Slashdot Mirror
Domain: qnx.com
Stories and comments across the archive that link to qnx.com.
Comments · 436
-
Bettter Single Disk optionsAn X terminal is great for some situations, like a school lab environment, where you have a server machine doing NFS for a bunch of terminals. But, in most situations, a standalone machine is better.
For a great single floppy system, check out the QNX Demo Floppy http://www.qnx.com/demodisk/
I'm sure similar things exist based on Linux. I think I even saw a Boot-CD based linux system that included a lot more applications.
-
Re:This worries meYeah, the only thing worse would be if one company were able to set the standard for a programming language that many of us use.
BTW, QNX is not a linux clone. Unix clone, kinda-sorta-maybe, but not linux.
-
Re:Impecable British Logic
In fact there are loads of these MultiPhones around London, and the Internet access is completely free until the end of June. As a result, I rarely see one that is not being used!
More details on the phones here. Incidentally, the BT phones run QNX - they decided NT was not appropriate for a device that had to run continuously and reliably! -
Re:"Mach is a bad microkernel implementation".. HOWill someone please attempt to assert or refute, using some kind of solid logic or numbers or something, the statement that microkernels are a good idea but Mach is a bad implementation of that idea? What is done wrong in Mach, and can it be fixed?
I don't know enough of the Mach internals to know exactly why it's such a poor performer, but I have read alot of theories put forth. The most common(and accepted) reason is that Mach's memory management is too abstract and that because Mach is built on a hardware abstraction layer. Those two reasons are directly interrelated.
The Hardware abstraction layer(HAL) restricts the u-kernel to operation on a "generic machine". Everything is abstracted in the sense that the HAL contains the units which are common to all CPU architectures. This was done to improve portability. However, it sacrifices a great deal of performance because alot of issues are platform dependent. Things such as page size must be dictated by the architecture you are running on. But because Mach uses the HAL to abstract this away, Mach performance suffers a great deal in memory operations. Often, the HAL dictates a page size which is too small/large for the architecture. The hardware can't handle address translation anymore, so the kernel has to do this manually. This is very expensive.
In general, Mach's architecture just seems poorly designed from what I've read. Alot of research has been done on this topic, and they're coming to the realization that u-kernels are inherently non-portable. That's a very important point. This shouldn't be surprising either because the u-kernel is so small that mostly only platform dependent code end up in there. L4 is 12k, Eros is 32k(I think), VSTa is around 50k and QNX is less than 10k!
The good thing about this approach is that most(if not all) of the platform-dependent code is wrapped up in the u-kernel. The rest of the system is completely portable. So all you have to do is re-write about half of a 20k kernel for the new architecture, and you're done! Re-compile and off you go. Theoretically at least.
If mach is, indeed, a bad implementation of the microkernel, what would be a *good* implementation of the microkernel? Are any well-designed microkernels out there?
Good u-kernels that have implementations with performance comparable to or exceeding Linux:- QNX: Everyone's heard of this one. They have a very good u-kernel.
- Opearting Systems Group at Dresden: They do alot of great work with u-kernels. They have code for L3 and L4, the first very promising, high-performance u-kernels(though they may not have designed them). They even have Linux running as a service on top of L4, so you may be able to run it right now! Also see This University and the L4KA page for other implementations of L4(ie. other architectures).
- Eros: EROS is a new operating system based on the architectures of earlier high-security capability systems(KeyKOS). Very promising and has performance comparable to L4. The measurements are in the papers section(usually towards the end of the paper). System is GPL'd.
- VSTa: a cool GPL'd hobby u-kernel system(in that it has no university or company backing). This one has a somewhat complete system, ie. self-hosted with gcc, vi, emacs, etc. Runs on a windows partition and uses GRUB to boot(all of which you'll need to run it). No performance metrics that I'm aware of.
- Fluke: No working system as far as I know. The kernel is complete and some performance measurements have been made. Looks promising and source is available(GPL I think).
If there are, then what is it that repeatedly leads projects like xMach/HURD/OS X/mkLinux to embrace Mach as opposed to one of the competing microkernels?
I have no idea. Ignorance of their existence probably.
