QNX NC history

[Robert_Krten1]

Bill Caroselli <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:

camz@passageway.com > wrote:
cpc > Actually, we don’t know Harman’s true reason for aquiring QSS. According to
cpc > a recent article in the December 15, 2004 issue of SD Times the speculation
cpc > is quite different. Here is the relvant quote:

cpc > “Apparently, the impetus for the acquisition was a lack of
cpc > confidencein QNX’s longevity. Twenty-three years of growth
cpc > and profitability were not enough for the automotive
cpc > industry to alleviate fears about the company’s future
cpc > direction.”

Do you know who’s quote this was?

When I first read it I thought it was sarcasm!

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/~museum/

[Robert_Rutherford1]

On 16 Dec 2004 20:33:06 GMT, camz@passageway.com wrote:

Armin Steinhoff <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote:
A runtime CD for x86 systems is NOT available!

And this is the case for 6.2.1 and 6.3 …

Why should there be a runtime CD for any of them? It is presumed that you
would be building custom systems, and the runtime configuration for each
project would be different, making a “runtime CD” impractical. You can
make your own from your development environment, which is what you are
expected to do.

Cheers,
Camz.

Now this is one time that I strongly agree with Armin.

Not all QNX6 customers are building highly embedded systems. Some (many?)
of us are just shipping regular x86 PCs with a QNX runtime and our custom
application installed on top.

All we want to be able to do is to do an install a 6.2.1 or 6.3 runtime
(only!) on a “virgin” x86 PC. We just want to put an install disk in the CD
drive, boot it, and then have it install onto the hard disk.

In most cases we are quite happy to have the standard boot image (including
diskboot), we just don’t want to install the development system and any
other components which are not part of the runtime license.

At the moment, to achieve this took us about 2 weeks of work to “pull
apart” a standard SE install and put it back together with just the runtime
components. We have now achieved this for 6.2.1. If anyone wants a copy let
me know. But it cost us many days/dollars and we will have to repeat the
effort more or less from scratch for 6.3.

Based on the QNX4 days, we really expected this to be something that would
be supplied for us by the OS vendor.

Rob Rutherford

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“John Nagle” <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message
news:cpsh5f$lqt$1@inn.qnx.com…
[…]

This typically happens in companies where the inside sales
force has become too influential. The inside sales people
make most of their commissions reselling to a small number
of large customers. So they want efforts focused on the
big customers. The same big customers. Over time, the
company becomes marginalized, loses mind share, and
gets run over by others selling into a larger
customer base. Yes, only a small fraction of the small
customers ever become big. But that’s where the new
big customers come from.

That’s what happened to many of the old-line
computer companies. DEC. Unisys. Honeywell.
They’re not totally dead. You can still buy a
UNISYS mainframe or an ALPHA server. But it’s
replacement business only, and it’s smaller every year.

cough … Motorola iDEN division (where I used to work) & Nextel (who’s
their [almost] only customer). Such a sweet couple… cough cough

– igor

[Mario_Charest1]

I mean as a company QSS must be doing something right because somebody
gave
them 138Millions, more then 5 time their annual revenus. Please people
get
some perspective here.

Actually, we don’t know Harman’s true reason for aquiring QSS. According
to
a recent article in the December 15, 2004 issue of SD Times the
speculation
is quite different. Here is the relvant quote:

“Apparently, the impetus for the acquisition was a lack of
confidencein QNX’s longevity. Twenty-three years of growth
and profitability were not enough for the automotive
industry to alleviate fears about the company’s future
direction.”

I have no difficulty believing this to be the actual reason for Harman’s
acquisition.

It well could be, but it doesn’t really matter because in the end QSS was
worth to somebody 138Millions.
That is quite an acheivement business wise. I wouldn’t mind somebody buying
my out for 138millions because of lack of confidence

[Igor_Kovalenko2]

“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:cptr7b$kua$1@inn.qnx.com…

I mean as a company QSS must be doing something right because somebody
gave
them 138Millions, more then 5 time their annual revenus. Please people
get
some perspective here.

Actually, we don’t know Harman’s true reason for aquiring QSS. According
to
a recent article in the December 15, 2004 issue of SD Times the
speculation
is quite different. Here is the relvant quote:

“Apparently, the impetus for the acquisition was a lack of
confidencein QNX’s longevity. Twenty-three years of growth
and profitability were not enough for the automotive
industry to alleviate fears about the company’s future
direction.”

I have no difficulty believing this to be the actual reason for Harman’s
acquisition.

