QNX NC history

Armin Steinhoff wrote:

John Nagle wrote:
Any questions?

Yes … what marketing-bubble-generator they have used?

This one:

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/games/career/bin/ms.cgi


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

QNX has always been a technologically superior company to work with.

However, they have always bee a shitty company to do business with.
Here are some examples.

Point #1

Long ago we were developing our product for QNX v 2.15. They announced
their version 4.0 software. We knew we wanted to upgrade to it but we
weren’t ready yet. They announced an upgrade offer with an experation date.

We waited, and when the experation data approached we bought the upgrade.
It sat in the box for almost a year, never opened. They came out with
their v 4.1. Now we were just about ready to upgrade to the new stuff.
An upgrade offer was announced for 4.0 to 4.1. No experation date was given.
Three months later we decided to upgrade from the 4.0 (which we still
haven’t opened) to 4.1. At this time we were told that there was NO
UPGRADE OPTION. We had to purchase 4.1 from scratch. Basically they told
us that we waisted a few thousand dollars upgrading to 4.0 because we couldn’t
then upgrade to 4.1. We were a small company and this cost us BIG. I
bitched all over QUICS and eventually they made an exception for us.

Point #2

Over the years I have done consulting for many companies. We would contact
QSSL to get a price quote from them. The quote would be good for 30 days.
Many/most companies can’t make a decision in 30 days. So when you come
back some 45 days later and say OK, we want to buy 10,000 runtime licenses
at the agreed upon price. Now all of a sudden they know that they have you
by the balls, so the price doubles or tripples. I have known several
companies to abandonded their QNX products after having invested many man
hours and dollars in their project, simply because QSSL screwed them over
like this.

Point #3

As a consultant I have worked for many different industries. Some, I guess,
appear sexy to QSSL, and they want to get involved. QSSL would give them
very attractive prices for those project. The next week I would be at a
different customer also seeking a bid for say 10,000 licenses. I would say,
So and so got 10,000 licneses for only $x last week. But we call up and
are given a price that is tripple what the other guys got just last week.

The technical people at are QSSL are geniouses.

The business people at QSSL are freaking morons!

It’s that simple.

So, if you want to do business with the greatest software company there is,
this is what you simply have to expect.

Bill Caroselli <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:

QNX has always been a technologically superior company to work with.

However, they have always bee a shitty company to do business with.
Here are some examples.

Point #1

Long ago we were developing our product for QNX v 2.15. They announced
their version 4.0 software. We knew we wanted to upgrade to it but we
weren’t ready yet. They announced an upgrade offer with an experation date.

We waited, and when the experation data approached we bought the upgrade.
It sat in the box for almost a year, never opened. They came out with
their v 4.1. Now we were just about ready to upgrade to the new stuff.
An upgrade offer was announced for 4.0 to 4.1. No experation date was given.
Three months later we decided to upgrade from the 4.0 (which we still
haven’t opened) to 4.1. At this time we were told that there was NO
UPGRADE OPTION. We had to purchase 4.1 from scratch. Basically they told
us that we waisted a few thousand dollars upgrading to 4.0 because we couldn’t
then upgrade to 4.1. We were a small company and this cost us BIG. I
bitched all over QUICS and eventually they made an exception for us.

Point #2

Over the years I have done consulting for many companies. We would contact
QSSL to get a price quote from them. The quote would be good for 30 days.
Many/most companies can’t make a decision in 30 days. So when you come
back some 45 days later and say OK, we want to buy 10,000 runtime licenses
at the agreed upon price. Now all of a sudden they know that they have you
by the balls, so the price doubles or tripples. I have known several
companies to abandonded their QNX products after having invested many man
hours and dollars in their project, simply because QSSL screwed them over
like this.

Point #3

As a consultant I have worked for many different industries. Some, I guess,
appear sexy to QSSL, and they want to get involved. QSSL would give them
very attractive prices for those project. The next week I would be at a
different customer also seeking a bid for say 10,000 licenses. I would say,
So and so got 10,000 licneses for only $x last week. But we call up and
are given a price that is tripple what the other guys got just last week.

The technical people at are QSSL are geniouses.

The business people at QSSL are freaking morons!

It’s that simple.

So, if you want to do business with the greatest software company there is,
this is what you simply have to expect.

Point #4

Don’t expect to be paid on time from QSSL. Ever. Over the last two or three
years, including post-acquisition, they have paid net 45 to net 60, with constant
prodding. Never an explanation or apology.

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/

Chris Herborth wrote:

Armin Steinhoff wrote:

John Nagle wrote:

Any questions?


Yes … what marketing-bubble-generator they have used?


This one:

http://www.unitedmedia.com/comics/dilbert/games/career/bin/ms.cgi

thanks for the perfect link for NA marketing :slight_smile:)

Some thoughts:

I think speak for many QNX users when I say QSSL should have a desktop
use license; I know its not their focus but I would pay the same price
as Windows XP retail for one that allowed me to use QNX for non
commercial use, with QCC and other nifty development tools
activated.

Since 6.3 came out I noticed a steady decrease in the size of the
community and intrerested community developers. When I find a bug and
report it to the developer, I usually get no reply or “I don’t use QNX
anymore”. Sad.