Unless i am quite confused, supposedly, because the interaction between the microkernel and the OS is somewhat abstract, you ought to be able to replace the microkernel with a better one as long as the interface is the same. Is there any reason a better microkernel with the same software-side interface as Mach could not be written, and used to replace mach?
Yes you could. But then you'd just have Mach.
someone once told me that Mach has the ability to host multiple kernels on the same machine at the same time. Is this true? How does that work in terms of sharing the hardware? How do you go about doing this?
Yes that's true, but not in the way you're thinking. Both kernels don't run as kernels at the same time. A well-engineered u-kernel is so thin and provides such a minimal interface to the hardware, that by just slightly modifying Linux(or other kernel) you can get it to run on top of the u-kernel like any other application, and it could do everything that Linux does running on the bare hardware. See L4Linux, MkLinux, Darwin/MacOS X and even this xMach project as examples. The key to good performance is to provide as small a u-kernel with as minimal an interface as feasible to avoid performance problems. It will never run as fast as on bare hardware, but you can get pretty damn close.
I am just thinking that at this point, it would be an utterly useless but nifty parlor trick to try to get Mac OS X/Darwin, MkLinux, xMach and HURD running off the same mach microkernel on the same machine at the same time.
Not so useless as you might think. The problem with any new operating system or kernel is software. There's nothing written for it yet. But what if you could run the Linux kernel on top of your new OS? You'd have near instant access to whatever drivers and applications are currently available for Linux without any porting effort! (except for the initial Linux port) Then you can have a complete system and start writing native drivers for what you need.
-----
"Goose... Geese... Moose... MOOSE!?!?!" -
Re:Try proof reading that
> but has anyone written a microkernel other than Microsoft
QNX Software Systems has been writing microkernels for quite a number of years now; both QNX 4 and their current OS are true microkernels.
NT's kernel is "micro" only by being "Microsoft".
Be's kernel is sort-of like a microkernel, although drivers and some services (such as the filesystem) are dynamically loaded into kernel space instead of their own space.
-
Re:RTLinux != LinuxSo you "heard" something about some RT system which may have been RTLinux. Impressive
Yes, I "heard" this from a realtime Linux vendor at a technical conference on the use of realtime operating systems in industrial control systems. Dumbass.The 40us is nonsense: depending on the motherboard/processor it can go from 1 to 15. As for the submicrosecond claim
40us is correct for Montavista. I searched for RTLinux numbers but was unable to find any detailed report(surprise, surprise). I generally saw numbers ranging from 15-30us. Some QNX numbers are here. I understand VxWorks is a little betterI would guess the same is true of the realtime Linuxe" --- You guessed wrong.
Maybe you should read the analysis section above where it talks about the number of processes on the system affecting interrupt latency! Again, dumbass. I only wish RTLinux had some decent documentation so i could prove you wrong about them too.being naive is no crime, I guess
but being an arrogant dumbass should be! -
RTLinux != LinuxThis is just more evidence of what I have tried (unsuccessfully) to point out many times. Two facts:
1) RtLinux is not a very good Linux
2) RTLinux is not a very good RTOSWhy do I say this? Well it should be obvious now. RTLinux is not a Linux distribution, but rather a realtime executive that can ran a "Linux image". Similar approaches have been taken by several groups, like Radisys and Nematron, to make Windoze a "realtime OS". The results are generally all the same. Because of the special tricks that must be used, you end up with an OS that is less stable than the off-the-shelf product. And you really do not get many of the benefits of using an off-the-shelf OS, because anything you do that needs to be realtime has to be run by and programmed for the "realtime kernel" (not the OS kernel!)and its proprietary API.
As far as realtime performance is concerned, the last numbers I heard at the 2000 ISA show showed that RTLinux (actually it may have been Montavista) was well behind the major players (i.e. QNX, VXWorks) in terms of realtime performance. Worst case interrupt latencies were on the order of 40 microseconds, compared to sub-microsecond latencies for others. This is only to be expected with the overhead of running two OS's. In all fairness, it did beat Windows CE.
-
stop smoking crack
Huh? I can say: the big three of server operating systems are Solaris, Linux and NT.
