Deploying QNX on the desktop

I personally don’t feel Linux is “there” as a Desktop OS. A desktop OS
needs to be SIMPLE, QNX and Linux are not for Grand Ma and Grand Pa. The
whole advantage of QNX is you can do anything you want if you know how to
configure it. You can boot to a command prompt from the boot image and
connect to a network fileserver… QNX is designed to flexable. Windows is
designed to let “Uncle Bill” run you computer for you, because he knows what
you need more than you do. Windows is better for Grand Ma and Grand Pa,
because they don’t have to think to use it. Linux is getting FAT and is
still not easy to use, heck QNX is easier to use than Linux, and the type of
flexiblity that QNX has requires recompiling the kernel to do the same thing
in Linux. The difference is Linux is FREE and OPEN, which means you have a
huge following of software hippies developing (Cough HACKING Cough) new
software for Linux just because they can. QNX is a bussiness and software
hippies think QNX is “the man” because they won’t give away their source
code (i.e. bread and butter).

QNX is a better operating system, than Linux or Windows from a purely
computer science standpoint. But OS X for the Mac is the only *nix that is
viable as a desktop, but hardware is too damn expensive for some one who
just wants a computer and doesn’t know why. (Grand Ma and Grand Pa again.)
Which again leaves use with “Uncle Bill.”


“Bill Caroselli” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c9559b$adj$1@inn.qnx.com

John Nagle <> nagle@downside.com> > wrote:
JN > That was a bit much.

JN > There are many PCs out there used by people who only run
JN > a few applications. The ongoing hassles associated with Windows
JN > run up the total cost of ownership for businesses which must
JN > deploy large numbers of PCs.

JN > A locked-down machine with a browser, OpenOffice, and a
JN > Java environment for business applications is exactly
JN > what you want for call centers and similar clerical jobs.
JN > The opening for QNX is that Microsoft can’t resist dumping
JN > the kitchen sink into their OS, making it vulnerable to attacks.
JN > Total cost of ownership for big farms of dumb PCs is going
JN > up because of Microsoft’s security problems. QNX offers
JN > an escape from the endless patching of the Microsoft world.

JN > QNX used to have more of a presence in the retail industry,
JN > for exactly those reasons.

JN > John Nagle
JN > Team Overbot

I think you make a good point.

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . . I was replying to John Nagle’s comment. He was refering to
environments where companies use many PCs and each one only needs to run
a limited number of well defined applications. Many of these applications
DO exist in the QNX world.

The cost of ownership for big companies isn’t the cost of purchase!
The expense for big companies is the cost of maintenance. MS systems are
forever screwing up. Worse than that, if your on a network to the rest
of the world, these systems are plagued with viruses every week! We run
an expensive anti-virus package (add that to the cost of ownership for MS)
and at least one virus still gets through every week.

To say that if a company could put QNX systems on their employees desks
would be cheaper was the point that I was agreeing with.


Bob Smith <bob@home.com> wrote:
BS > I personally don’t feel Linux is “there” as a Desktop OS. A desktop OS
BS > needs to be SIMPLE, QNX and Linux are not for Grand Ma and Grand Pa. The
BS > whole advantage of QNX is you can do anything you want if you know how to
BS > configure it. You can boot to a command prompt from the boot image and
BS > connect to a network fileserver… QNX is designed to flexable. Windows is
BS > designed to let “Uncle Bill” run you computer for you, because he knows what
BS > you need more than you do. Windows is better for Grand Ma and Grand Pa,
BS > because they don’t have to think to use it. Linux is getting FAT and is
BS > still not easy to use, heck QNX is easier to use than Linux, and the type of
BS > flexiblity that QNX has requires recompiling the kernel to do the same thing
BS > in Linux. The difference is Linux is FREE and OPEN, which means you have a
BS > huge following of software hippies developing (Cough HACKING Cough) new
BS > software for Linux just because they can. QNX is a bussiness and software
BS > hippies think QNX is “the man” because they won’t give away their source
BS > code (i.e. bread and butter).

BS > QNX is a better operating system, than Linux or Windows from a purely
BS > computer science standpoint. But OS X for the Mac is the only *nix that is
BS > viable as a desktop, but hardware is too damn expensive for some one who
BS > just wants a computer and doesn’t know why. (Grand Ma and Grand Pa again.)
BS > Which again leaves use with “Uncle Bill.”


BS > “Bill Caroselli” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
BS > news:c9559b$adj$1@inn.qnx.com

John Nagle <> nagle@downside.com> > wrote:
JN > That was a bit much.

JN > There are many PCs out there used by people who only run
JN > a few applications. The ongoing hassles associated with Windows
JN > run up the total cost of ownership for businesses which must
JN > deploy large numbers of PCs.