QSSL does seem to be trying to activetly kill off a community they
created when they released 6.0 and drive small developers away.

I stopped using QNX when 6.3 “expired” and working around the
decativated QCC became too much of a hassle. I may came back but only
if the community comes off life support.

Camz,

It’s useless. Don’t you remember you and I (and others) having this
argument with them over a year ago?

Kevin

<camz@passageway.com> wrote in message news:cqbb0k$cih$1@inn.qnx.com

Jutta Steinhoff <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote:
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 !!!

I don’t think so. Have you actually spoken to your sales reps about this?
If you read the license agreements you will actually discover that it
mentions that QNX can not be sold, only licensed. That also means that
it really does not matter if QSS sells your customer the runtime license
or if you do, QSS still provides the warranty on the OS components, not
you. (I seem to recall this being one of your concerns).

The runtime licesnses are not electronic.
They are a certificate or sticker. They are all official licenses

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

Actually, no, I don’t think this was a special exception. You and Armin
are sounding more and more like you don’t want a solution and only want
to complain about things. I really don’t think QSS is going to refuse to
let you sell a runtime license to someone without selling hardware to them
as well. Please re-read the EULA, it does not say you have to sell
hardware,
it says you can sell just software for someone to run on a legally
licensed
runtime. There is no reason why you can’t provide that runtime as well as
the license for it. I really don’t understand why you can’t do this,
since
being able to do this also supports the sale of your software to
customers,
it seems rediculous that you’d refuse to engage in an activity what would
support and possibly increase your business?

A 3rd Party has to sell his software separately w/o any QNX runtime
license.

No, the license says you can sell your software without a runtime license
provided you don’t distribute any components of the runtime environment
with your software.

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.

Again, I did not see this in the EULA. I did see that you can sell your
software and a runtime environment for a certain target hardware setup,
but there was no requirement to also sell the target hardware. If you
create a runtime environment that is capable of working on multiple target
hardware configurations (much like the dev environment supports), then
that becomes your “target hardware”. If you actually break-down what
the self-hosted install does you will see that the entire boot script
sequence is essentially a custom embedded target. There is no requirement
for a runtime environmnt to execute /etc/config/sysint, and then later
execute /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit and /etc/rc.d/rc.local. In fact, when you
build your own embedded target you typically DON’T run those. (just
so you don’t take this wrong, the point I am making here is that even
the Momentics dev seat install is an example of an embedded target
configuration).

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.

Nothing wrong with that, there is no reason why you can’t create your own
runtime installation CD that installs only the OS components required for
your software and sell it to the customer for the cost of the runtime
plus your own margin.

  • 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!!!

Okay, I am missing something here… You are saying that your customers
want to be able to buy from one source, and yet you have been bitching
that QSS won’t sell them runtimes directly. WTF? Sounds like your
customers want to buy their runtimes from you as well as your software.
QSS has no issue with selling you runtimes, so what the heck is your
actual problem?

With the license certificates instead of software on media it’s
impossible to resell Momentics even when you are doing a full project.

Huh? Why not? You used to hand them a floppy, now you hand them a
piece of paper. What’s the difference? You are still handing them
something.

You can’t sign the contract on behalf of your customer.

There is no contract to sign. They are bound by the QNX EULA, but
you never actually sign that thing. If you really want to just add
a script in your install scripts for the runtime that spits out the
EULA and asks them to agree or refuse it. If they refuse it, you
abort the install, if they agree you proceed. It’s not rocket
science. The fact that there IS NOT an electronic component is a
benefit to you, since it means you don’t have to produce each of your
custom runtime CDs with a unique license key, you don’t put any
keys in it, you just sell them a CD and the runtime license certificate.
It’s pretty simple.

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 > :slight_smile:
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

Why would they buy Momentics? That’s a development environment, not
a runtime environment.

You are missing the very simple fact that QSS does not sell to
end-users. They sell to developers (and 3rd parties are
developers). So the model is that end-users buy their runtimes
from the 3rd parties as well as buying their application from
the 3rd party. It’s not that complicated.

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.

No, it’s not… but support for their hardware config is not the same
as support for the OS. QSS doesn’t provide support for hardware configs
at all. So why are you even mentioning it?

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?

Ah, see there’s the problem. You DON’T have to send him to QNX sales,
you can sell him the runtime yourself. I have no idea why you seem to
think you can’t do this?

realtime Targets. It’s currently not possible for a pot. customers to
buy ONLY Runtimes for a x86 Target PC.

You’re being silly again. We already established that a potential
customer wouldn’t buy just a runtime, even you agreed that it makes
no sense for them to do so. Which means there are only two reasons
to buy a QNX runtime: 1) to develop apps on, in which case you buy
Momentics and it comes with a runtime, or 2) to run a 3rd party app,
in which case you are expected to buy a runtime from the 3rd party
as well if you don’t already have one. The only reason you would
already have one is if you had already bought a dev seat or some
other 3rd party software previously.

There are no tools for creating Runtime distributions!

Sure there are. Runtime envirionments are no different than target
environments. There are entire chapters and tutorials on how to
do it.

