. If they’re considered “features” and stay,
that’s not good.
Of course they’re mistakes. Clearly, the lack of “Safe mode” is not
what was intended and you were even told as much. As for QCC vs GCC,
that’s a similar deal in that they have to smooth over the switching
between the two compilers when in/out of NC/PE modes.
QCC isn’t a “compiler”, it’s just a front end to the
GNU gcc to make it use POSIX command line arguments. Right?
John Nagle
Team Overbot
Bill Caroselli wrote:
John Nagle <> nagle@downside.com> > wrote:
JN > Frank Liu wrote:John Nagle <> nagle@downside.com> > wrote:
Hi JohnDoes this qualify under the “Free for Non-Commercial Use” clause?
I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. But that does push the definition.
We have a robot vehicle, and if (when?) QNX ceases to be available
for small-scale end users, it becomes a white elephant. We have
a QNX 6.3 license, but it’s time-limited. Someday it will
self destruct. And we’re not entirely sure exactly what will
self-destruct. We’ve seen no formal statement on that, and
licensing issues with 6.3 caused more impact than we’d expected.
So we’ve backed off to NC.
It’s issues like this that drive people to Linux.
When we started with QNX, we were hearing all that
“open source” and “community” stuff from QSSL. That’s stopped.
Compare “get.qnx.com” in 2001 (archived here:
“http://web.archive.org/web/20010118235700/http://get.qnx.com/”)
with “get.qnx.com” today (seen here: “http://get.qnx.com”).
Up until April 2003, the site began “Welcome to get.qnx.com, the
download site for the QNX® realtime platform (RTP), free for
non-commercial use.”. Over time, the language became less
encouraging (you can trace this using archive.org) until
in 2004, it changed to “Free 30-day QNX Momentics Development Suite v6.3
commercial product evaluation.” There’s currenty no indication
that you can download anything that will be useful after 30 days.
That’s not likely to build the base of noncommercial QNX users.
As I’ve said before, QSSL is shooting itself in the foot here.
QNX needs open source code far more than the open source world needs
QNX. We’re seeing the QNX target disappear from more open source
projects as time goes on. This increases the total cost of
ownership of QNX.
John Nagle
Team Overbot
John Nagle wrote:
QCC isn’t a “compiler”, it’s just a front end to the
GNU gcc to make it use POSIX command line arguments. Right?
Dunno, but that’s enough to create problems in the compile chain. Maybe the biggest change is with clibs or something.
Evan
John Nagle wrote:
Evan Hillas wrote:
John Nagle wrote:
If the restrictions in diskboot and QCC are treated as bugs and
fixed, then that’s fine. If they’re considered “features” and stay,
that’s not good.
Of course they’re mistakes. Clearly, the lack of “Safe mode” is not
what was intended and you were even told as much. As for QCC vs GCC,
that’s a similar deal in that they have to smooth over the switching
between the two compilers when in/out of NC/PE modes.
QCC isn’t a “compiler”, it’s just a front end to the
GNU gcc to make it use POSIX command line arguments. Right?
Correct although qcc is almost exactly the same as qcc. It runs
multiple stages of the compile process, stringing them together via
pipes and temporary files. ie source code ==> cpp → cc1 → as →
ld ==> binary executable. This is pretty much what gcc does as well.
The purpose of qcc is to be much friendlier than gcc at dealing with our
many different ways of compiling. ie. Different CPU/OS targets, libs,
even compilers (icc is run by qcc for example).
cheers,
Kris
Kris Warkentin wrote:
Correct although qcc is almost exactly the same as qcc. It runs
Typo - qcc is almost exactly the same as gcc.
Does this qualify under the “Free for Non-Commercial Use” clause?
I don’t know. I’m not a lawyer. But that does push the definition.
JN > We have a robot vehicle, and if (when?) QNX ceases to be available
JN > for small-scale end users, it becomes a white elephant. We have
JN > a QNX 6.3 license, but it’s time-limited. Someday it will
JN > self destruct. And we’re not entirely sure exactly what will
JN > self-destruct. We’ve seen no formal statement on that, and
JN > licensing issues with 6.3 caused more impact than we’d expected.
JN > So we’ve backed off to NC.
JN > It’s issues like this that drive people to Linux.
JN > When we started with QNX, we were hearing all that
JN > “open source” and “community” stuff from QSSL. That’s stopped.
JN > Compare “get.qnx.com” in 2001 (archived here:
JN > “http://web.archive.org/web/20010118235700/http://get.qnx.com/”)
JN > with “get.qnx.com” today (seen here: “http://get.qnx.com”).
JN > Up until April 2003, the site began “Welcome to get.qnx.com, the
JN > download site for the QNX? realtime platform (RTP), free for
JN > non-commercial use.”. Over time, the language became less
JN > encouraging (you can trace this using archive.org) until
JN > in 2004, it changed to “Free 30-day QNX Momentics Development Suite v6.3
JN > commercial product evaluation.” There’s currenty no indication
JN > that you can download anything that will be useful after 30 days.
JN > That’s not likely to build the base of noncommercial QNX users.
JN > As I’ve said before, QSSL is shooting itself in the foot here.
JN > QNX needs open source code far more than the open source world needs
JN > QNX. We’re seeing the QNX target disappear from more open source
JN > projects as time goes on. This increases the total cost of
JN > ownership of QNX.
I have ben following your project on here for quite some time now. It is
very interesting and I wish you the best of sucess. I always assumed
however that it was like a university research project (or something like
that). But in your post yesterday you mentioned that you intended to
distribute your work to whomever.
It was the fact that you intend to distribute your results (including QNX
OS software) that make me ask if your project ever qualified for the Non-
Commercial use clause of the original NC agreement.
Let’s face it. There is a difference between being able to ‘get away’ with
freely copying software and actually having permission to do so.
AND, I’m not saying that your project doesn’t qualify. I was merely asking
if it really did. Because if it did, I had some ideas of my own I would
have liked to try.
In the end, we’ll donate the hardware and software to some
nonprofit, probably a university, and they’ll have a new toy
to play with. We’ll probably make the source code generally
available. To use it, someone will need to get a copy of QNX, and
if QNX is no longer freely available, they’ll have to port it
to Linux.
John Nagle
Team Overbot
Bill Caroselli wrote:
It was the fact that you intend to distribute your results (including QNX
OS software) that make me ask if your project ever qualified for the Non-
Commercial use clause of the original NC agreement.