It well could be, but it doesn’t really matter because in the end QSS was
worth to somebody 138Millions.
That is quite an acheivement business wise. I wouldn’t mind somebody
buying my out for 138millions because of lack of confidence >

I hear they were bought because it turned out to be easier for Harman to buy
QNX, than to get them fix some bugs they had :p}

– igor

[system]

Robert Rutherford <mail@nospamplease.ruzz.com> wrote:

All we want to be able to do is to do an install a 6.2.1 or 6.3 runtime
(only!) on a “virgin” x86 PC. We just want to put an install disk in the CD
drive, boot it, and then have it install onto the hard disk.

Who said all embedding needs to be “deeply embedded”. Any runtime
environment using QNX is effectively a custom target.

In most cases we are quite happy to have the standard boot image (including
diskboot), we just don’t want to install the development system and any
other components which are not part of the runtime license.

Actually, with 6.21, you already had that. If you boot 6.21 NC it first
installs the runtime and then reboots to complete the install of the dev
environment. Just exit the installer and you are done.

There is a similiar proceedure for 6.30 eval, as it asks if you want to
install the development environment and IDE. Just say no and you are
done. The only thing a bit more intrusive for this with 6.30 is that
you have to provide a valid license key to install, even if you don’t
install the development components that require it.

At the moment, to achieve this took us about 2 weeks of work to “pull
apart” a standard SE install and put it back together with just the runtime
components. We have now achieved this for 6.2.1. If anyone wants a copy let
me know. But it cost us many days/dollars and we will have to repeat the
effort more or less from scratch for 6.3.

Basically, if you need something different that the runtime that installs
using the previously mentioned proceedure then you don’t have a “standard”
runtime, and how would you expect QSS to put that on a CD? Make your
own, it’s not that hard, but don’t get tricked into thinking that just
because you are installing onto an HD that it’s not technically an embedded
target, it is.

Based on the QNX4 days, we really expected this to be something that would
be supplied for us by the OS vendor.

I’m not sure I understand this, with QNX4 you had to install everything
seperately, and even then, there was no “standard” runtime. there were
multiple runtimes, each with their own license… so you had the OS, and
TCP/IP, and Photon, and possibly X, depending on your system you might
have any combination of these. There were multiple versions of TCP/IP
as well, with NFS and without. There was no standard runtime. Why
should you expect a “Standard” runtime in Qnx 6? QNX is an embedded
OS, not a desktop / general purpose OS, which basically makes any
install other than a development environment an embedded target.

Cheers,
Camz.

–
Martin Zimmerman camz@passageway.com
Camz Software Enterprises www.passageway.com/camz/qnx/
QNX Programming & Consulting www.qnxzone.com

[Miguel_Simon1]

Hi Bill…

Your point is well taken. I too hope that QNX is successful.

Regards…

Miguel.


Bill Caroselli wrote:

I can keep silent no longer !

I have been working with QNX for over 17 years. It is a matter of policy
for me that I will no longer work in any other environment.

For those obsessed with chanting doom and gloom for QNX
please stop using it and just go somewhere else.

I would like to see QNX grow and prosper.
But it won’t happen with you folks crying death to QNX.
So, use it, or shut up and go away.


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

MS > John Nagle wrote:


If fewer people are learning how to use your OS than
are leaving it, it’s dying.


MS > It seems that QNX will die indeed. Maybe when is dead, it will then
MS > become open source…

MS > Regards…

MS > Miguel.


John Nagle

[Armin_Steinhoff1]

camz@passageway.com wrote:

Armin Steinhoff <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote:

A runtime CD for x86 systems is NOT available!


And this is the case for 6.2.1 and 6.3 …


Why should there be a runtime CD for any of them? It is presumed that you
would be building custom systems, and the runtime configuration for each
project would be different,

That’s realy not the case … have a look to the runtime CD of QNX4.
Was the runtime CD of QNX4 ‘impractical’??

QNX6 is much more flexible than QNX4 … so it makes MORE sense to have
a runtime CD for QNX6!!

making a “runtime CD” impractical. You can
make your own from your development environment, which is what you are
expected to do.

No … it’s only possible to resell runtimes TOGETHER with HARDWARE …
but we are not a hardware shop!!

You are also simply ignoring the market of THIRD PARTY software.

How could you sell a QNX based SCADA system if there is no runtime
available??

There is - or should I say there was? - a market for endusers which are
simply buying third party software and a runtime system for QNX!!

Not offering a runtime CD is really stupid … and I believe it’s time
to talk to the owner of QSSL.

Regards

Armin

Cheers,
Camz.

[Armin_Steinhoff1]

camz@passageway.com wrote:

Robert Rutherford <> mail@nospamplease.ruzz.com> > wrote:

All we want to be able to do is to do an install a 6.2.1 or 6.3 runtime
(only!) on a “virgin” x86 PC. We just want to put an install disk in the CD
drive, boot it, and then have it install onto the hard disk.