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!

Go re-read the license agreement, or better yet, talk to a sales rep
about it. I think your issue comes from mis-interpreting the legalese
that the license is written in more than anything else.

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

Sure it does. It just stipulates that they will only sell the license
stickers to someone that owns a dev seat, that’s all. That would be
you in this case. Basically, owning a dev seat more or less makes you
a distributor/VAR for QNX runtime licenses.

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

Again, GO READ THE BLOODY LICENSE. You don’t actually sell QNX or
the runtime, you sell the license. QSS still provides warranty for
the licensed components, not you.

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

The problem is that there is no standard runtime environment. Your
appliation requires a specific configuration (yes, I know that that
configuration on x86 hardware can be quite broad), but “x86 w/BIOS”
is still the specifics of your configuration, it doesn’t matter that
your configuration just happens to include standard PCs.

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

…only because you refuse to sell it to them and are insisting that
they purchase it from QSS directly (when QSS expects them to buy it
through you).

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…

Ah, but MS’s sales model includes selling to end-users. QSS’s does not.
MS only supports x86 w/BIOS hardware configurations, and even then, as
I am sure you have encountered, not all hardware configurations are
supported directly from MS. It’s different with QNX, since QNX can run
on the same hardware as MS but it can also run on a lot more hardware
than MS, and most of that other hardware has no such standards as what
exist in the x86 PC world. That makes it virtually impossible for QSS
to have a single runtime that will work for all their possible customers.
The reality is that in order to keep runtimes at reasonable prices, they
can’t actually provide any kind of support for installation of those
runtimes. How many customers would be willing to pay $1200 in support
for a $120 runtime license? If we arbitratily say that one hour of
tech support from QSS is worth $120, I think you can see that it can
easily cost QSS more than 1 hour’s worth of support if a customer has
any issues installing on their target hardware.

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?

You are mistakenly separating industrial automation and embedded. The
reality is that industrial automation is a subset of the embedded market.
PLC controllers, CANbus, Profibus, Fieldbus, and modbus are hardly what
would be considered “consumer” level products. Every IA system IS
an embedded system.

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!

Exactly how your complaint/argument comes across!

When the Container is Momentics and the Runtime would be Helium it’s not
meeting the situation…

The container is the OS, the propane is your app. You can’t sell your
app if they don’t have the container already. You can sell them your
app and a container though, which solves the problem.

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!

No, there is a market for the 3rd party apps, they just happen to require
the OS. You have already agreed that there is no reason for a customer
to buy QNX if they aren’t buying your app (or someone else’s) too.

The solution to your problem exists, you just need to make the effort
yourselves. Your refusal to do so is NOT QSS’s problem.

Cheers,
Camz.


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

A few thoughts.

  1. Have the shareholders approved of the acquisition yet? I’m sure cash
    didn’t change hands on the day of the news release. It takes time for all
    this stuff to happen. You have the beauracracy of a public company to deal
    with, lawyers, meetings, all sorts of things. I bet in the next month or
    two we’ll have a lot of answers. Maybe they won’t be that good, maybe
    they’ll be down right horrible…but it may be quite good, so hang tough.
    These things take time.

  2. Microsoft is bearing down on the automotive market. When Microsoft
    decides to do something it happens, period. Don’t forget it. I’m glad to
    see Harman in the picture…

  3. I was an employee of a company that was acquired by a bigger company.
    It was good for everyone, the assured the continued development of the
    product we produced. The bigger pockets and experience of the Harman
    marketing team is going to be a good thing. They are still in business
    today (that acquisition happened 5 or 6 years ago).

  4. There are QNX sales people I’ve talked to who are jumping up and down
    for joy. They’ve wanted to do things to really push the OS but have been
    restricted. It’s been frustrated to them, now there may be a real change.
    It has been a while since I’ve spoken with them, so we’ll see. Like I said,
    it will take them some time, it did happen at the end of the year. I’m
    holding out until February or March.

  5. Could I point out the doom and gloom predicted over the years from the
    people in this community. It has happened over and over and over again, but
    yet, the demise of QNX was always a bit exaggerated.

Some of the same arguments are being launched again. Keep in mind that I
seriously doubt QNX will become a Microsoft. But that’s ok, they don’t have
to be. Linux is more of a threat than MS anyway. Greenhills is as well
(its a good system).

It is a natural tendency for human beings to be gloomy, it is why self help
and positive thinking books are sold so much. I don’t want to sound like a
naive optimist, but hold on for just a bit longer. I really think this is
going to be a positive thing.

I do worry about the automotive market focus. With that said, the things
that get put into automobiles have to be pretty tough, it costs car makers
millions for recalls and they don’t like that.

Cheers,
Kevin



“Bill Caroselli” <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cpqeci$3nj$2@inn.qnx.com

camz@passageway.com > wrote:
cpc > Evan Hillas <> evanh@clear.net.nz> > wrote:
My biggest frustration with 630 is there is too much in the TDKs.

. . .

cpc > I really don’t understand why QSS has chosen to essentially make
their
cpc > technology available to smaller companies with smaller projects. It
cpc > can only be arrogance, and in the long-run, arrogance in the
marketplace
cpc > rarely spells success.

cpc > Cheers,
cpc > Camz.