You should put your money where your mouth is, and show some supportive proof of these big three. e.g., Yahoo, Apache, Sony's Japan website, formerly Hotmail use FreeBSD, IBM, NYSE, American Express use AIX.
Your post is pointless since thread does not discuss what will be run on the server(s). e.g. If your core webdesigners (programmers included) are extremely comptent with Oracle, Story Server (for Yahoo like pages) your not gonna run your site on NT unless your a dumbass and like headaches.
Aside from that there are many instances of Windows underperforming as a server which sometimes can't cut it, so the mere mention of them is painful
If you look at units shipped, QNX isn't even on the map. They've just started some bizzare marketing blitzes lately (starting with the whole Amiga switcheroo), so wannabes like yourself who know nothing about the embedded market know about QNX.
You should do some research before posting... QNX is used for stuff Windows is likely not competent/reliable/trustworthy(crashmasterWindows) to do. Hell even IBM jumped into the QNX mix. You should read about the uses companies like NASA and Motorolahave for QNX instead of thinking about only running a web and mail server. (theres more to an OS than that you know)
-
stop smoking crack
Huh? I can say: the big three of server operating systems are Solaris, Linux and NT.
You should put your money where your mouth is, and show some supportive proof of these big three. e.g., Yahoo, Apache, Sony's Japan website, formerly Hotmail use FreeBSD, IBM, NYSE, American Express use AIX.
Your post is pointless since thread does not discuss what will be run on the server(s). e.g. If your core webdesigners (programmers included) are extremely comptent with Oracle, Story Server (for Yahoo like pages) your not gonna run your site on NT unless your a dumbass and like headaches.
Aside from that there are many instances of Windows underperforming as a server which sometimes can't cut it, so the mere mention of them is painful
If you look at units shipped, QNX isn't even on the map. They've just started some bizzare marketing blitzes lately (starting with the whole Amiga switcheroo), so wannabes like yourself who know nothing about the embedded market know about QNX.
You should do some research before posting... QNX is used for stuff Windows is likely not competent/reliable/trustworthy(crashmasterWindows) to do. Hell even IBM jumped into the QNX mix. You should read about the uses companies like NASA and Motorolahave for QNX instead of thinking about only running a web and mail server. (theres more to an OS than that you know)
-
misunderstatement
#incldue
#include <rants.h>
#incldue <clues.h>
Just to be absolutely clear about what I'm saying, in my opinion the "big three" embedded OSes are, at the moment: (1) VxWorks, (2) Embedded Linux, (3) Embedded Windows -- or (1) VxWorks, (2) Embedded Windows, (3) Embedded Linux -- depending on how you count.
I guess he's never heard of/used QNX, ChorusOS Nucleus, or ThreadX. I did however like the gadgets, but taking a look at the last week, with all the Linux related companies going to the dogs, and 4 distributions going "kaput" within less than 6 months time, I would be looking at other alternatives to Linux, especially if my business were going to depend on them.
© Gbonics changing the futurismisms of vocabularities worldomwide
-
QNX is a decent microkernelI'm no whiz in CPU, OS, and asm, but QNX seems to a be a decent microkernel, better than mach from the descriptions I hear of from the minix logs and some OSX specs.
http://get.qnx.com >500mb iso, worth the d/l, will install loopback in windows, the QNX version of loadlin (it doesn't have a name...) _should_ work under dosemu I hear, so go ahead and copy it over after install or use VMware.
SoL
-
QNX
Did anyone know that it has QNX in it? Cool..
-
kaboom
After using assorted Linux distributions, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Solaris, and other operating systems for the past few years, I've started tinkering with RTOS' (Real Time Operating Systems) such as QNX, dabbled with ChorusOS for a month or two, and have looked into a few others (Nucleus, ThreadX).
