QNX bug database?

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qnx.cafe
1

QNX has a button marked “report bug”. But not much happens
when you push it. It used tp send an E-mail somewhere, which
was not acknowledged. There was no option for “attach core file”,
or “attach copy of system configuration”. Or even a way to
specify which component failed.

Then it got worse. As of today, pressing “Report Bug”
generates an HTML 404 error.

Nor is there a publicly visible QNX defect database. There’s
no good way to refer to known problems by defect ID. In the real
time world, users need to know about bugs BEFORE they discover
them the hard way.

Both of those problems should be fixed, preferably in an integrated
way. Press “report bug”, attach the relevant info with a few mouse
clicks, and your bug goes into the database. Anyone can look at it.
QSSL people can close bugs; other registered users can comment.

Yes, it might be embarassing to QSSL at times. But having a
“Report Bug” button that doesn’t work is more embarassing.
Visualize a Wind River sales rep demoing that feature.

John Nagle
Team Overbot

2

John Nagle wrote:

QNX has a button marked “report bug”. But not much happens
when you push it. It used tp send an E-mail somewhere, which
was not acknowledged. There was no option for “attach core file”,
or “attach copy of system configuration”. Or even a way to
specify which component failed.

Then it got worse. As of today, pressing “Report Bug”
generates an HTML 404 error.

Nor is there a publicly visible QNX defect database. There’s
no good way to refer to known problems by defect ID. In the real
time world, users need to know about bugs BEFORE they discover
them the hard way.

Both of those problems should be fixed, preferably in an integrated
way. Press “report bug”, attach the relevant info with a few mouse
clicks, and your bug goes into the database. Anyone can look at it.
QSSL people can close bugs; other registered users can comment.

Yes, it might be embarassing to QSSL at times. But having a
“Report Bug” button that doesn’t work is more embarassing.
Visualize a Wind River sales rep demoing that feature.

John Nagle
Team Overbot

I hear that, I’ve got quite a few problems that look like bugs to me, it
would be good to have a direct route to QSS so that you knew the bugs
were getting looked at.

I understand QSS is not going to want a public database of everything
that is wrong with their product (who does?), but we definitely need a
good way to report problems.

Garry

3

They give access to GNATS to their silver/gold support plan customers.
Unfortunately, it’s usefulness is undermined by the fact that you can only
see the bugs submitted by yourself (your own group).

At some point they had a glitch that allowed to see all the PRs. There was
about 4000+. I had fun reading :wink:

– igor

John Nagle wrote:

QNX has a button marked “report bug”. But not much happens
when you push it. It used tp send an E-mail somewhere, which
was not acknowledged. There was no option for “attach core file”,
or “attach copy of system configuration”. Or even a way to
specify which component failed.

Then it got worse. As of today, pressing “Report Bug”
generates an HTML 404 error.

Nor is there a publicly visible QNX defect database. There’s
no good way to refer to known problems by defect ID. In the real
time world, users need to know about bugs BEFORE they discover
them the hard way.

Both of those problems should be fixed, preferably in an integrated
way. Press “report bug”, attach the relevant info with a few mouse
clicks, and your bug goes into the database. Anyone can look at it.
QSSL people can close bugs; other registered users can comment.

Yes, it might be embarassing to QSSL at times. But having a
“Report Bug” button that doesn’t work is more embarassing.
Visualize a Wind River sales rep demoing that feature.

John Nagle
Team Overbot

4

Garry <asdf34sdg@sdfasdf3.com> wrote:

G > I hear that, I’ve got quite a few problems that look like bugs to me, it
G > would be good to have a direct route to QSS so that you knew the bugs
G > were getting looked at.

G > I understand QSS is not going to want a public database of everything
G > that is wrong with their product (who does?), but we definitely need a
G > good way to report problems.

G > Garry

I’ve been using QNX for about 17 years. To me the best place to report a
bug is right here. Or at least the “right here du jour”. Here’s why:

Many bugs aren’t bugs but a misunderstnading of how to use the program.

Most problems are actually resolved by another user who’s “been there,
done that” and can tell you how to work around it.

QSSL is like anyone else. The squeeky week gets the grease. But if the
wheel squeeks in the forest and no one else is there to read about it,
does it make any noise? (Or is that a mixed metaphore?)