I assume here:
cpc > technology available to smaller companies with smaller projects.
It
you mean (un)available?

A quote from Dan:

“We have carte blanche to hire additional resources, and I think our
customers, including those Harman might consider competitors, will find that
service they receive from QNX will actually increase because we’ll have more
bodies available”

Also…I hear that Gordon isn’t doing well health wise. There are a number
of factors that went into this deal.

nntp.qnx.com” <k@s.com> wrote in message news:cqp0uk$k1e$1@inn.qnx.com

A few thoughts.

  1. Have the shareholders approved of the acquisition yet? I’m sure cash
    didn’t change hands on the day of the news release. It takes time for all
    this stuff to happen. You have the beauracracy of a public company to
    deal
    with, lawyers, meetings, all sorts of things. I bet in the next month or
    two we’ll have a lot of answers. Maybe they won’t be that good, maybe
    they’ll be down right horrible…but it may be quite good, so hang tough.
    These things take time.

  2. Microsoft is bearing down on the automotive market. When Microsoft
    decides to do something it happens, period. Don’t forget it. I’m glad to
    see Harman in the picture…

  3. I was an employee of a company that was acquired by a bigger company.
    It was good for everyone, the assured the continued development of the
    product we produced. The bigger pockets and experience of the Harman
    marketing team is going to be a good thing. They are still in business
    today (that acquisition happened 5 or 6 years ago).

  4. There are QNX sales people I’ve talked to who are jumping up and down
    for joy. They’ve wanted to do things to really push the OS but have been
    restricted. It’s been frustrated to them, now there may be a real change.
    It has been a while since I’ve spoken with them, so we’ll see. Like I
    said,
    it will take them some time, it did happen at the end of the year. I’m
    holding out until February or March.

  5. Could I point out the doom and gloom predicted over the years from the
    people in this community. It has happened over and over and over again,
    but
    yet, the demise of QNX was always a bit exaggerated.

Some of the same arguments are being launched again. Keep in mind that I
seriously doubt QNX will become a Microsoft. But that’s ok, they don’t
have
to be. Linux is more of a threat than MS anyway. Greenhills is as well
(its a good system).

It is a natural tendency for human beings to be gloomy, it is why self
help
and positive thinking books are sold so much. I don’t want to sound like
a
naive optimist, but hold on for just a bit longer. I really think this
is
going to be a positive thing.

I do worry about the automotive market focus. With that said, the things
that get put into automobiles have to be pretty tough, it costs car makers
millions for recalls and they don’t like that.

Cheers,
Kevin



“Bill Caroselli” <> qtps@earthlink.net> > wrote in message
news:cpqeci$3nj$> 2@inn.qnx.com> …
camz@passageway.com > wrote:
cpc > Evan Hillas <> evanh@clear.net.nz> > wrote:
My biggest frustration with 630 is there is too much in the TDKs.

. . .

cpc > I really don’t understand why QSS has chosen to essentially make
their
cpc > technology available to smaller companies with smaller projects.
It
cpc > can only be arrogance, and in the long-run, arrogance in the
marketplace
cpc > rarely spells success.

cpc > Cheers,
cpc > Camz.

I assume here:
cpc > technology available to smaller companies with smaller projects.
It
you mean (un)available?

nntp.qnx.com wrote:

Camz,

It’s useless.

Aggreed … your posting is useless.

Armin

Don’t you remember you and I (and others) having this
argument with them over a year ago?

Kevin

camz@passageway.com> > wrote in message news:cqbb0k$cih$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …

Jutta Steinhoff <> j-steinhoff@web.de> > wrote:

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 !!!

I don’t think so. Have you actually spoken to your sales reps about this?
If you read the license agreements you will actually discover that it
mentions that QNX can not be sold, only licensed. That also means that
it really does not matter if QSS sells your customer the runtime license
or if you do, QSS still provides the warranty on the OS components, not
you. (I seem to recall this being one of your concerns).


The runtime licesnses are not electronic.
They are a certificate or sticker. They are all official licenses

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

Actually, no, I don’t think this was a special exception. You and Armin
are sounding more and more like you don’t want a solution and only want
to complain about things. I really don’t think QSS is going to refuse to
let you sell a runtime license to someone without selling hardware to them
as well. Please re-read the EULA, it does not say you have to sell

hardware,

it says you can sell just software for someone to run on a legally

licensed

runtime. There is no reason why you can’t provide that runtime as well as
the license for it. I really don’t understand why you can’t do this,

since

being able to do this also supports the sale of your software to

customers,

it seems rediculous that you’d refuse to engage in an activity what would
support and possibly increase your business?


A 3rd Party has to sell his software separately w/o any QNX runtime
license.

No, the license says you can sell your software without a runtime license
provided you don’t distribute any components of the runtime environment
with your software.


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.