Who said all embedding needs to be “deeply embedded”. Any runtime
environment using QNX is effectively a custom target.

That’s absolutely not the case!

In most cases we are quite happy to have the standard boot image (including
diskboot), we just don’t want to install the development system and any
other components which are not part of the runtime license.


Actually, with 6.21, you already had that. If you boot 6.21 NC it first
installs the runtime and then reboots to complete the install of the dev
environment. Just exit the installer and you are done.

No … you are not done! Regarding your licenses you have to fiddle
around to kick off all modules which are not included in your licenses.

There is no documentation available about dependencies of the RTOS
modules … if they are ‘defined’ at all.

That’s only one point … at next you have to ADD YOUR TARGET HARDWARE.

Selling runtimes without hardware breaks the QSSL license.

Hope you didn’t do that!

There is a similiar proceedure for 6.30 eval

There is no PROCEDURE …

, as it asks if you want to

install the development environment and IDE. Just say no and you are
done. The only thing a bit more intrusive for this with 6.30 is that
you have to provide a valid license key to install, even if you don’t
install the development components that require it.

Interesting … you are able to provide LICENSE KEYS ???

At the moment, to achieve this took us about 2 weeks of work to “pull
apart” a standard SE install and put it back together with just the runtime
components. We have now achieved this for 6.2.1. If anyone wants a copy let
me know. But it cost us many days/dollars and we will have to repeat the
effort more or less from scratch for 6.3.

And the customer will be happy to get a runtime with a undefined quality
and without warranties from QSSL???

Basically, if you need something different that the runtime that installs
using the previously mentioned proceedure then you don’t have a “standard”
runtime, and how would you expect QSS to put that on a CD? Make your
own, it’s not that hard, but don’t get tricked into thinking that just
because you are installing onto an HD that it’s not technically an embedded
target, it is.


Based on the QNX4 days, we really expected this to be something that would
be supplied for us by the OS vendor.


I’m not sure I understand this, with QNX4 you had to install everything
seperately, and even then, there was no “standard” runtime.

Sorry … that’s realy nonsens. If you like I could send you the 6
floppy disks with the standard runtime of QNX4!!!

there were
multiple runtimes, each with their own license

No … it was also possible to buy ( besides the complete standard or
‘basic’ runtime) individual runtime modules in order to cut the costs
of the runtime installation.

… so you had the OS, and

TCP/IP, and Photon, and possibly X, depending on your system you might
have any combination of these. There were multiple versions of TCP/IP
as well, with NFS and without. There was no standard runtime.

There was a standard runtime! And you could install additional software
modules from QSSL or from third party vendors.

Why
should you expect a “Standard” runtime in Qnx 6? QNX is an embedded
OS, not a desktop / general purpose OS, which basically makes any
install other than a development environment an embedded target.

No … QNX is not a plain embedded system!

It is UNIX like multi user, multi tasking RTOS with multiple windowing
systems and can be used for a lot of very different applications on very
different harware platforms.

Regards


Armin

Cheers,
Camz.

[Jutta_Steinhoff1]

Robert Rutherford wrote:

[clip…]

Now this is one time that I strongly agree with Armin.

Not all QNX6 customers are building highly embedded systems. Some (many?)
of us are just shipping regular x86 PCs with a QNX runtime and our custom
application installed on top.

All we want to be able to do is to do an install a 6.2.1 or 6.3 runtime
(only!) on a “virgin” x86 PC. We just want to put an install disk in the CD
drive, boot it, and then have it install onto the hard disk.

Rob,

this problem is known for a long time and I heard that it was hard
discussed at the European QNX Distributor Conference in the last week, too.

There is also an other market for customers, who want to buy Runtime CDs
from QSSL or from their 3rd Parties: that are customers who want to
assemble their x86 hardware themselves and would like to program with a
MS Workbench (SCADA, SoftPLC or DACHSview e.g.). But they would like
running the critical part of their control system under QNX.

They have to install a QNX standard Runtime for x86, a QNX target and
QNX drivers from may be different 3rd parties. Such customers have no
chance today to buy only Runtimes w/o Momentics from QSSx. That means
this growing market with realtime requirements is completely ignored
from QSSL since years (

---

AFAIK, QNX is the ONLY RTOS which is not bound to a static defined BSP
and has the real flexibility to be a valid platform for the automation
industry !!!

We are discussing the Runtime CDs for a long time with QSSL guys and
they were promised for 2004. Last week we got the next promise for
Q1/2005 … let’s see, how often it will be still shifted.