JN > A locked-down machine with a browser, OpenOffice, and a
JN > Java environment for business applications is exactly
JN > what you want for call centers and similar clerical jobs.
JN > The opening for QNX is that Microsoft can’t resist dumping
JN > the kitchen sink into their OS, making it vulnerable to attacks.
JN > Total cost of ownership for big farms of dumb PCs is going
JN > up because of Microsoft’s security problems. QNX offers
JN > an escape from the endless patching of the Microsoft world.

JN > QNX used to have more of a presence in the retail industry,
JN > for exactly those reasons.

JN > John Nagle
JN > Team Overbot

I think you make a good point.


Bill Caroselli – Q-TPS Consulting
1-(708) 308-4956 <== Note: New Number
qtps@earthlink.net

Hi Bob…

Well put! I enjoyed your the reading. :slight_smile:

Regards…

Miguel.


Bob Smith wrote:

I personally don’t feel Linux is “there” as a Desktop OS. A desktop OS
needs to be SIMPLE, QNX and Linux are not for Grand Ma and Grand Pa. The
whole advantage of QNX is you can do anything you want if you know how to
configure it. You can boot to a command prompt from the boot image and
connect to a network fileserver… QNX is designed to flexable. Windows is
designed to let “Uncle Bill” run you computer for you, because he knows what
you need more than you do. Windows is better for Grand Ma and Grand Pa,
because they don’t have to think to use it. Linux is getting FAT and is
still not easy to use, heck QNX is easier to use than Linux, and the type of
flexiblity that QNX has requires recompiling the kernel to do the same thing
in Linux. The difference is Linux is FREE and OPEN, which means you have a
huge following of software hippies developing (Cough HACKING Cough) new
software for Linux just because they can. QNX is a bussiness and software
hippies think QNX is “the man” because they won’t give away their source
code (i.e. bread and butter).

QNX is a better operating system, than Linux or Windows from a purely
computer science standpoint. But OS X for the Mac is the only *nix that is
viable as a desktop, but hardware is too damn expensive for some one who
just wants a computer and doesn’t know why. (Grand Ma and Grand Pa again.)
Which again leaves use with “Uncle Bill.”


“Bill Caroselli” <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote in message
news:c9559b$adj$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

John Nagle <> nagle@downside.com> > wrote:
JN > That was a bit much.

JN > There are many PCs out there used by people who only run
JN > a few applications. The ongoing hassles associated with Windows
JN > run up the total cost of ownership for businesses which must
JN > deploy large numbers of PCs.

JN > A locked-down machine with a browser, OpenOffice, and a
JN > Java environment for business applications is exactly
JN > what you want for call centers and similar clerical jobs.
JN > The opening for QNX is that Microsoft can’t resist dumping
JN > the kitchen sink into their OS, making it vulnerable to attacks.
JN > Total cost of ownership for big farms of dumb PCs is going
JN > up because of Microsoft’s security problems. QNX offers
JN > an escape from the endless patching of the Microsoft world.

JN > QNX used to have more of a presence in the retail industry,
JN > for exactly those reasons.

JN > John Nagle
JN > Team Overbot

I think you make a good point.

Bill Caroselli <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . .

“Uncle Bill” would be Bill Gates. I thought it was clear in context.

-David

Please follow-up to newsgroup, rather than personal email.
David Gibbs
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com

“Bill Caroselli” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cdlsb9$du4$1@inn.qnx.com

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . . I was replying to John Nagle’s comment. He was refering to
environments where companies use many PCs and each one only needs to run
a limited number of well defined applications. Many of these applications
DO exist in the QNX world.

The cost of ownership for big companies isn’t the cost of purchase!
The expense for big companies is the cost of maintenance. MS systems are
forever screwing up. Worse than that, if your on a network to the rest
of the world, these systems are plagued with viruses every week! We run
an expensive anti-virus package (add that to the cost of ownership for MS)
and at least one virus still gets through every week.

To say that if a company could put QNX systems on their employees desks
would be cheaper was the point that I was agreeing with.

I’m not so sure. I read an intesting report that compare COO for Windows

versus Linux and the main problem with Linux was that you needed to retrain
people learning the new applications. I don’t remember what the conclusion
was but I beleived it said, for new stuff Linux has a slight edge, but that
edge isn’t enough to recover the cost of going from a Windows environment to
a Linux environment.

David Gibbs <dagibbs@qnx.com> wrote:

Bill Caroselli <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote:
I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . .

“Uncle Bill” would be Bill Gates. I thought it was clear in context.