Again, I did not see this in the EULA. I did see that you can sell your
software and a runtime environment for a certain target hardware setup,
but there was no requirement to also sell the target hardware. If you
create a runtime environment that is capable of working on multiple target
hardware configurations (much like the dev environment supports), then
that becomes your “target hardware”. If you actually break-down what
the self-hosted install does you will see that the entire boot script
sequence is essentially a custom embedded target. There is no requirement
for a runtime environmnt to execute /etc/config/sysint, and then later
execute /etc/rc.d/rc.sysinit and /etc/rc.d/rc.local. In fact, when you
build your own embedded target you typically DON’T run those. (just
so you don’t take this wrong, the point I am making here is that even
the Momentics dev seat install is an example of an embedded target
configuration).


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.

Nothing wrong with that, there is no reason why you can’t create your own
runtime installation CD that installs only the OS components required for
your software and sell it to the customer for the cost of the runtime
plus your own margin.

\

  • 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!!!

Okay, I am missing something here… You are saying that your customers
want to be able to buy from one source, and yet you have been bitching
that QSS won’t sell them runtimes directly. WTF? Sounds like your
customers want to buy their runtimes from you as well as your software.
QSS has no issue with selling you runtimes, so what the heck is your
actual problem?


With the license certificates instead of software on media it’s
impossible to resell Momentics even when you are doing a full project.

Huh? Why not? You used to hand them a floppy, now you hand them a
piece of paper. What’s the difference? You are still handing them
something.


You can’t sign the contract on behalf of your customer.

There is no contract to sign. They are bound by the QNX EULA, but
you never actually sign that thing. If you really want to just add
a script in your install scripts for the runtime that spits out the
EULA and asks them to agree or refuse it. If they refuse it, you
abort the install, if they agree you proceed. It’s not rocket
science. The fact that there IS NOT an electronic component is a
benefit to you, since it means you don’t have to produce each of your
custom runtime CDs with a unique license key, you don’t put any
keys in it, you just sell them a CD and the runtime license certificate.
It’s pretty simple.


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 > :slight_smile:
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

Why would they buy Momentics? That’s a development environment, not
a runtime environment.

You are missing the very simple fact that QSS does not sell to
end-users. They sell to developers (and 3rd parties are
developers). So the model is that end-users buy their runtimes
from the 3rd parties as well as buying their application from
the 3rd party. It’s not that complicated.


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.

No, it’s not… but support for their hardware config is not the same
as support for the OS. QSS doesn’t provide support for hardware configs
at all. So why are you even mentioning it?


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?

Ah, see there’s the problem. You DON’T have to send him to QNX sales,
you can sell him the runtime yourself. I have no idea why you seem to
think you can’t do this?


realtime Targets. It’s currently not possible for a pot. customers to
buy ONLY Runtimes for a x86 Target PC.

You’re being silly again. We already established that a potential
customer wouldn’t buy just a runtime, even you agreed that it makes
no sense for them to do so. Which means there are only two reasons
to buy a QNX runtime: 1) to develop apps on, in which case you buy
Momentics and it comes with a runtime, or 2) to run a 3rd party app,
in which case you are expected to buy a runtime from the 3rd party
as well if you don’t already have one. The only reason you would
already have one is if you had already bought a dev seat or some
other 3rd party software previously.


There are no tools for creating Runtime distributions!

Sure there are. Runtime envirionments are no different than target
environments. There are entire chapters and tutorials on how to
do it.


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!

Go re-read the license agreement, or better yet, talk to a sales rep
about it. I think your issue comes from mis-interpreting the legalese
that the license is written in more than anything else.


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

Sure it does. It just stipulates that they will only sell the license
stickers to someone that owns a dev seat, that’s all. That would be
you in this case. Basically, owning a dev seat more or less makes you
a distributor/VAR for QNX runtime licenses.


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

Again, GO READ THE BLOODY LICENSE. You don’t actually sell QNX or
the runtime, you sell the license. QSS still provides warranty for
the licensed components, not you.


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

The problem is that there is no standard runtime environment. Your
appliation requires a specific configuration (yes, I know that that
configuration on x86 hardware can be quite broad), but “x86 w/BIOS”
is still the specifics of your configuration, it doesn’t matter that
your configuration just happens to include standard PCs.


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

…only because you refuse to sell it to them and are insisting that
they purchase it from QSS directly (when QSS expects them to buy it
through you).


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…

Ah, but MS’s sales model includes selling to end-users. QSS’s does not.
MS only supports x86 w/BIOS hardware configurations, and even then, as
I am sure you have encountered, not all hardware configurations are
supported directly from MS. It’s different with QNX, since QNX can run
on the same hardware as MS but it can also run on a lot more hardware
than MS, and most of that other hardware has no such standards as what
exist in the x86 PC world. That makes it virtually impossible for QSS
to have a single runtime that will work for all their possible customers.
The reality is that in order to keep runtimes at reasonable prices, they
can’t actually provide any kind of support for installation of those
runtimes. How many customers would be willing to pay $1200 in support
for a $120 runtime license? If we arbitratily say that one hour of
tech support from QSS is worth $120, I think you can see that it can
easily cost QSS more than 1 hour’s worth of support if a customer has
any issues installing on their target hardware.


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?