5

Bill Caroselli wrote:

Garry <> asdf34sdg@sdfasdf3.com> > wrote:

G > I hear that, I’ve got quite a few problems that look like bugs to me, it
G > would be good to have a direct route to QSS so that you knew the bugs
G > were getting looked at.

G > I understand QSS is not going to want a public database of everything
G > that is wrong with their product (who does?), but we definitely need a
G > good way to report problems.

G > Garry

I’ve been using QNX for about 17 years. To me the best place to report a
bug is right here. Or at least the “right here du jour”. Here’s why:

Many bugs aren’t bugs but a misunderstnading of how to use the program.

Most problems are actually resolved by another user who’s “been there,
done that” and can tell you how to work around it.

QSSL is like anyone else. The squeeky week gets the grease. But if the
wheel squeeks in the forest and no one else is there to read about it,
does it make any noise? (Or is that a mixed metaphore?)

You can’t pollute the forest with oil, anyways… ;v)

6

Bill Caroselli wrote:

Garry <> asdf34sdg@sdfasdf3.com> > wrote:

G > I hear that, I’ve got quite a few problems that look like bugs to me, it
G > would be good to have a direct route to QSS so that you knew the bugs
G > were getting looked at.

G > I understand QSS is not going to want a public database of everything
G > that is wrong with their product (who does?), but we definitely need a
G > good way to report problems.

G > Garry

I’ve been using QNX for about 17 years. To me the best place to report a
bug is right here. Or at least the “right here du jour”. Here’s why:

Many bugs aren’t bugs but a misunderstnading of how to use the program.

Fair comment, but some of my problems were not present in 6.2.1 and are
in 6.3, and my biggest problem right now (with PtOSContainer) has been
looked at by a QSS staffer and accepted as bug in 6.2.1, but I’m afraid
it’s still present in 6.3. I will post about my latest and greatest
problems though.

Most problems are actually resolved by another user who’s “been there,
done that” and can tell you how to work around it.

You are quite correct, generally speaking the help I’ve had from the
community has been quite exceptional.

QSSL is like anyone else. The squeeky week gets the grease. But if the
wheel squeeks in the forest and no one else is there to read about it,
does it make any noise? (Or is that a mixed metaphore?)

Maybe, but as a non-paying user (believe me, I’d LOVE to give QSS say
$200 for a desktop package, with the right to develop commercial desktop
apps) I don’t think my opinions carry much weight compared to a
commercial client.

Cheers

7

Bill Caroselli wrote:

Many bugs aren’t bugs but a misunderstnading of how to use the program.

We call that “vendor in denial”.

If it doesn’t perform to spec, it’s broken.

Microsoft can sometimes get away with that; they’re a monopoly.
QSSL can’t.

John Nagle
Team Overbot

8

Igor Kovalenko wrote:

They give access to GNATS to their silver/gold support plan customers.
Unfortunately, it’s usefulness is undermined by the fact that you can only
see the bugs submitted by yourself (your own group).

At some point they had a glitch that allowed to see all the PRs. There was
about 4000+. I had fun reading > :wink:

– igor

Exactly. And did any customers ever leave QNX because they
could see the bug database?

Typically, keeping bugs secret is something sales management
wants. It’s a control-the-customer thing. But it doesn’t really
help sales. It just makes life easier for the sales force, because
they like to talk about what they want to talk about, instead
of listening to the customer. It’s a mindset that must be
resisted by management above the sales level.

Required reading for upper management: “A Complaint is a Gift”,
by Barlow and Moller. For every customer who complains, you lost
ten customers who didn’t.

John Nagle
Team Overbot

9

John Nagle <nagle@downside.com> wrote:
JN > Bill Caroselli wrote:

Many bugs aren’t bugs but a misunderstnading of how to use the program.

JN > We call that “vendor in denial”.

JN > If it doesn’t perform to spec, it’s broken.

JN > Microsoft can sometimes get away with that; they’re a monopoly.
JN > QSSL can’t.


Well I agree to a degree. But there truely have been many times I
assumed that I knew what the hell I was doing and something didn’t
work. Then, when I asked, someone said “Did you turn on blagh-blagh
in the config file?” And all of a sudden, the bug was fixed!