Some RTOS' can be used, for a typical production server running http, mail, etc, often faster and more productive than most other OS', and I'm sure there has to be advocates of RTOS' with a comment or two. There are benefits to making a switch or are RTOS' a high tech OS solely geared for companies needing higher computing standards, but I can see many here trying to advocate Linux, Linux, and oh yea Linux, and I'm sure there are those who will mod unfairly. whatever
Don't get them confused, a lot of THESE OS's are not free to download, and they're not the same as using redcrap, or dumbian progeny. The article itself though didn't mention that some of these are pricey OS' it seems like they just jumped on another "Oh
Is our soldiers forthcoming homecoming? -
Re:Biased
The fact is that NO system is 100% secure. If someone wants to screw with your system, they will find a way to do it. "If your system's properly configured, you can make sure it's secure." - To the best of YOUR knowledge it's secure. Unless you poured over every single line of code, considered every possible way to hack/attack the system, it is impossible to ensure absolute security.
Ok, so Microsoft's system isn't the most secure, deal with it if you're a Windows user or switch to a "more secure" operating system. If you're a *nix user, stop fighting the "big bad power" - it isn't your issue. People have the instinct of always fighting the "King of the hill" (i.e. Microsoft, Intel) and cheering on the underdog (i.e. Linux, Netscape, AMD). And yes, Linux is an underdog in the desktop/business-end user market. When Linux becomes "idiot-proof" for the most part ala Windows, then you'll actually get end-users & businesses to use it. Then again do you hardcore Linux guys really want hundreds of thousands of end-users asking stupid "newbie" questions? Sure you can tell them to RTFM, unfortunately that won't get you an Microsoft-like user-base. Alright..enough ranting - now mod me down.
I'm a Windows user by choice, I've tried Linux and I really did not like the GUI. It wasn't (at the time) as polished as Windows - who knows now. I actually prefer QNX's interface (http://get.qnx.com) over Windows', but there aren't quit enough applications for QNX just yet.... -
Re:But what exactly is a desktop OS?
I hate to break it to you, but QNX had a true multi-tasking OS running on the orginal IBM PC. There are no technical limitations when it comes to UNIX and UNIX-like OSes...
-
power computing
Operating systems such as z/OS fall in place where others aren't neccessarily useful. The OS is geared mainly (or it seems) for high powered computing, something along the lines like a huge mainframe, which OS' like Linux, or the BSD's cannot be trusted to support.
Not to start a flamewar of any kind but there isn't a company I can think of who would dish out cash for some huge mainframe-like computer solely to let one of their geeks toy with, and install anything other than something proven (or semi-proven via marketing.)
Sure it may be biased on the geek level to discriminate against other Unixes but the fact remains money talks, and the companies using this OS and the servers they run on would be insane to let it happen at this point especially when Linux in my opinion is in such a disarray of distro's. there are no standards on many things, etc.
Take a look at Motorola, they're power computing comes in the form of QNX, ChorusOS, Onea OSE, Integrity, ThreadX, for many high powered stuff. Are these less of an OS than Linux or any other open source based OS out there because its not "geek chic?" Hell no.
AntiSpam Info -
Re:Can you imagine...
This is funny. QNX has this built-in (transparent no less!) See the article on QNet.
-
Re:QNX is most of the way there.
It's always had drag and drop:
Drag and Drop programming The fact that many programs don't use it yet is immaturity in the desktop environment (which I mentioned) not immaturity in the core OS. -
Apple as a Company
The whole business of Apple staunchly 'protecting' their trademark designs (iMac, and now Aqua theming) is quite insane. Apple believes that people *have* to copy their design because it is the *best* out there.
1) so what is people copy off of them? If everyone does, it doesn't make Apple generic; it makes them the leader and innovator of the pack, something which will be respected by the consumer eventually. (and will certainly be applauded by us slashdot types)
2) they assume that their design is the *best* out there. I, for one, think that the Aqua interface is far too colorful and overdone. I'd rather not make my political statements by carrying a transparent computer and using a transparent UI - I prefer the simple, usable functionality of Be and photonGUI. -
Re:Questions...
They use their own windowing system, the Photon microGUI. They have an X server as well (and it runs XFreee86, IIRC). Some screenshots are here.
--Rob
--Rob -
Re:Free As In Beer....
The licenses that QNX is released under can be seen here. The OCL (QNX Open Community License) doesn't seem that bad at all. Modifications can be sold, can be closed-source under different licenses, but, if the source is released, it must also be released under the QCL. Sort of like a combination of BSD and GPL? Although, they don't release _everything_ under this license. Some of it's closed-source.