You are mistakenly separating industrial automation and embedded. The
reality is that industrial automation is a subset of the embedded market.
PLC controllers, CANbus, Profibus, Fieldbus, and modbus are hardly what
would be considered “consumer” level products. Every IA system IS
an embedded system.


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!

Exactly how your complaint/argument comes across!


When the Container is Momentics and the Runtime would be Helium it’s not
meeting the situation…

The container is the OS, the propane is your app. You can’t sell your
app if they don’t have the container already. You can sell them your
app and a container though, which solves the problem.


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!

No, there is a market for the 3rd party apps, they just happen to require
the OS. You have already agreed that there is no reason for a customer
to buy QNX if they aren’t buying your app (or someone else’s) too.

The solution to your problem exists, you just need to make the effort
yourselves. Your refusal to do so is NOT QSS’s problem.

Cheers,
Camz.


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

nntp.qnx.com wrote:

Camz,

It’s useless. Don’t you remember you and I (and others) having this
argument with them over a year ago?

Kevin

Kevin,

whatever you call useless… arguments have to be based on facts!

OEMs, VARs and 3rd Parties are bound to WRITTEN contracts & agreements
in order to handle and resell QNX licenses legally.

Whatever YOU think or what are your own assumptions or interpretations,
it’s useless in case of legal disputs.

Notice, facts can’t be discussed … regardless how often Camz, you or
others are repeating their assumptions …

  • Jutta

macgorilla <zizban@mac-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
m > Some thoughts:

m > Since 6.3 came out I noticed a steady decrease in the size of the
m > community and intrerested community developers. When I find a bug and
m > report it to the developer, I usually get no reply or “I don’t use QNX
m > anymore”. Sad.

If you think the community has decreased since 6.3 came out, you should
have seen the size of the QNX community in teh early days of version 4.
There were about 8 times as many posts on their BBS system (QUICS).
And when someone reported a bug, along with the exact sequence to
reproduce it, thay would post a fix usually within 4 to 8 hours. Often
the fix would be, try this and let us know if it works on your system. But
you know what, I don’t mind helping them fix a bug if it’s a bug on MY
system.

I used to work for a man who was an excellent business man. One of his
strong convictions was, “You can’t blame someone for making a mistake.
Mistakes will occasionally happen. What you judge them by is what they
do to fix the mistake.” He dealt with his customers that way, by fixing
problems at the highest priority. And he expected his vendors to deal
with him the same way, or they wouldn’t be vendors for long.

nntp.qnx.com <k@s.com> wrote:
nqc > A quote from Dan:

nqc > “We have carte blanche to hire additional resources, and I think our
nqc > customers, including those Harman might consider competitors, will find that
nqc > service they receive from QNX will actually increase because we’ll have more
nqc > bodies available”

May I ask, who is this that posted these to messages and what is your
connection with QNX?

I guess if you prefer to be anonimous I guess that’s OK. Your e-mail
address certainly doesn’t give anything away.

Since we were kind of talking about the QNX community I thought I’d add
this thought. Go back to the old, old QUICS messages, not the ones that
are still archives, but the ones that came before those, and look at the
end of the year commentary.

You would actually see posts from Dan Dodge, Gordan Bell, and Dan
Hildabran, the three founders of QNX. You know who the chief architects
of each part of the system were. And you could ask them questions
directly.

And Damn it, I miss Bill Flowers turning off the lights at the end of the
year.

He would speak of what the QNX COMMUNITY had accomplished in teh past
year. And the QNX community wasn’t just QNX, it was their customers as
well.

To those who still wish to be a part of teh QNX community despite QNX’s
lack of participation I say belated Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and
may all of our 2005s be better than the past year. And may QNX continue
to prosper, as a business, and as a community.


BC > macgorilla <zizban@mac-dot-com.no-spam.invalid> wrote:
BC > m > Some thoughts:

BC > m > Since 6.3 came out I noticed a steady decrease in the size of the
BC > m > community and intrerested community developers. When I find a bug and
BC > m > report it to the developer, I usually get no reply or “I don’t use QNX
BC > m > anymore”. Sad.

That’s very nice. A bit depressing, but nice.

There isn’t much of a QNX community left, though.

Looking back, here’s the original “Open QNX” announcement:

OTTAWA, April 24, 2000 - QNX Software Systems today unveiled a
comprehensive strategy to establish the QNX OS as a premier platform for
the multibillion dollar e-device market - which includes everything from
handheld web appliances to mission-critical Internet routers.

To kick off its new initiative, QNX Software will let developers
download the new QNX Realtime Platform free for non-commercial use, and
will release source code for many QNX applications, drivers, and
libraries. It has also launched a self-supporting QNX developer’s
network to encourage thousands more developers and ISVs to join the
growing QNX community.

In addition, QNX Software has integrated a high level of Linux
compatibility into its new platform so that Linux developers will feel
right at home. As a result, e-device builders can now leverage the
enormous pool of Linux talent, while building their products on
reliable, market-proven QNX technology.

QNX’s strategy also includes a new approach to source licensing: an
“accessible source” model that delivers benefits of an open-source OS,
while enabling e-device developers to maximize system security and
maintain ownership of their intellectual property (IP).

