My company, a Spanish System Integrator in the Industrial Automation
named SPIN, has decided to not use QNX anymore in new projects. We will
center our efforts in Microsoft platforms. The main reasons to take this
decision are:
· The Market is not asking for applications developed under QNX. The
Market looks for Microsoft platforms. There are a lot of years that we
are not able to introduce a QNX system in a new customer plant.
· Our business is Industrial Automation. In this field the main tools we
use are PLCs and SCADA systems. There is no sense to compete with PLCs
using embedded systems. Popular SCADA systems run always on Microsoft
platforms, except few rare cases, far away of our world.
· In our installations we put always first brand computers like Dell,
HP, IBM. These computers come always with a Microsoft operating system
incorporated (sometimes we can chose between Microsoft and Linux). If we
want to use QNX we must pay also for Microsoft. There is no sense.
· It’s difficult in Spain to find people with high “C” skills. If we
also search for people with QNX and Photon knowledge the task is
impossible. We have a high cost in people formation to be able to work
with QNX. This problem doesn’t arise using Microsoft technologies.
· Time ago we migrated from QNX2 to QNX4. We where obligated to change
compiler and debugger, graphical interface and database. Migration of
developed applications was painful and expensive, and help received from
QSSL as useful tools, or commercial discounts was inexistent at all.
Btw, QNX4 is much better than QNX2.
· To continue using QNX we must migrate again from QNX4 to QNX6. The
change seems easier than the old one (QNX2 to QNX4), but looking at this
news it seems there are a lot of little problems, also to pass from 6.2
to 6.3. All of this gives us to think that QSSL doesn’t care about the
needs of his customers. Specially if they are of a small size, as our
company.
· It seems that QSSL is abandoning our business, and is focusing their
efforts in the embedded market, looking for big contracts with big
companies.
· Currently, QNX is remaining in a little market segment. Respect to
general applications they have not succeed to Microsoft pressure, from
big platforms (2000, XP, 2003, …) to small ones (Windows CE, XP
embedded, …). Respect to more professional applications the big
competitor is again Microsoft, and also Linux, BSD, and recently Linux
RT. Convince a new customer to use Linux is easier that convince it to
use QNX. This point was explained directly to QSSL some years ago. Their
answer was that the situation will change, but they can’t tell us which
will be the change at this moment. After some years nothing has changed,
and if we can appreciate a little change, this change is to worst
situation. We suspect the announced change was the defunct QNX 6 N.C.
effort.
Really it’s a shame to throw away the work and effort of more that 15
years based on QNX systems, but as they tell in our country, “one can’t
swim always against the river”. We can’t wait forever for a QNX boom
that never arrives, and that every day seems to have less chances to
arrive.
In our opinion, technically QSSL software is superior to Microsoft one.
The difference is not as big as in the QNX2 days, but it still exists.
But for economic and marketing reasons we must abandon this great
technology.
Bye QNX.
Why don’t you use MS for front end for UI work and QNX embedded systesm on
the actual critical devices? Customers don’t even have to know they are
using QNX.
Kevin
“Joan Baucells” <“Joan Baucells”@NoSpam.es> wrote in message
news:427FACBF.61288656@NoSpam.es…
My company, a Spanish System Integrator in the Industrial Automation
named SPIN, has decided to not use QNX anymore in new projects. We will
center our efforts in Microsoft platforms. The main reasons to take this
decision are:
· The Market is not asking for applications developed under QNX. The
Market looks for Microsoft platforms. There are a lot of years that we
are not able to introduce a QNX system in a new customer plant.
· Our business is Industrial Automation. In this field the main tools we
use are PLCs and SCADA systems. There is no sense to compete with PLCs
using embedded systems. Popular SCADA systems run always on Microsoft
platforms, except few rare cases, far away of our world.
· In our installations we put always first brand computers like Dell,
HP, IBM. These computers come always with a Microsoft operating system
incorporated (sometimes we can chose between Microsoft and Linux). If we
want to use QNX we must pay also for Microsoft. There is no sense.
