Just curious. I’ve been using QNX since version 1.1 in the early 80’s and
have seen big changes in the QSSL since that time. Lots of prolific QNX
users from the past seem to have moved on as the market changed and QNX
moved upscale.
“Ken Schumm” <kwschumm@qsolv.com> wrote in message
news:e54pdt$ldp$1@inn.qnx.com…
Just curious. I’ve been using QNX since version 1.1 in the early 80’s and
have seen big changes in the QSSL since that time. Lots of prolific QNX
users from the past seem to have moved on as the market changed and QNX
moved upscale.
Seems like most have moved away, at least from newsgroup.
- Mario
Mario Charest wrote:
“Ken Schumm” <> kwschumm@qsolv.com> > wrote in message
news:e54pdt$ldp$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Just curious. I’ve been using QNX since version 1.1 in the early 80’s and
have seen big changes in the QSSL since that time. Lots of prolific QNX
users from the past seem to have moved on as the market changed and QNX
moved upscale.
Seems like most have moved away, at least from newsgroup.
- Mario
I’ve used QNX since about 1988. I don’t do much now, but I still check the
groups occasionally
\
John Halpenny
7 messages per month in comp.os.qnx. It used to be a high-traffic group
couple years ago 
I’d say all the hard work QNX has put into killing off interest of
enthusiast community is paying off…
“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:e550jj$q0p$1@inn.qnx.com…
“Ken Schumm” <> kwschumm@qsolv.com> > wrote in message
news:e54pdt$ldp$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Just curious. I’ve been using QNX since version 1.1 in the early 80’s and
have seen big changes in the QSSL since that time. Lots of prolific QNX
users from the past seem to have moved on as the market changed and QNX
moved upscale.
Seems like most have moved away, at least from newsgroup.
- Mario
I’d say all the hard work QNX has put into killing off interest of
enthusiast community is paying off…
Indeed the enthusiast community or more precisely the non commercial
communicty is pretty much instinct.
That being said, i estimate that 80% of the traffic was generated by less
then 10 people, 19 times out of 20 as stat people would add . So the
community was never that big of a community anyway.
Today there are more official channels to get answer (standard support plan)
so most QNX paying customer aren’t showing up public. That’s kind of sad in
a way because we don’t get an opportunity to share knowledge.
- Mario
Amen to that Igor. QSSL got exactly what they wanted.
For the record I’ve been using QNX since 1987, version 2/3.15.F.
The last year and a half I’ve been out on disability. But I still play with
my own fun projects at home. I’m just now looking to jump back on the horse
and start programming again. God I miss working.
If anyone need a QNX programmer with 19 years experience, either full or
part time, just let me know.
“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e570hq$83u$1@inn.qnx.com…
7 messages per month in comp.os.qnx. It used to be a high-traffic group
couple years ago >
I’d say all the hard work QNX has put into killing off interest of
enthusiast community is paying off…“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:e550jj$q0p$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …“Ken Schumm” <> kwschumm@qsolv.com> > wrote in message
news:e54pdt$ldp$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …
Just curious. I’ve been using QNX since version 1.1 in the early 80’s
and
have seen big changes in the QSSL since that time. Lots of prolific QNX
users from the past seem to have moved on as the market changed and QNX
moved upscale.
Seems like most have moved away, at least from newsgroup.
- Mario
\
More recently I agree with you. But you and I were both around during the
late 80’s and early 90’ when there were hundreds of posters all active on
QUICS (newsgroups for back then).
“Mario Charest” postmaster@127.0.0.1 wrote in message
news:e57hag$jd2$1@inn.qnx.com…
I’d say all the hard work QNX has put into killing off interest of
enthusiast community is paying off…Indeed the enthusiast community or more precisely the non commercial
communicty is pretty much instinct.That being said, i estimate that 80% of the traffic was generated by less
then 10 people, 19 times out of 20 as stat people would add >
community was never that big of a community anyway.Today there are more official channels to get answer (standard support
plan) so most QNX paying customer aren’t showing up public. That’s kind
of sad in a way because we don’t get an opportunity to share knowledge.
- Mario
“Igor Kovalenko” <kovalenko@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:e570hq$83u$1@inn.qnx.com…
7 messages per month in comp.os.qnx. It used to be a high-traffic group
couple years ago >
I’d say all the hard work QNX has put into killing off interest of
enthusiast community is paying off…
I’m inclined to agree. From all the QNX conferences I probably met hundreds
of QNX users over the years. Sad to see them all gone to the dark side.
Mario Charest wrote:
I’d say all the hard work QNX has put into killing off interest of
enthusiast community is paying off…Indeed the enthusiast community or more precisely the non commercial
communicty is pretty much instinct.That being said, i estimate that 80% of the traffic was generated by less
then 10 people, 19 times out of 20 as stat people would add >
community was never that big of a community anyway.Today there are more official channels to get answer (standard support plan)
so most QNX paying customer aren’t showing up public. That’s kind of sad in
a way because we don’t get an opportunity to share knowledge.
I’ve looked in on various news groups over the years, and they all seem to
consist of a few regulars and even fewer newcomers. Perhaps it is the nature of
newsgroups these days, and the youngsters are going to other chamnnels, or other
activities.
John Halpenny
Here’s one who has been consistently using QNX (since 1987) who hasn’t gone over to the “dark
side”. I will probably retire before I get to that stage (which means I probably never will). I
do, however, dabble with Linux, but I mainly occupy myself with QNX4, with brief forays into
QNX6 for the odd driver or two.