Anyway, nobody dares to give a season with year

Cheers,
Jutta

[Malte_Mundt1]

At the moment, to achieve this took us about 2 weeks of work to “pull
apart” a standard SE install and put it back together with just the
runtime
components. We have now achieved this for 6.2.1. If anyone wants a copy
let
me know. But it cost us many days/dollars and we will have to repeat the
effort more or less from scratch for 6.3.

No you won’t, because the 6.3 Neutrino installation asks you if you want the
runtimes only or if you want the full dev environment.

Cheers,


Malte

[Armin_Steinhoff1]

Malte Mundt wrote:

At the moment, to achieve this took us about 2 weeks of work to “pull
apart” a standard SE install and put it back together with just the

runtime

components. We have now achieved this for 6.2.1. If anyone wants a copy

let

me know. But it cost us many days/dollars and we will have to repeat the
effort more or less from scratch for 6.3.


No you won’t, because the 6.3 Neutrino installation asks you if you want the
runtimes only or if you want the full dev environment.

This was already possible with 6.2.1 … you have just to stop the
installation of Momentics.

But that isn’t a clean module based customization.

And … how would you sell such a ‘runtime’ configuration??

Armin

Cheers,


Malte

[system]

Armin Steinhoff <a-steinhoff@web.de> wrote:

That’s realy not the case … have a look to the runtime CD of QNX4.
Was the runtime CD of QNX4 ‘impractical’??

Well, I’d hardly call QNX4 or QNX6 “end-user” friendly in terms of setup
and installation. The same is true of Linux and any Unix. Even if they
have “runtime only” install media available, you need a Unix sysadmin to
actually perform the installatino and setup. QNX is no different.

No … it’s only possible to resell runtimes TOGETHER with HARDWARE …
but we are not a hardware shop!!

Actually, that is not true. There was a group selling an amiga system
that ran on top of QNX 6.20 (might have been 6.21, not sure). It was
Amiga OSXL (http://www.haage-partner.de/amigaxl). They were selling
their system as software only and included a custom QNX runtime plus
their software. Sounds exactly like the scenario you are after.

You are also simply ignoring the market of THIRD PARTY software.

I agree on this. The 3rd party software market isn’t acknowledged or
supported by QSS. It’s not the only market that isn’t supported though,
QSS has a history of failing to truely understand some of the markets
where they have been successful… Industrial / Factory automation
and medical devices fit into this category too.

How could you sell a QNX based SCADA system if there is no runtime
available??

I see your point. My point is that if the only reason the end-user
would buy and install a QNX runtime is to run your software, then it
makes as much or more sense to bundle the OS with your software.

What is more interesting is that one of QSS’s problems is that of
failing to create “mindshare” and 'brand awareness". When they force
you to bundle the OS with your product, they encourage the “stealth”
use of QNX. This is no longer in their best interest, they gain
significantly more by having end-users aware that QNX is the “guts”
that your software runs on. This is (again) a failure of the QNX
marketing group.

Not offering a runtime CD is really stupid … and I believe it’s time
to talk to the owner of QSSL.

His support would be beneficial, but I think you really need to talk
to the marketing group and explain to them the sales opportunites they
are missing by not having a runtime CD.

Cheers,
Camz.

–
Martin Zimmerman camz@passageway.com
Camz Software Enterprises www.passageway.com/camz/qnx/
QNX Programming & Consulting www.qnxzone.com

[Mario_Charest1]

Not offering a runtime CD is really stupid … and I believe it’s time
to talk to the owner of QSSL.

His support would be beneficial, but I think you really need to talk
to the marketing group and explain to them the sales opportunites they
are missing by not having a runtime CD.

Hum I wonder about the validity of such a statement (that I agree in most
part).

What if what they are doing (or not) is driven by request of real
customer. Aside from Armin I beleive most of us do not qualitfy a real
customer. Armin, how much QNX system per year to you resell/bundle?

Look at development environment for Solaris. I don’t recall anyone in here
asking for such a thing. Yet its available. Maybe QSS had to make a choice
between allocating resources to make a Solaris distribution or a runtime CD.
As I recall during the 6.3.0 beta there was 2 CD (or maybe I’m confusing it
with 6.2.x beta). One for runtime and one for development. Somebody,
somewhere made the decision to put them both on 1 CD, why. I do now beleive
it was out of ignorance, it was most probably a customer driven decision.
The type of customer we don’t know about because they aren’t using public
channel to make request, most probably because they back it up with money
and don’t need to use pressure on them by using public forum.

Cheers,
Camz.