It was clear to me…

Someone’s got a big head :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

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/

Robert Krten <rk@parse.com> wrote:
RK > David Gibbs <dagibbs@qnx.com> wrote:

Bill Caroselli <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote:
I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . .

“Uncle Bill” would be Bill Gates. I thought it was clear in context.

RK > It was clear to me…

RK > Someone’s got a big head :slight_smile: :slight_smile:

RK > Cheers,
RK > -RK

Obviously, this appears to be true.

Sorry folks!

Bill Caroselli wrote:

I’m not sure if I’m supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . . I was replying to John Nagle’s comment. He was refering to
environments where companies use many PCs and each one only needs to run
a limited number of well defined applications. Many of these applications
DO exist in the QNX world.

Right.

Here’s a typical application: A device like the old
i-Opener, intended for hotel rooms. But this time with an Ethernet port.
Use QNX 6.30. Provide a browser and a few basic
applications: Web surfing, room service,
billing, etc. Put everything in
a read-only file system or on the server. Any problems
can be resolved by power cycling.

Now that QNX has a mini-browser that’s further along
than Voyager, and Microsoft has stopped changing HTML,
this is possible again.

If QNX isn’t interested in doing things like this, why
are they putting effort into browsers at all?

John Nagle

The security question with QNX is, IMHO, almost identical with the security
question of Linux (and BSD). Security attacks are not generally aimed at
kernel, process manager, file system, and the like, in short, the primitive
elements of the OS. Rather they are aimed for the most part at the IP stack
and applications such as Apache for servers and browsers, mail clients, etc.
for clients. In these areas, QNX has not been subected to the same level of
scrutiny as Linux (or BSD), rather, it has been subjected to the exact same
scrutiny.

“Pete DiMarco” <peted@ifspurity.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.040519135716.166A@node1…

Previously, John Nagle wrote in qnx.cafe:
QNX has potential as a desktop OS again, now that the
Windows and Linux worlds are starting to collapse under their
own weight. The total cost of ownership argument starts
to look good for QNX when you don’t have to patch every week.
[TEXT DELETED]

Linux is collapsing under its own weight? I thought this was
“the year of desktop Linux”…? > :slight_smile:

Not that I have anything against QNX, but has it been subjected
to the same level of scrutiny as Linux with respect to buffer
overruns and other security weaknesses? That seems to be what
drives the creation of patches. Has QNX received a security rating
from the NSA (or maybe the RCMP would be more appropriate)?

  • PDM


±---- Pete DiMarco ------±--------------------------------------+
| Staff Software Engineer | Web: > www.ifspurity.com > |
| Integrated Flow Systems | Email: peted [At] ifspurity [Dot] com |
±------------------------±--------------------------------------+
Opinions expressed here are my own, not those of my employer.

Dean Douthat wrote:

The security question with QNX is, IMHO, almost identical with the security
question of Linux (and BSD). Security attacks are not generally aimed at
kernel, process manager, file system, and the like, in short, the primitive
elements of the OS. Rather they are aimed for the most part at the IP stack
and applications such as Apache for servers and browsers, mail clients, etc.
for clients. In these areas, QNX has not been subected to the same level of
scrutiny as Linux (or BSD), rather, it has been subjected to the exact same
scrutiny.

While that may be true, we are, in fact, leveraging a certain amount of
others technology. One can generally use any Unix style program with
little or no modification on Neutrino. Many of the high-exposure
servers on a QNX system (mail, dns, web, etc.) will come from open
source so, for example, if a bug is fixed in Apache, an admin can use
the latest version and protect his system. If someone wants to use
qmail instead of sendmail and the package hasn’t already been built by
someone else, it’s often just a configure/make away.

cheers,

Kris

Dean Douthat wrote:

The security question with QNX is, IMHO, almost identical with the security
question of Linux (and BSD). Security attacks are not generally aimed at
kernel, process manager, file system, and the like, in short, the primitive
elements of the OS. Rather they are aimed for the most part at the IP stack
and applications such as Apache for servers and browsers, mail clients, etc.
for clients. In these areas, QNX has not been subected to the same level of
scrutiny as Linux (or BSD), rather, it has been subjected to the exact same
scrutiny.

QNX is not that secure, but has much more potential as a high
security system than Linux does, because it’s much more partitioned.

If I had the time, I’d approach In-Q-Tel about getting VC funding
for a secure version of QNX. Divert all the connection opens to
a security monitor process that can veto any connect, and impose
a mandatory security policy. Break up Firefox into pieces that
run each page renderer in its own jail. Break up io-net into
pieces that run at different levels, with each connection running
its own unprivileged TCP process. Minimize the amount of code running
with privileges to the point that it can all be examined.

John Nagle