I know that we’ve also been going round on QNX on the desktop. That
assumes that all users will be happy adopting standards that QSSL sets.
But the fact is that QNX gets used by us nerds. I’m not happy with
anything unless it’s just the way I like it. And I’m sure that your very
similar. I’m sure that my desktop system isn’t configured anything like
yours. I’m not wrong. You might not even be wrong either. We’re just
different.

Software is configurable. That’s a good thing. It enables me and you to
use the same software very differently. It’s just impossible for someone
to document every possible way that someone might want to configure their
system. A little bit of smarts at install/configuration time goes a long way.
And when it falls short, just ask a question here!

10

Bill Caroselli wrote:

John Nagle <> nagle@downside.com> > wrote:
JN > Bill Caroselli wrote:


Many bugs aren’t bugs but a misunderstnading of how to use the program.


JN > We call that “vendor in denial”.

JN > If it doesn’t perform to spec, it’s broken.

JN > Microsoft can sometimes get away with that; they’re a monopoly.
JN > QSSL can’t.


Well I agree to a degree. But there truely have been many times I
assumed that I knew what the hell I was doing and something didn’t
work. Then, when I asked, someone said “Did you turn on blagh-blagh
in the config file?” And all of a sudden, the bug was fixed!

My general position is that if it crashes, the program is broken.
If it gives some halfway reasonable error message when misconfigured,
the program may not be broken. If the documentation doesn’t mention
that message and the message isn’t self-explanatory, the documentation
is broken.

Having worked in the aerospace and automotive industries, where you
don’t get to blame the user, I tend to view real-time software in
the same light.

John Nagle
Team Overbot

11

I like your point.

However: I don’t understand people referring to Microsoft as a monopoly. The
medium we are communicating in confirms that, by definition, they are not.

Robert.

“John Nagle” <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message
news:ce8jds$ppf$1@inn.qnx.com…

Bill Caroselli wrote:

Many bugs aren’t bugs but a misunderstnading of how to use the program.

We call that “vendor in denial”.

If it doesn’t perform to spec, it’s broken.

Microsoft can sometimes get away with that; they’re a monopoly.
QSSL can’t.

John Nagle
Team Overbot

12

Robert Muil wrote:

I like your point.

However: I don’t understand people referring to Microsoft as a monopoly. The
medium we are communicating in confirms that, by definition, they are not.

M$Soft controls the PC platform with a market share of 99%.

This isn’t a monopoly ?


Regards

Armin

Robert.

“John Nagle” <> nagle@downside.com> > wrote in message
news:ce8jds$ppf$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Bill Caroselli wrote:


Many bugs aren’t bugs but a misunderstnading of how to use the program.

We call that “vendor in denial”.

If it doesn’t perform to spec, it’s broken.

Microsoft can sometimes get away with that; they’re a monopoly.
QSSL can’t.

John Nagle
Team Overbot

13

Garry <asdf34sdg@sdfasdf3.com> wrote:
G > Bill Caroselli wrote:

QSSL is like anyone else. The squeeky week gets the grease. But if the
wheel squeeks in the forest and no one else is there to read about it,
does it make any noise? (Or is that a mixed metaphore?)

G > Maybe, but as a non-paying user (believe me, I’d LOVE to give QSS say
G > $200 for a desktop package, with the right to develop commercial desktop
G > apps) I don’t think my opinions carry much weight compared to a
G > commercial client.


You’d be surprised. I AM a paying client. We paid for the commercial
package and the support plan. I have access to the Paying Customer News
Groups but I post here much more often. Things posted here get much more
visibility. Even if someone else can’t solve my problem, then can often
raise their hand and say “Me Too”!

14

John Nagle <nagle@downside.com> wrote:

JN > My general position is that if it crashes, the program is broken.
JN > If it gives some halfway reasonable error message when misconfigured,
JN > the program may not be broken. If the documentation doesn’t mention
JN > that message and the message isn’t self-explanatory, the documentation
JN > is broken.

JN > Having worked in the aerospace and automotive industries, where you
JN > don’t get to blame the user, I tend to view real-time software in
JN > the same light.