–
Martin Zimmerman > camz@passageway.com
Camz Software Enterprises > www.passageway.com/camz/qnx/
QNX Programming & Consulting > www.qnxzone.com

[system]

Mario Charest postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote:

His support would be beneficial, but I think you really need to talk
to the marketing group and explain to them the sales opportunites they
are missing by not having a runtime CD.

Hum I wonder about the validity of such a statement (that I agree in most
part).

My comment was meant to say that although talking to the CEO may be beneficial
most decisions are not dictated from “on high” down. The details surrounding
the decision on what to bundle on the CD and what to leave off is most likely
not a level of detail that the CEO is involved with. Instead, it is delegated
so another group and it is that group that you need to talk to, not the CEO.

somewhere made the decision to put them both on 1 CD, why. I do now beleive
it was out of ignorance, it was most probably a customer driven decision.

It’s hard to tell, it could be either. It was probably done belieivng that
it would make the installation of the development environment convenient
with no consideration given to runtime envinroments. If the bulk of your
experience is using the development environment, you could easily forget
that runtime only installs exist too. I suspect this would be the case for
most people working for QSS that rarely, if ever, deal with installing
anything other than development environments.

The type of customer we don’t know about because they aren’t using public
channel to make request, most probably because they back it up with money
and don’t need to use pressure on them by using public forum.

Well, QSS has built custom install media for those customers for many years,
I don’t think it has much relevance to what the public offering actually is.

Cheers,
Camz.

–
Martin Zimmerman camz@passageway.com
Camz Software Enterprises www.passageway.com/camz/qnx/
QNX Programming & Consulting www.qnxzone.com

[Armin_Steinhoff1]

camz@passageway.com wrote:

Armin Steinhoff <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote:

[ clip …]



No … it’s only possible to resell runtimes TOGETHER with HARDWARE …
but we are not a hardware shop!!


Actually, that is not true. There was a group selling an amiga system
that ran on top of QNX 6.20 (might have been 6.21, not sure). It was
Amiga OSXL (> http://www.haage-partner.de/amigaxl> ). They were selling
their system as software only and included a custom QNX runtime plus
their software. Sounds exactly like the scenario you are after.

This doesn’t change the official licenses of QSSL.

You are also simply ignoring the market of THIRD PARTY software.


I agree on this. The 3rd party software market isn’t acknowledged or
supported by QSS. It’s not the only market that isn’t supported though,
QSS has a history of failing to truely understand some of the markets
where they have been successful… Industrial / Factory automation
and medical devices fit into this category too.


How could you sell a QNX based SCADA system if there is no runtime
available??


I see your point. My point is that if the only reason the end-user
would buy and install a QNX runtime is to run your software, then it
makes as much or more sense to bundle the OS with your software.

No … that’s make no sense. What happens if every third party would
bundle QNX with its product and the customer has to install a few third
party products?

What is more interesting is that one of QSS’s problems is that of
failing to create “mindshare” and 'brand awareness". When they force
you to bundle the OS with your product, they encourage the “stealth”
use of QNX. This is no longer in their best interest, they gain
significantly more by having end-users aware that QNX is the “guts”
that your software runs on. This is (again) a failure of the QNX
marketing group.


Not offering a runtime CD is really stupid … and I believe it’s time
to talk to the owner of QSSL.


His support would be beneficial, but I think you really need to talk
to the marketing group and explain to them the sales opportunites they
are missing by not having a runtime CD.

Yes … they are leaving out a complete market segment.

The idea to target only the ‘embedded market’ with an outdated licensing
model (copied from there competitors) and droping all others market
segments is more then brain damaged … sorry I have no other words for
that.


Regards

Armin

[Armin_Steinhoff1]

Mario Charest wrote:

Not offering a runtime CD is really stupid … and I believe it’s time
to talk to the owner of QSSL.

His support would be beneficial, but I think you really need to talk
to the marketing group and explain to them the sales opportunites they
are missing by not having a runtime CD.


Hum I wonder about the validity of such a statement (that I agree in most
part).

What if what they are doing (or not) is driven by request of real
customer.

But this a very strange ‘strategy’ … if one could call it a strategy
at all.

Aside from Armin I beleive most of us do not qualitfy a real
customer. Armin, how much QNX system per year to you resell/bundle?

I’m not in the distribution business … and we don’t bundle QNX with
our software. BTW … what product from QSSL could we bundle with our
products? A softPLC with Momentics?

Look at development environment for Solaris. I don’t recall anyone in here
asking for such a thing. Yet its available. Maybe QSS had to make a choice
between allocating resources to make a Solaris distribution or a runtime CD.
As I recall during the 6.3.0 beta there was 2 CD (or maybe I’m confusing it
with 6.2.x beta). One for runtime and one for development.