I also regularly read these newsgroups…
Geoff Roberts.
Ken Schumm wrote:
“Igor Kovalenko” <> kovalenko@comcast.net> > wrote in message
news:e570hq$83u$> 1@inn.qnx.com> …7 messages per month in comp.os.qnx. It used to be a high-traffic group
couple years ago >
I’d say all the hard work QNX has put into killing off interest of
enthusiast community is paying off…
I’m inclined to agree. From all the QNX conferences I probably met hundreds
of QNX users over the years. Sad to see them all gone to the dark side.
Or there just aren’t any “youngsters”.
“John Halpenny” <j.halpenny@Rogers.com> wrote in message
news:447A5F66.31C62CB1@Rogers.com…
I’ve looked in on various news groups over the years, and they all seem to
consist of a few regulars and even fewer newcomers. Perhaps it is the
nature of
newsgroups these days, and the youngsters are going to other chamnnels, or
other
activities.John Halpenny
Bill Caroselli wrote:
Or there just aren’t any “youngsters”.
Our experience with Team Overbot, our DARPA Grand Challenge
team, was that young people viewed learning QNX as having
negative career value. This was a real problem for us.
If we had to do it again, we would have used Linux.
John Nagle
Still here full time with QNX 6. Started with 4.24.
Marty Doane
“Ken Schumm” <kwschumm@qsolv.com> wrote in message
news:e54pdt$ldp$1@inn.qnx.com…
Just curious. I’ve been using QNX since version 1.1 in the early 80’s and
have seen big changes in the QSSL since that time. Lots of prolific QNX
users from the past seem to have moved on as the market changed and QNX
moved upscale.
Been using QNX since 1992. This is in a PC based application, not
embedded. Started with QNX2 - did 18 months development and then we
made the big conversion to QNX4. Currently using QNX 4.25
We don’t see any need to go to 6. However I must say that if I knew
the political hassles we were going to meet I would have pushed
management to go for Linux. Not as good technically but far less
trouble at the marketing and tech support level. I don’t know what
it’s like in the US and Canada but here in Oz QNX people are as rare
as hen’s teeth. QNX huh? is the usual response.
Our company makes alarm control systems and we have two streams of
management software; one QNX based and one Windows based. My
observation is that my team (the QNX one) gets on with the job at
hand; the Windows team is constantly learning new tools and fads and
consequently is nowhere near as productive.
QNX on the CV is useless but I’m at the age where I no longer care. In
eight months time I’m going for a lifestyle change to raise alpacas
and if I don’t see another software project ever!
“Ken Schumm” <kwschumm@qsolv.com> wrote in message
news:e54pdt$ldp$1@inn.qnx.com…
Just curious. I’ve been using QNX since version 1.1 in the early 80’s and
have seen big changes in the QSSL since that time. Lots of prolific QNX
users from the past seem to have moved on as the market changed and QNX
moved upscale.
I am still here. Struggling with both QNX 4.25 and QNX6.3
Pavol Kycina
“Ken Schumm” <kwschumm@qsolv.com> wrote in message
news:e54pdt$ldp$1@inn.qnx.com…
Just curious. I’ve been using QNX since version 1.1 in the early 80’s and
have seen big changes in the QSSL since that time. Lots of prolific QNX
users from the past seem to have moved on as the market changed and QNX
moved upscale.
I can only claim to go back about 14 years, when I started at Corman
Technologies, first developing X.25 software for QNX 2, then for QNX 4, and
later network drivers for QNX 4. When Corman closed up shop a couple of
years ago, I thought I was done with QNX, but then I got talked into buying
out Corman’s QNX networking business, which is still carrying on, despite
QNX’s market shift.
It seems once you’ve been infected with the QNX bug, it’s hard to get it out
of your system…
–
Bert Menkveld
P. Eng.
B&E Technologies
bert@betech.biz
Ph: 519-669-0950
Xen, the open-source hypervisor for x86 hardware, is an interesting
direction for QNX people. While it solves a different problem
than QNX does, it has a roughly similar architecture - a
very minimal kernel, user-level device drivers, and good
interprocess communication. Now that there’s hypervisor hardware
for x86, the horrors of VMware are no longer necessary, and
a clean hypervisor is possible. Now it’s been done. Worth
a look if you need a career change and don’t want to worship
either Redmond or the penguin.
John Nagle
“John Nagle” <nagle@overbot.com> wrote in message
news:e5lokh$73c$1@inn.qnx.com…
the horrors of VMware are no longer necessary
Anybody very tell you, you have quite an aura of positivisim ?
I have been using QNX since 2(3).03 - very quickly moved to 4.xx then
6.00 mid 2000 and on from there. Although it was a long way to travel
(from Australia) - I still attended nearly every QNX conference.
I guess I should pipe up as well. I started with 2.15 in 1990 and have
migrated through 4 and 6 with three different companies in the broadcast
television space. I also attended 3 (4?) of the Conferences. We are “lucky”
in that there is a lot of anti-M$ sentiment in the broadcast industry (at
least as far as use in mission-critical systems).
I agree that it is disappointing that QNX has more-or-less abandoned the
“community” that used to provide an active and passionate source of
advocacy and support. While I understand that commercially QNX/Harman is
wise to focus on narrow markets like automotive, it definitely feels like
we are the last guys left waving the flag while everyone else is marching
in the opposite direction.
Rob Rutherford