Point well taken.

I belive that WE are the implementers. We are therefore responsible for
achieving that status. This status, BTW, is what I call “Applience Status”.

You don’t have to read the manual to use a micro-wave oven (well, not for
the more basic features) and you never have to reboot it. It just works
the way you assumed it would. That’s applience status.

15

Bill Caroselli wrote:

You don’t have to read the manual to use a micro-wave oven (well, not for
the more basic features) and you never have to reboot it. It just works
the way you assumed it would. That’s applience status.

That’s specious reasoning.

You’re assuming a certain level of functionality attached to the
appliance as well as a level of functionality used. I know of a few
people who still can’t program the clock on their microwave (let alone
their VCR) and don’t use the advanced features for defrost etc.

So the mantra ‘it just works’ is a narrow scope statement as it’s based
on your own experience. You haven’t encountered a microwave irradiate
you outside of spec or explode etc, but it does happen.

Even further, the concept of a simple appliance is changing. I doubt
this mantra of ‘applience status’ (sic) holds true for the ‘Internet
connected fridge’ (http://www.electricnews.net/news.html?code=8631787).

I can’t wait for the toaster and microwave to follow suite. :wink:

–
Cheers,
Adam

QNX Software Systems Ltd.
[ amallory@qnx.com ]

With a PC, I always felt limited by the software available.
On Unix, I am limited only by my knowledge.
–Peter J. Schoenster <pschon@baste.magibox.net>

16

Adam Mallory wrote:
[…]

Even further, the concept of a simple appliance is changing. I doubt
this mantra of ‘applience status’ (sic) holds true for the ‘Internet
connected fridge’ (> http://www.electricnews.net/news.html?code=8631787> ).

I can’t wait for the toaster and microwave to follow suite. > :wink:

CHerborth@qnxws7083 [501]: ping toaster
error: no route to toast

–
Chris Herborth (cherborth@qnx.com)
Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist.

17

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9809/14/microwave.idg/

-Lisa

“Chris Herborth” <cherborth@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:ceb87d$shm$1@inn.qnx.com…

Adam Mallory wrote:
[…]
Even further, the concept of a simple appliance is changing. I doubt
this mantra of ‘applience status’ (sic) holds true for the ‘Internet
connected fridge’ (> http://www.electricnews.net/news.html?code=8631787> ).

I can’t wait for the toaster and microwave to follow suite. > :wink:

CHerborth@qnxws7083 [501]: ping toaster
error: no route to toast

–
Chris Herborth (> cherborth@qnx.com> )
Never send a monster to do the work of an evil scientist.

18

Hi Bill…

I agree with you (we also post here more often than in the private
group). Thanks for posting here; I get a lot of mileage from your
questions (and I suspect that others do too). :slight_smile:


Question to you Bill (over a cup of coffee of course):

You have mentioned before -elsewhere- that you do not use the IDE. Do
you get the PE edition that comes with the full IDE + debugger
utilities, and if so, how come you do not use the IDE? I am only curious.

I must tell you, the current debugger + debugging utilities that come
with the Momentics IDE 3.0 are really much more useful, stable, improved
and powerful! You can actually see the trace of your program, see
interaction of several programs that you may have in the debugger at the
same time, etc. I am quite impressed with them. You could or perhaps
would be much more efficient if you use them, I am sure. If you have the
tools, I encourage you to try them someday.

Regards…

Miguel.



Bill Caroselli wrote:

Garry <> asdf34sdg@sdfasdf3.com> > wrote:
G > Bill Caroselli wrote:


QSSL is like anyone else. The squeeky week gets the grease. But if the
wheel squeeks in the forest and no one else is there to read about it,
does it make any noise? (Or is that a mixed metaphore?)


G > Maybe, but as a non-paying user (believe me, I’d LOVE to give QSS say
G > $200 for a desktop package, with the right to develop commercial desktop
G > apps) I don’t think my opinions carry much weight compared to a
G > commercial client.


You’d be surprised. I AM a paying client. We paid for the commercial
package and the support plan. I have access to the Paying Customer News
Groups but I post here much more often. Things posted here get much more
visibility. Even if someone else can’t solve my problem, then can often
raise their hand and say “Me Too”!