The way of the product packaging has no meaning … licensing plus
packaging is the issue.

Somebody,
somewhere made the decision to put them both on 1 CD, why. I do now beleive
it was out of ignorance, it was most probably a customer driven decision.

That’s realy a crazy theory

The type of customer we don’t know about because they aren’t using public
channel to make request, most probably because they back it up with money
and don’t need to use pressure on them by using public forum.

Sorry … I don’t understand that statement.

Regards

Armin

Cheers,
Camz.

–
Martin Zimmerman > camz@passageway.com
Camz Software Enterprises > www.passageway.com/camz/qnx/
QNX Programming & Consulting > www.qnxzone.com
\

[system]

Armin Steinhoff <a-steinhoff@web.de> wrote:

Amiga OSXL (> http://www.haage-partner.de/amigaxl> ). They were selling
their system as software only and included a custom QNX runtime plus
their software. Sounds exactly like the scenario you are after.

This doesn’t change the official licenses of QSSL.

I don’t follow your meaning. The runtime licesnses are not electronic.
They are a certificate or sticker. They are all official licenses, and
AFAIK, the runtime license that Amiga OSXL used was an official one, and
not the NC one.

No … that’s make no sense. What happens if every third party would
bundle QNX with its product and the customer has to install a few third
party products?

In a sense you are right, QSS’s current model forces you to essentially
provide two different packages of your software. One that includes an
OS runtime and one that does not. No, you shouldn’t have to do that, it
is a bit silly.

The fundamental reality though is that unlike windows, people don’t just
go out and buy QNX without some very specific software that they want to
run on it. You don’t visit a company and find that they just happen to
have a QNX server sitting in the corner waiting desperately for some
software to run on it.

Instead people find your software and then discover that they need
QNX to run it. It’s going to be very rare indeed that you find an
existing system just waiting for your software to be installed on.

What you want can be created, QSS has essentially given you the tools
to do so when you purchased your development seat. What they haven’t
done is make it easy for you to do it.

Your biggest problem is that you don’t want to build OS runtime install
media that goes along with your app. You want QSS to do it for you.
You don’t want to have to keep inventory of runtime licenses or media
for anything other than your own app. THAT is your problem, not
QSS’s. There is a co-dependancy between your software and the OS.
It’s almost a catch-22 scenario. QSS wouldn’t sell a runtime to this
particular customer if that customer was not buying your software, and
they wouldn’t buy your software if they can’t also buy QNX.

What you want sounds like you would like to be able to sell helium, but
you don’t want to be responsible for selling the containers to put it
in.

This model works for propane, but not helium. The major difference is
one of market inertia. When propane barbeques first came out there wasn’t
much of a consumer market for buying a spare/empty/replacemnt propane
tank other than buying it with the BBQ. Once the market for propane
BBQ’s got large enough, a (smaller) market for empty tanks emerged.
That market simply didn’t exist at first and if you wanted a 2nd tank
you had to buy another BBQ. It was stupid, but the demand for extra
tanks outweighed the cost of providing them.

The same is true with what you are after.

There is no real market for a commercial stand-alone QNX runtime.
What I mean by this is that the market is so small as to be
unprofitable. People don’t buy QNX and then buy software to run
on it. They buy the software and then NEED Qnx for it.

You are chasing the dream of a market reality that does not exist,
and probably never will. QSS isn’t really in the position to change
that any more than you are.

The idea to target only the ‘embedded market’ with an outdated licensing
model (copied from there competitors) and droping all others market
segments is more then brain damaged … sorry I have no other words for
that.

I will agree that their licensing model has flaws. You don’t actually
have an issue with their licensing model though, you have an issue with
their distribution model for install media. They are NOT the same
issue.

Cheers,
Camz.

–
Martin Zimmerman camz@passageway.com
Camz Software Enterprises www.passageway.com/camz/qnx/
QNX Programming & Consulting www.qnxzone.com

[Armin_Steinhoff1]

camz@passageway.com wrote:

Mario Charest postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote:

His support would be beneficial, but I think you really need to talk
to the marketing group and explain to them the sales opportunites they
are missing by not having a runtime CD.


Hum I wonder about the validity of such a statement (that I agree in most
part).


My comment was meant to say that although talking to the CEO may be beneficial
most decisions are not dictated from “on high” down. The details surrounding
the decision on what to bundle on the CD and what to leave off is most likely
not a level of detail that the CEO is involved with. Instead, it is delegated
so another group and it is that group that you need to talk to, not the CEO.

sounds like caos. The marketing department is defining a product and a
other group is defining independingly it’s packaging?