-
Re:Free As In Beer....
The licenses that QNX is released under can be seen here. The OCL (QNX Open Community License) doesn't seem that bad at all. Modifications can be sold, can be closed-source under different licenses, but, if the source is released, it must also be released under the QCL. Sort of like a combination of BSD and GPL? Although, they don't release _everything_ under this license. Some of it's closed-source.
-
Re:BeOS and QNX
Well, it would be good to see the code. But not all of it is open-source. They use some GNU utilities, which they obviously need to provide source for, but I'm pretty sure that the kernel (at least most of it) and the GUI are closed source. In fact, here they even mention being non-GPL as an advantage. And see here for reasons on why you really don't need to see the source.
This is free as in beer. -
Re:BeOS and QNX
Well, it would be good to see the code. But not all of it is open-source. They use some GNU utilities, which they obviously need to provide source for, but I'm pretty sure that the kernel (at least most of it) and the GUI are closed source. In fact, here they even mention being non-GPL as an advantage. And see here for reasons on why you really don't need to see the source.
This is free as in beer. -
Re:Nice OS
The floppy's available here, I agree, quite impressive. It includes a web server too, as well as drivers and such.
But, I wouldn't just delete said large file. Assuming this is under Windows (I don't think you can run QNX as a file on a Linux/whatever partition yet), you'd want to undo the changes it does to the startup config files- the changes that give you the choice between Win/QNX on boot. So remove it via the "Control Panel," that'll fix it all up nice and tidy.
And I think this has been out "free" for quite some time now- I'm pretty sure I had it running (having freely downloaded it from qnx.com) on a laptop for a little while in the fall. -
Automatic hardware detection!
One of the marks of a mature OS. I'm glad to hear that a major linux distro has it... Corel did a good job on my P75, but it's all stock hardware.
What REALLY impressed me was the QNX demo. It installed on my system, automatically loaded drivers for my mouse, cdroms, etc, then it automatically set up their mini-X on my Voodoo 3 at 1024x768 (NO MODELINES!!! Woohoo!) and what REALLY knocked my socks off - It even set up my printer, I was able to print Sluggy Freelance on my Epson Colour 740 by simply hitting the print button! All this in 15 minutes!
Anyway, automatic hardware detection will rawk. I've got about 15 different computers a month that get debian installed on them. (Or re-installed, due to hardware failures, etc.)
I think that the Debian guys deserve a big slashdot hug.
--- -
Ask QNX
If you ever have the chance, take a look at the now famous QNX demo disk (available here). It's a full OS with a fairly capable (graphical) browser that seems to meet your requirements, and the entire thing fits on a 1.44MB floppy. If they can fit all that on a floppy, I'm impressed.
With a little more digging on their site, I found this information page which offers some more details on their browser. it's called Voyager, and it supports frames, JavaScript, and almost all common html tags, and it fits in less than 400k. Even more information on the Voyager browser can be found here.
I hope this is of some help.
-Jason -
Ask QNX
If you ever have the chance, take a look at the now famous QNX demo disk (available here). It's a full OS with a fairly capable (graphical) browser that seems to meet your requirements, and the entire thing fits on a 1.44MB floppy. If they can fit all that on a floppy, I'm impressed.
With a little more digging on their site, I found this information page which offers some more details on their browser. it's called Voyager, and it supports frames, JavaScript, and almost all common html tags, and it fits in less than 400k. Even more information on the Voyager browser can be found here.
I hope this is of some help.
-Jason -
Ask QNX
If you ever have the chance, take a look at the now famous QNX demo disk (available here). It's a full OS with a fairly capable (graphical) browser that seems to meet your requirements, and the entire thing fits on a 1.44MB floppy. If they can fit all that on a floppy, I'm impressed.
With a little more digging on their site, I found this information page which offers some more details on their browser. it's called Voyager, and it supports frames, JavaScript, and almost all common html tags, and it fits in less than 400k. Even more information on the Voyager browser can be found here.
I hope this is of some help.
-Jason -
Re:What do you want it to do?Actually, if security is your #1 concern, OpenBSD is your best candidate. Speed appears to be the FreeBSD specialty.