19

We have PE, but I tend to avoid the IDE. My home system
runs NC, and it’s convenient to be able to work on programs
on both.

PhAB, though, is very useful.

John Nagle
Team Overbot


Miguel Simon wrote:

Hi Bill…

I agree with you (we also post here more often than in the private
group). Thanks for posting here; I get a lot of mileage from your
questions (and I suspect that others do too). > :slight_smile:


Question to you Bill (over a cup of coffee of course):

You have mentioned before -elsewhere- that you do not use the IDE. Do
you get the PE edition that comes with the full IDE + debugger
utilities, and if so, how come you do not use the IDE? I am only curious.

I must tell you, the current debugger + debugging utilities that come
with the Momentics IDE 3.0 are really much more useful, stable, improved
and powerful! You can actually see the trace of your program, see
interaction of several programs that you may have in the debugger at the
same time, etc. I am quite impressed with them. You could or perhaps
would be much more efficient if you use them, I am sure. If you have the
tools, I encourage you to try them someday.

Regards…

Miguel.



Bill Caroselli wrote:

Garry <> asdf34sdg@sdfasdf3.com> > wrote:
G > Bill Caroselli wrote:


QSSL is like anyone else. The squeeky week gets the grease. But if
the wheel squeeks in the forest and no one else is there to read
about it, does it make any noise? (Or is that a mixed metaphore?)



G > Maybe, but as a non-paying user (believe me, I’d LOVE to give
QSS say G > $200 for a desktop package, with the right to develop
commercial desktop G > apps) I don’t think my opinions carry much
weight compared to a G > commercial client.


You’d be surprised. I AM a paying client. We paid for the commercial
package and the support plan. I have access to the Paying Customer News
Groups but I post here much more often. Things posted here get much
more visibility. Even if someone else can’t solve my problem, then
can often raise their hand and say “Me Too”!

20

Miguel Simon <simon@ou.edu> wrote:
MS > Hi Bill…

MS > I agree with you (we also post here more often than in the private
MS > group). Thanks for posting here; I get a lot of mileage from your
MS > questions (and I suspect that others do too). :slight_smile:


MS > Question to you Bill (over a cup of coffee of course):

MS > You have mentioned before -elsewhere- that you do not use the IDE. Do
MS > you get the PE edition that comes with the full IDE + debugger
MS > utilities, and if so, how come you do not use the IDE? I am only curious.

MS > I must tell you, the current debugger + debugging utilities that come
MS > with the Momentics IDE 3.0 are really much more useful, stable, improved
MS > and powerful! You can actually see the trace of your program, see
MS > interaction of several programs that you may have in the debugger at the
MS > same time, etc. I am quite impressed with them. You could or perhaps
MS > would be much more efficient if you use them, I am sure. If you have the
MS > tools, I encourage you to try them someday.

MS > Regards…

MS > Miguel.

Gee, I happen to be drinking my coffee right now. First thing I do in
the morning is get coffee and read these news groups.

More to the point, I have never tried the IDE with 6.3. I did try it
with 6.2. I found the learning curve incredibly difficult. And it litterally
wouldn’t let me do ANYTHING the way I wanted to do it.

Most of what I need to work on is real-time software. Using a typical
debugger makes that software not-real-time. So I’ve developed a whole
set of my own diagnostic techniques and utilities. I can use these without
interfering with the real-timeliness of the executing software.

So I really don’t have a need to try the IDE again. On top of that I found
the IDE to be extreamly FAT and SLOW. I’m developing on a 2.4 GHz HP
system with 1 GB of RAM and I still found the IDE fat and slow compared to
my own development techniques.

I can remember when I first started working on QNX 6, after having worked
with QNX 4 for almost 15 years. I used to be able to develop and test on a
single 166 MHz Pentium with 32 MB of RAM. QSSL said that I needed 256 MB
to do development work on QNX6. Quite frankly I was insulted.
Furthermore, it simply is NOT REQUIRED as long as you use the command line
utilities.

Anyway, where I am working now they have a nice fat wallet. So I get all
the computing horsepower I want and we sprung for the Professional version.
They requested it. I’m sure it was a status symbol to them.