· It’s difficult in Spain to find people with high “C” skills. If we
also search for people with QNX and Photon knowledge the task is
impossible. We have a high cost in people formation to be able to work
with QNX. This problem doesn’t arise using Microsoft technologies.
· Time ago we migrated from QNX2 to QNX4. We where obligated to change
compiler and debugger, graphical interface and database. Migration of
developed applications was painful and expensive, and help received from
QSSL as useful tools, or commercial discounts was inexistent at all.
Btw, QNX4 is much better than QNX2.
· To continue using QNX we must migrate again from QNX4 to QNX6. The
change seems easier than the old one (QNX2 to QNX4), but looking at this
news it seems there are a lot of little problems, also to pass from 6.2
to 6.3. All of this gives us to think that QSSL doesn’t care about the
needs of his customers. Specially if they are of a small size, as our
company.
· It seems that QSSL is abandoning our business, and is focusing their
efforts in the embedded market, looking for big contracts with big
companies.
· Currently, QNX is remaining in a little market segment. Respect to
general applications they have not succeed to Microsoft pressure, from
big platforms (2000, XP, 2003, .) to small ones (Windows CE, XP
embedded, .). Respect to more professional applications the big
competitor is again Microsoft, and also Linux, BSD, and recently Linux
RT. Convince a new customer to use Linux is easier that convince it to
use QNX. This point was explained directly to QSSL some years ago. Their
answer was that the situation will change, but they can’t tell us which
will be the change at this moment. After some years nothing has changed,
and if we can appreciate a little change, this change is to worst
situation. We suspect the announced change was the defunct QNX 6 N.C.
effort.
Really it’s a shame to throw away the work and effort of more that 15
years based on QNX systems, but as they tell in our country, “one can’t
swim always against the river”. We can’t wait forever for a QNX boom
that never arrives, and that every day seems to have less chances to
arrive.
In our opinion, technically QSSL software is superior to Microsoft one.
The difference is not as big as in the QNX2 days, but it still exists.
But for economic and marketing reasons we must abandon this great
technology.
Bye QNX.
\
Kevin Stallard wrote:
Why don’t you use MS for front end for UI work and QNX embedded systesm on
the actual critical devices? Customers don’t even have to know they are
using QNX.
The operator interface also needs to be rugged. Not much point having a fancy control system if appropriate adjustments aren’t being made just because the monitoring system is locking up all the time.
For me, though, the big reason is one CPU does it all. This is one of QNX’s strengths.
Evan
I feel like members of my own family are dying off.
I do completely understand and agree with your motives though.
For what it’s worth, people still trying to market QNX based systems need to
take a black box aproach. Don’t tell anyone that ity’s “QNX inside”. QSSL
doesn’t care about brand name recognition anymore anyway. Just tell your
perspective clients that all of the software inside the box is software that
you (the software provider) are responsible for. And that the box will
easily interface with any Microsoft box. Then provide you own graphical
interface for any maintenance that the user may need to perform.
Bill Caroselli
“Joan Baucells” <“Joan Baucells”@NoSpam.es> wrote in message
news:427FACBF.61288656@NoSpam.es…
My company, a Spanish System Integrator in the Industrial Automation
named SPIN, has decided to not use QNX anymore in new projects. We will
center our efforts in Microsoft platforms. The main reasons to take this
decision are:
· The Market is not asking for applications developed under QNX. The
Market looks for Microsoft platforms. There are a lot of years that we
are not able to introduce a QNX system in a new customer plant.
· Our business is Industrial Automation. In this field the main tools we
use are PLCs and SCADA systems. There is no sense to compete with PLCs
using embedded systems. Popular SCADA systems run always on Microsoft
platforms, except few rare cases, far away of our world.
· In our installations we put always first brand computers like Dell,
HP, IBM. These computers come always with a Microsoft operating system
incorporated (sometimes we can chose between Microsoft and Linux). If we
want to use QNX we must pay also for Microsoft. There is no sense.