Also, consider QNX if you are looking for embedded technology or real-time operating systems. (it's FAST!) Try their 1.44 MB floppy---it boots up, presents a GUI, a modem-detector, a webbrowser with Java, and a few games!
If you're looking for an OS to tinker with, consider playing with Atheos, which is similar to BeOS in design (C++ object-oriented desktop operating system). I'm interested in supporting this project myself at some point when I have free time again.
As for myself, I run BeOS, FreeBSD and sometimes QNX on my personal box, with an OpenBSD server/firewall right next to it. I find that OpenBSD puts the network first all the time; Linux-using friends of mine commented once that they tried to burden it and found that it was serving X windows applications faster than their computer could keep up. This is a Pentium 233 w/ 128 MB ram and a 27.2 GB hard drive we're talking about, not the Athlon 750s with 256 MB of RAM my friends are using. And that's in addition to serving Samba, Squid (1GB!), FTP and SSH all at once. OpenBSD's in-fucking-credible. Mad props to Theo, the man is my God.
For my desktop though I'm mainly running BeOS because it pretty much does everything I need in a box that's not quite as network-aware as I would like (smb's manual still, X isn't supported in a real way yet). But it's a snappy interface that can multitask like you wouldn't believe, incredibly efficient and beautifully designed. Coding for it is fun too. It's all you could ask for, except for improved networking which is in the works and perhaps some UNIX odds and ends, like X support or serving. It's not a server OS. It's a desktop.
QNX would be fun if they would supply more packages with it. Lots of UNIX doesn't seem to compile right under it though; I'm not sure what the problem is, because QNX is considered a UNIX more so than BeOS and it has more problems compiling POSIX code. All I know is, QNX is the fastest UNIX on the planet, it feels like it's got to be at least 95% assembly to be so damn fast! And it has a fairly rich API for the GUI (Photon), though it is C-based.
OS's are somewhat of a hobby of mine; I'm downloading Solaris 8 Intel as we speak to try it out. I would say that the worst thing you can do is get stuck in a rut, unwilling to try anything out. I was a Linux-Mandrake devotee for a long time before last year; since then I just got sick of seeing the same screen all the time. More knowledge is necessarily better; I have complete config files for blackbox, AfterStep, and FVWM2, also used Sawfish/GNOME for a bit. Always try new things; the OS world is richer now than it has been in years thanks to the free software movement. Don't become a zealot if you can help it; it stops you from being open-minded.
Daniel
-
Oh please...The only OS's that I know of with which you could boot AND run off a floppy to surf the net (or any other decent app) with a good GUI are:
Of course there may be others (excluding handheld based stuff), but I have yet to see Linux with a GUI run off a floppy, much less with any useful apps.
-
Re:My comments...Have you looked into QNX at all? It's a real time OS and they're demo disk is pretty impressive. A GUI with TCP/IP support and a Web Browser, all on a 1.44 MB disk. If you can get it to work on the hardware, it would be a much better solution than *nix/bsd. The Cyrix WebPad that was announced quite a while back was supposed to use it, but I'm not sure if that's still in production or not.
Good Luck.. -
Linux works well on theseI suspect that we will see Linux more often on little machines requiring OSes. It's the ideal choice really -- Linux can be freely hacked until it is very small, fast, and compatible. It has proven to be reliable, and with the RT Linux stuff starting to get more mature I imagine that it will gain more ground with embedded systems too, though unfortunately at the expense of the QNX people (QNX is neat).
It will probably also run nicely on on the X-Box.
-
Re:You beat me to it...
try QNX. aka " queer-nux" according to some, it also fits this stuff on a single floppy. also a gui. linux without unix would be like vaginux without va linux. in otherwords, pointless.
::: -
it's not the size, it's knowing how to use it!
I will be the first to admit that linux is very intimidating to the newbie. However, if you want to talk bloat, Windows won't be any better!
I think the real problem for new linux users is that linux has so many things that can be configured, changed and optomized (isn't that why we love it?). The Linux-Mandrake install does a nice job of walking you through the install, but there are always a few things (like xvidtune) that most newbies won't know about. It's not a bloat issue, it's a knowledge issue!