“Our goal is simple: to have the QNX platform run in one third of the
over 400 million e-devices that, according to market analysts, will ship
in 2003,” said Gordon Bell, president of QNX.

“And to achieve that, QNX is offering something unique: A solution that
combines the reliability and efficiency of a true RTOS with all the
advantages of a true platform OS - low cost of entry, significantly
higher productivity, and APIs familiar to a huge community of
developers. Plus, QNX will provide something that no other platform OS
can: 20 years’ experience serving e-device developers.”

Building a Developer Community

To encourage a large, self-sustaining developer community, QNX is
implementing several new programs: an ISV program that gives ISVs
commercial access to QNX tools at low cost; a variety of incentives to
encourage developers to port or create new QNX technology; and the Get
QNXTM program, which provides free access to the QNX Realtime Platform.

To support thousands of new developers, QNX is also deploying the new
web-based QNX Developer’s Network (QDN). With the QDN, users can tap
into a complete range of support services - newsgroups, FAQs, technotes,
upgrades, free software, plus a knowledge base that provides instant
answers to thousands of technical questions.

Accessible Source: A Reliable Alternative

While e-device builders see the productivity benefits of open source,
most have serious concerns about using open-source OS code in their
products, citing threats to security, reliability, and potential loss of
intellectual property due to GPL licensing. The QNX Realtime Platform
addresses these concerns through an “accessible source” model, where
source code is publicly available for most modules, but not for those
core components critical to the overall quality, security, and
reliability of the OS.

“Open-source kernel code may have its advantages, but, for the majority
of e-devices, it’s the wrong model,” said Bell. “Rather than burden
embedded teams with the time-consuming - and expensive - task of
modifying and maintaining kernel code, we offer a more productive
approach: an OS architecture that can be extended using
application-level tools and developers. It’s friendlier, faster, more
cost-effective - and much more reliable.”

A Familiar Platform for Embedded Developers

For over a decade, QNX has supported industry-standard POSIX and Unix
APIs. Now, to make the QNX platform accessible to even more developers,
QNX Software has integrated a high level of Linux compatibility.

“Linux developers can be immediately productive in the QNX environment.
Better yet, most Linux applications can port easily,” said Bell. “Put
simply, QNX now provides Linux developers with a highly accessible - and
field-proven - platform for targeting the e-device market.”

====

That’s what QSSL told developers.


John Nagle


Bill Caroselli wrote:

Since we were kind of talking about the QNX community I thought I’d add
this thought. Go back to the old, old QUICS messages, not the ones that
are still archives, but the ones that came before those, and look at the
end of the year commentary.

You would actually see posts from Dan Dodge, Gordan Bell, and Dan
Hildabran, the three founders of QNX. You know who the chief architects
of each part of the system were. And you could ask them questions
directly.

And Damn it, I miss Bill Flowers turning off the lights at the end of the
year.

He would speak of what the QNX COMMUNITY had accomplished in teh past
year. And the QNX community wasn’t just QNX, it was their customers as
well.

To those who still wish to be a part of teh QNX community despite QNX’s
lack of participation I say belated Merry Christmas, Happy New Year and
may all of our 2005s be better than the past year. And may QNX continue
to prosper, as a business, and as a community.

John Nagle <nagle@downside.com> wrote:

[ Long QNX Announcement Deleted }

JN > ====

JN > That’s what QSSL told developers.

JN > John Nagle

John, I guess what your upset about is that QNX said there was something
available for free, and now their admitting it might not always be for
free.

I think first you should realize the motivation for a company to provide
something for free. The company is saying “Hey, we have a new product,
Please look at it.” Some time down the road the product isn’t new any
more. There was no justifiable reason to assume that it would be
available forever for free. It was kind of like a sale down at Macy’s.
“Come to Macy’s for out 3 day only sale. Everything is half off.” The
only difference is that the didn’t know when the sale would end.

I understand that you have developed something that you’d like to give
away that requires this OS. You wanted teh entire package to be free,
and now you don’t know if it will be.

Now I’m not a legal expert, but, I think that once something is put out
on the Internet, by its owner, and the owner says it’s free for non-
commercial use, I think it’s fair game for anyone who wants it. It.
Exactly it. Not the latest version of it, but it. So, if you wanted to
bundle the exact archive that was posted for free with your software,
for FOR NON-COMMERCIAL USE, I think you can. That doesn’t mean that
you have any rights to technical support for that version, or free
upgrades. But just the right to use that software. Remember I am not a
lawyer and have no legal right to promise that guarantee. That is my
opinion.

In other words, shut up and stop moaning because what you assumed isn’t
true. Besides, it might not be as bad as you think. And if you that
upset, go play in someone else’s sandbox. Most of us like it here.

I have to add this. I’m very sorry to be rude. I have in fact followed
your project from your first announcement with great interest. And I
still do wish you great success. But now your just bringing down the
QNX community, at least what little is left of it. And I just want to ask
you to stop.

Please have a happy holiday season and a great new year any way.

In other words, shut up and stop moaning because what you assumed isn’t
true. Besides, it might not be as bad as you think. And if you that
upset, go play in someone else’s sandbox. Most of us like it here.