I can’t believe that …

somewhere made the decision to put them both on 1 CD, why. I do now beleive
it was out of ignorance, it was most probably a customer driven decision.

If QSSL would be ‘customer driven’ we would have already a runtime CD!!

There are a lot of distributors asking for a runtime CD …

It’s hard to tell, it could be either. It was probably done belieivng that
it would make the installation of the development environment convenient
with no consideration given to runtime envinroments. If the bulk of your
experience is using the development environment, you could easily forget
that runtime only installs exist too. I suspect this would be the case for
most people working for QSS that rarely, if ever, deal with installing
anything other than development environments.

The marketing department has to do these decisions … not the low level
developers.

The type of customer we don’t know about because they aren’t using public
channel to make request, most probably because they back it up with money
and don’t need to use pressure on them by using public forum.

I don’t believe that customers have the intension to pay money for
improving the marketing of QSSL. They will simply talk to the owner of QSSL.


Regards
Armin

[Jutta_Steinhoff1]

camz@passageway.com wrote:

Armin Steinhoff <> a-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote:

Amiga OSXL (> http://www.haage-partner.de/amigaxl> ). They were selling
their system as software only and included a custom QNX runtime plus
their software. Sounds exactly like the scenario you are after.


This doesn’t change the official licenses of QSSL.


I don’t follow your meaning.

Camz, Armin wanted to say that it’s not possible with official license
agreements. So there must have been a special agreement with QSSL for
the Amiga QSXL !!!

The runtime licesnses are not electronic.
They are a certificate or sticker. They are all official licenses, and
AFAIK, the runtime license that Amiga OSXL used was an official one, and
not the NC one.

When QSSL makes a special exception for one company it doesn’t mean that
this exception is valid for all other companies, too …

No … that’s make no sense. What happens if every third party would
bundle QNX with its product and the customer has to install a few third
party products?

In a sense you are right, QSS’s current model forces you to essentially
provide two different packages of your software. One that includes an
OS runtime and one that does not.

it’s not correct!
A 3rd Party has to sell his software separately w/o any QNX runtime
license.
When a 3rd Party has bought Momentics he is only allowed to resell
runtimes when they are pre-installed on hardware together with his 3rd
Party software.

Our customers e.g. who are working in all kind of industrial automation
up to embedded systems are using fieldbus systems with different APIs or
different programming tools with MS based workbenches and QNX Target
systems. They are assembling their hardware themselves according their
requirements. Most of them use standard x86 hardware.

• In the QNX4 days when the runtimes were delivered on floppy disks it
  was possible to resell also runtime licenses when you have sold already
  a full QNX development system to the customer … but we had often to
  justify to the QNX-Sales why a few customers wanted all out of one hand
  and didn’t want to buy their software from various sources!!!

With the license certificates instead of software on media it’s
impossible to resell Momentics even when you are doing a full project.
You can’t sign the contract on behalf of your customer.

The fundamental reality though is that unlike windows, people don’t just
go out and buy QNX without some very specific software that they want to
run on it.

True, because of QNX alone makes no sense
But the customer will have 2 sources for buying:

• QSSx for buying Momentics and signing the contract
• 3rd Parties for buying needed specific QNX based software
  
  
  

You don’t visit a company and find that they just happen to
have a QNX server sitting in the corner waiting desperately for some
software to run on it.

We have customers who have already decided for QNX for good reason and
then they are looking for QNX support for their hardware configuration.
It’s nothing special, at least in industrial automation.

Instead people find your software and then discover that they need
QNX to run it.

That’s often the case, especially for SoftPLCs or our DACHSview, a
function block oriented graphical programming tool.

Can you imagine what happens when a customer wants to buy DACHSview for
QNX and we have to send him for buying QNX Runtimes to the QNX sales
channel?
He gets offered Mometics PE for 12.000 EUR. He will be happy about that
expensive Runtime and is sorting out QNX solutions regardless how much
he would have liked it …

That’s the reality !!!

You can offer the most advanced programming systems with MS based
Workbenches, but QSSL has no interest in that growing market with
realtime Targets. It’s currently not possible for a pot. customers to
buy ONLY Runtimes for a x86 Target PC.
Let’s see what is with the promise for Runtime CDs in Q1/2005 which we
got last week…

It’s going to be very rare indeed that you find an
existing system just waiting for your software to be installed on.

What you want can be created, QSS has essentially given you the tools
to do so when you purchased your development seat.

There are no tools for creating Runtime distributions!

What they haven’t done is make it easy for you to do it.

nonsense!

Your biggest problem is that you don’t want to build OS runtime install
media that goes along with your app.

again, 3rd Parties are only allowed to resell pre-installed runtimes
from a bought Momentics system. In that case, you can give
an_additional_CD to your customer with your software incl. the QNX runtime!