· It’s difficult in Spain to find people with high “C” skills. If we
also search for people with QNX and Photon knowledge the task is
impossible. We have a high cost in people formation to be able to work
with QNX. This problem doesn’t arise using Microsoft technologies.
· Time ago we migrated from QNX2 to QNX4. We where obligated to change
compiler and debugger, graphical interface and database. Migration of
developed applications was painful and expensive, and help received from
QSSL as useful tools, or commercial discounts was inexistent at all.
Btw, QNX4 is much better than QNX2.
· To continue using QNX we must migrate again from QNX4 to QNX6. The
change seems easier than the old one (QNX2 to QNX4), but looking at this
news it seems there are a lot of little problems, also to pass from 6.2
to 6.3. All of this gives us to think that QSSL doesn’t care about the
needs of his customers. Specially if they are of a small size, as our
company.
· It seems that QSSL is abandoning our business, and is focusing their
efforts in the embedded market, looking for big contracts with big
companies.
· Currently, QNX is remaining in a little market segment. Respect to
general applications they have not succeed to Microsoft pressure, from
big platforms (2000, XP, 2003, .) to small ones (Windows CE, XP
embedded, .). Respect to more professional applications the big
competitor is again Microsoft, and also Linux, BSD, and recently Linux
RT. Convince a new customer to use Linux is easier that convince it to
use QNX. This point was explained directly to QSSL some years ago. Their
answer was that the situation will change, but they can’t tell us which
will be the change at this moment. After some years nothing has changed,
and if we can appreciate a little change, this change is to worst
situation. We suspect the announced change was the defunct QNX 6 N.C.
effort.
Really it’s a shame to throw away the work and effort of more that 15
years based on QNX systems, but as they tell in our country, “one can’t
swim always against the river”. We can’t wait forever for a QNX boom
that never arrives, and that every day seems to have less chances to
arrive.
In our opinion, technically QSSL software is superior to Microsoft one.
The difference is not as big as in the QNX2 days, but it still exists.
But for economic and marketing reasons we must abandon this great
technology.
Bye QNX.
\
Bill Caroselli wrote:
I feel like members of my own family are dying off.
I do completely understand and agree with your motives though.
For what it’s worth, people still trying to market QNX based systems need to
take a black box aproach. Don’t tell anyone that ity’s “QNX inside”. QSSL
doesn’t care about brand name recognition anymore anyway.
I just received the May 2005 edition of “Embedded Systems Programming”,
which is sent to people who went to the Embedded Systems Conference.
There are no mentions of QNX whatsoever. Not in the articles, and
not in the ads.
There’s a nice article, “Survey Says Software Tools More Important than
Chips”, on how tool availability affects CPU selection. 32-bit CPU usage is up,
and multi-CPU systems now have significant market share. Those are the
markets for which QNX is best suited.
It’s sad.
John Nagle
Hi John…
…off-the-subject…
Your comment reminds me that some people in high places still think that
global warming is not real…, and choose to do nothing about it.
Hummm, go figure.
It seems that sometimes decision makers lack any one portion/combination
of some reality, common sense, understanding, and/or vision. Or may-be
that some individual/special interests are more powerful than… oh
well, who cares.
Best Regards…
Miguel.
John Nagle wrote:
I just received the May 2005 edition of “Embedded Systems Programming”,
which is sent to people who went to the Embedded Systems Conference.
There are no mentions of QNX whatsoever. Not in the articles, and
not in the ads.
There’s a nice article, “Survey Says Software Tools More Important than
Chips”, on how tool availability affects CPU selection. 32-bit CPU
usage is up,
and multi-CPU systems now have significant market share. Those are the
markets for which QNX is best suited.
It’s sad.
John Nagle
Thanks to all of you for your comprehension and support, but things are not
easy.
Our customers are asking us to use a particular SCADA product. 90% of
installations uses one of these:
In-Touch from Wonderware
iFix from Intellution (a General Electric Company)
WinCC from Siemens
RSView from Rockwell
All of these SCADA systems run on a Microsoft Windows operating System.