I have to add this. I’m very sorry to be rude. I have in fact followed
your project from your first announcement with great interest. And I
still do wish you great success. But now your just bringing down the
QNX community, at least what little is left of it. And I just want to ask
you to stop.

Actually Bill, if you look back at who are posting on this thread, it is
only the hard-core, old time, QNX4 people. John is one of the only
post-QNX6 person making postings and now you are telling him to go away.

Fact is, QSS no longer has any interest at all in supporting any sort of
“community” outside of their commercial customer base. What this means
is that things like your scanner request are not going to be fulfilled
because people aren’t going to want to put in the time to port something
like SANE to QNX6 when the next version of QNX6 might not even be
available for download. A lot of people put in a lot of time writing
and porting software to QNX in the early days of NC, only to be burned
in each follow up release. Now they are gone, and with a strong paper
trail of disgust. Heck, this is part of the reason I went and got a new
job. John is just lamenting these facts.

Now there is one less option for the up-and-coming generation of coders
to pick when they are up-and-coming. They will all know, and want to
use, Linux. Viva la revolution!

chris

macgorilla wrote:

Some thoughts:

I think speak for many QNX users when I say QSSL should have a desktop
use license; I know its not their focus but I would pay the same price
as Windows XP retail for one that allowed me to use QNX for non
commercial use, with QCC and other nifty development tools
activated.

For $799, you can buy Visual Studio .NET, which includes
Windows Server 2003, and you can build commercial products for
Microsoft desktop OSs. So that’s an established price
point for Microsoft’s comparable offering.

For $995, you can buy the Windows CE or Windows Embedded
development tools. “You can perform unlimited field testing and
prototyping on any number of device prototypes before you ship
commercially.” Then there’s a per-target license fee.
There’s also a 120-day free evaluation version.

That’s the competition’s pricing.

John Nagle

Hi Chris…


Chris McKillop wrote:

trail of disgust. Heck, this is part of the reason I went and got a new
job. John is just lamenting these facts.

How is the new job going?

Yup, we miss your help around here…

Now there is one less option for the up-and-coming generation of coders
to pick when they are up-and-coming. They will all know, and want to
use, Linux. Viva la revolution!

Too bad that the new coders will not know -unless QSSL changes its ways-
how easy it could be to write a device driver. (hu-hum…, I better not
say much because someone will tell me to shut up and go away :slight_smile:

on-the-who-cares-department: I read an interview with Linus in one of
the Linux magazines, and he alludes to how emerging technologies such as
hand-held PCs (along with embedded OS such as PalmOS) may displace the
preeminence of the desktop. He actually acknowledges that Linux as an OS
may not survive as we know it today. Now there is an idea: an OS created
with embedded devices in mind!

Incidentally, hablas espan~ol??

happy new year…

Regards…

Miguel.


chris

“Miguel Simon” <simon@ou.edu> wrote in message
news:cr2g0p$3uh$1@inn.qnx.com

Hi Chris…


Chris McKillop wrote:

trail of disgust. Heck, this is part of the reason I went and got a new
job. John is just lamenting these facts.

How is the new job going?

Yup, we miss your help around here…


Now there is one less option for the up-and-coming generation of coders
to pick when they are up-and-coming. They will all know, and want to
use, Linux. Viva la revolution!

Too bad that the new coders will not know -unless QSSL changes its ways-
how easy it could be to write a device driver. (hu-hum…, I better not
say much because someone will tell me to shut up and go away > :slight_smile:

Just one observation. After getting to know Linux drivers a bit more… I
don’t think it is easier to write QNX drivers in general sense. It is
certainly easier to debug them, but writing it different story.

I’d say in QNX it is only easy to write trivial drivers, but those are easy
in almost any OS. When you need something non-trivial, you may be okay if
your driver fits easily into one of the DDK frameworks. Otherwise it will be
not easy at all. The QNX resmgr library is leaving a lot to be desired.

Happy New Year
– igor

How is the new job going?

The new job is really great actually. It is fun getting back into
actual embedded projects rather then just helping people now and again.
:slight_smile: And I have to admit that I just love working on consumer electronics.

Too bad that the new coders will not know -unless QSSL changes its ways-
how easy it could be to write a device driver. (hu-hum…, I better not
say much because someone will tell me to shut up and go away > :slight_smile:

It’s actually pretty darn easy to write drivers under Linux. There are
actually fewer calls to setup a devfs/udev device with I/O callbacks
then a resmgr on QNX. Debugging can be harder, but it isn’t bad at all
if you have proper hardware debugging support (JTAG from Abatron or
Lauderbach for example).

on-the-who-cares-department: I read an interview with Linus in one of
the Linux magazines, and he alludes to how emerging technologies such as
hand-held PCs (along with embedded OS such as PalmOS) may displace the
preeminence of the desktop. He actually acknowledges that Linux as an OS
may not survive as we know it today. Now there is an idea: an OS created
with embedded devices in mind!

Wouldn’t that be great? I think you will actually see a fork of the
Linux kernel in the coming years to focus things more on advanced
embedded and realtime issues. Which will give us an open-source
equivalent of something like LynxOS.

chris