The legal license model from QSSL doesn’t allow to build a QNX runtime
and resell it on CD together with a license sticker.

OTOH, who would be responsible for that burned and sold runtime?
QSSL don’t know what you have burned and can’t give warranty!

Can you imagine, that a customer would like to get a legal CD with
original software from QSSL ?
Isn’t it a joke that QSSL has so many problems to bring out one or 2
Runtime CD versions with may be 5 or 10 licences included?

You want QSS to do it for you.

QSSL is licensing for OEMs e.g. different standardized Runtime Bundles
with predefined Runtime modules, e.g.

• Non-GUI Device Bundle
• Graphical Device Bundle
• Multimedia Information Appliance Bundle
• Standard Runtime Bundle
• High-End Runtime Bundle

QNX is very modular, so what’s the problem to offer Runtime Bundles on
CD, too???

BTW, I know OEMs who would be happy to hand over original RT CDs to
their industrial automation customers instead of the license sheet + sticker

You don’t want to have to keep inventory of runtime licenses or media
for anything other than your own app. THAT is your problem, not
QSS’s.

3rd Party products are normally standard products, and 3rd Party
products from different vendors are often used in one and the same
application. Is it so hard to understand it??

Here an example to make it more clear.
e.g. Hardware assembled from a customer for an open control system in
PCI or PC/104 format

• CPU
• PROFIBUS controller board
• digital I/O board
• analog I/O board
  etc.
  and all interfaced by a SoftPLC has to be supported under QNX

No problem to buy the hardware, drivers and SoftPLC.
But at the end, buying a QNX Runtime is the knock-out!

If this customer would be willing to program in C, he would probably
accept the price for Momentics… and would have only fun to fiddle out
how to install the separate runtime…

There is a co-dependancy between your software and the OS.

3rd Party products run on QNX but have not to be bundled with it…

It’s almost a catch-22 scenario. QSS wouldn’t sell a runtime to this
particular customer if that customer was not buying your software, and
they wouldn’t buy your software if they can’t also buy QNX.

A customer who wants to buy our Programming tools with MS based
Workbench is interested in the offered functionality. Next step is to
tell him that he will need a QNX runtime which he can buy only together
with Momentics…

Tell a customer who wants a SCADA or SoftPLC for MS that he has to buy a
complete MS development system in order to be allowed to install a MS
Runtime…

Please understand that QSSL is ignoring a growing market segment and is
loosing market shares in industrial automation. May be the embedded
market is enough for them?

It’s a question of their sales strategy and they don’t want customers
who would like to run ONLY their critical parts of their control system
under QNX.

What you want sounds like you would like to be able to sell helium, but
you don’t want to be responsible for selling the containers to put it
in.

nonsense!

This model works for propane, but not helium. The major difference is
one of market inertia. When propane barbeques first came out there wasn’t
much of a consumer market for buying a spare/empty/replacemnt propane
tank other than buying it with the BBQ. Once the market for propane
BBQ’s got large enough, a (smaller) market for empty tanks emerged.
That market simply didn’t exist at first and if you wanted a 2nd tank
you had to buy another BBQ. It was stupid, but the demand for extra
tanks outweighed the cost of providing them.

The same is true with what you are after.

When the Container is Momentics and the Runtime would be Helium it’s not
meeting the situation…
For Helium and Propan you can use the same “tank”, but for a target
system running QNX you have already the “tank” with the MS workbench

There is no real market for a commercial stand-alone QNX runtime.

You are completely wrong!!!
There was a market for QNX 4 Runtimes, and there is also a market for
QNX 6 runtimes!

What I mean by this is that the market is so small as to be
unprofitable. People don’t buy QNX and then buy software to run
on it. They buy the software and then NEED Qnx for it.

You are chasing the dream of a market reality that does not exist,
and probably never will. QSS isn’t really in the position to change
that any more than you are.

There are some QSSL employees who are aware about the necessity of RT
CDs and are fighting for it internally for a long time. One strong
fighter for it was just hired from WindRiver …

The idea to target only the ‘embedded market’ with an outdated licensing
model (copied from their competitors) and droping all others market
segments is more than brain damaged … sorry I have no other words for
that.


I will agree that their licensing model has flaws. You don’t actually
have an issue with their licensing model though,

sorry, the main issue is their licensing model and non existing RT CDs
which customers can buy w/o Momentics!

you have an issue with their distribution model for install media.
They are NOT the same issue.

Camz, you should read more exactly before doing your conclusion…

Cheers,
Jutta

Cheers,
Camz.