There are no largely implanted SCADA systems running on QNX.
Our hand-made software has all the functionalities of these SCADA systems,
plus some additional ones. It’s faster, more robust and cheaper. It’s done in
an structured manner, and uses SPIN standard modules, BUT it’s not an
“Industry Standard”, and runs on a “rare” operating system that the
technicians of our customers can’t manipulate easily (for us this is one of
the major advantages. He, he, …they can’t crash our systems). So we are
obligated to use Microsoft + Standard SCADA systems.
Our complain is that QSSL has not been able to convince a large SCADA
manufacturer to port their software to QNX. We don’t know if QSSL is big
enough to have this influence in the Market. That we are sure is that SPIN
can’t do this.
Miguel Simon wrote:
Hi John…
…off-the-subject…
Your comment reminds me that some people in high places still think that
global warming is not real…, and choose to do nothing about it.
Hummm, go figure.
It seems that sometimes decision makers lack any one portion/combination
of some reality, common sense, understanding, and/or vision. Or may-be
that some individual/special interests are more powerful than… oh
well, who cares.
Best Regards…
Miguel.
John Nagle wrote:
I just received the May 2005 edition of “Embedded Systems Programming”,
which is sent to people who went to the Embedded Systems Conference.
There are no mentions of QNX whatsoever. Not in the articles, and
not in the ads.
There’s a nice article, “Survey Says Software Tools More Important than
Chips”, on how tool availability affects CPU selection. 32-bit CPU
usage is up,
and multi-CPU systems now have significant market share. Those are the
markets for which QNX is best suited.
It’s sad.
John Nagle
Well, 7 months after the initial decision to abandon QNX, things are
changing.
There is an opportunity to continue using QNX (6.3, of course).
At this moment we are evaluating QNX 6.3 combined with MySQL database.
The initial results are good.
To fully succeed the technical test we need a driver able to communicate
with
new Rockwell PLCs (ControlLogix and CompactLogix family) using ethernet.
I’ll appreciate any hint in finding those drivers.
Thank you
Joan Baucells
http://www.rtaautomation.com/
“Joan Baucells” <“Joan Baucells”@NoSpam.es> wrote in message
news:439EDA17.FB5FA3EC@NoSpam.es…
Well, 7 months after the initial decision to abandon QNX, things are
changing.
There is an opportunity to continue using QNX (6.3, of course).
At this moment we are evaluating QNX 6.3 combined with MySQL database.
The initial results are good.
To fully succeed the technical test we need a driver able to communicate
with
new Rockwell PLCs (ControlLogix and CompactLogix family) using ethernet.
I’ll appreciate any hint in finding those drivers.
Thank you
Joan Baucells
http://www.rongage.org/
They works great on QNX 6.3, and is free (GNU LGPL)
Joan Baucells wrote:
Well, 7 months after the initial decision to abandon QNX, things are
changing.
There is an opportunity to continue using QNX (6.3, of course).
At this moment we are evaluating QNX 6.3 combined with MySQL database.
The initial results are good.
To fully succeed the technical test we need a driver able to communicate
with
new Rockwell PLCs (ControlLogix and CompactLogix family) using ethernet.
I’ll appreciate any hint in finding those drivers.
Thank you
Joan Baucells
FYI, We are only testing CELL.
At this moment version 5 works, but we are experiencing some problems with
versions 6 and 7.
We have not tested ABEL
Joan Baucells wrote:
http://www.rongage.org/
They works great on QNX 6.3, and is free (GNU LGPL)
Joan Baucells wrote:
Well, 7 months after the initial decision to abandon QNX, things are
changing.
There is an opportunity to continue using QNX (6.3, of course).
At this moment we are evaluating QNX 6.3 combined with MySQL database.
The initial results are good.
To fully succeed the technical test we need a driver able to communicate
with
new Rockwell PLCs (ControlLogix and CompactLogix family) using ethernet.
I’ll appreciate any hint in finding those drivers.
Thank you
Joan Baucells