If you're worried about bloat, go to http://qnx.com/, and download their operating system on a floppy! By the way, you won't be able to configure too much!
The next generation search engine -- TRY IT! -
University of Waterloo Computer Engineering
The computer engineering program at the University of Waterloo (in Canada) doesn't use a specific OS to learn from (although the textbook uses the traditional ones for examples - NT, *nix, particularly Solaris).
Instead, the project is to design (from scratch, including a design document) and implement a real-time operating system on an embedded system (currently Motorola Coldfires).
One should note that QNX came out of the UW CS real-time course, not the OS course. -
University of Waterloo & QNX
The University of Waterloo's operating systems course requires you to implement a message passing microkernel. There are a number of "spin off" companies, started by Waterloo grads and/or profs, who have commercialized this microkernel design. One is QNX, another is CacheFlow, and I'm sure other slashdotters can add more to this list.
-
Re:But he doesnt follow his own advice
-
Re:But he doesnt follow his own advice
-
Memory protection possible in a RTOS?
The article states "The real-time portions of a system run in kernel space in real-time Linux. Therefore, no memory protection can be offered.
Is this really true? I'm no expert on real time operating systems, but I do know that several claim to have some memory protection, including QNX (highly recommended, btw) and Integrity, which I haven't tried. Perhaps I'm missing something, or is this report over-generalizing?
--- -
Re:Poor article & microkernels arch. are deadFrom the practical point of view, there are only disadvantages, esp. higher ressource consumption with regard to the memory capacity and processor power.
Do you even know what a microkernel is? The very essence of the design is that it incorporates the smallest amount of stuff into kernel space as possible, and still maintains functionality. An ultra-small kernel is *not* indicative of resource hogging, an ultra-large monolithic kernel (like Linux) *is*.
Last not least, the most portable OS is Linux. Hard to say, but this is the reality, and last not least it is faster.
Complete and utter bullshit, just like everything else you've said up to this point. Have you ever heard of NetBSD sir?
Nobody takes profit from the "adavantages" of the microkernel architecture, because erverybody uses a SVR4 or a BSD personality. The Mach seems only to be designed, to emulate off the self environments, thats not an advantage !!!
Everybody? I've never heard of any law or decree that states that you must incorporate a UNIX layer atop of a microkernel foundation, have you? See, there's this OS called QNX RTP/4 that doesn't actually do this, and is pretty much heralded as a microkernel done right.
---------------------------
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
--Voltaire -
BeIA/QNX Re:Beowulf Clusteruh was Re:Snuh, Bitch
Modded down because I acknowledge there are some rather nice non-Linux solutions?
Pussy.
BeIA
Real Audio, MP3, SSL, CCS, PersonalJava, Javascript, email client and much more in 6 meg.
QNX
Just a damn fast browser. Alebit lacking a few features.
The Linux Internet Appliances seem to take longer to bring to market than the other solutions, at least that is the case with QuBit and a few others. The Linux version will follow the BeIA version by some nine months, I hear.
Information Appliance Comparison by Be, Inc.
Like Gortician gives a fuck. -
Re:No wonder! Shoulda died sooner.Yup, get your free QNX RTP CD image and see for yourself. Doom is on the CD too.
Get it here.
-
And of the embedable oportunities
Servers and infrastructure. Ok, but that's still only a piece (large and tasty as it is, it remains a piece) of the IT pie.
What about high perfomance, mobile, business computing?
Streamlined operating systems like QNX are not even mentioned, but if you've downloaded that little demo, it can do a whole lot with very little.
I'm not using QNX, but I think the growing use of connected, online cell phones, pda's and, hopefully, web pads, will require solid, tiny OSs.
Again, there's no reason it can't be done with Linux either!
-Yoink! -
And of the embedable oportunities
Servers and infrastructure. Ok, but that's still only a piece (large and tasty as it is, it remains a piece) of the IT pie.
What about high perfomance, mobile, business computing?
Streamlined operating systems like QNX are not even mentioned, but if you've downloaded that little demo, it can do a whole lot with very little.
I'm not using QNX, but I think the growing use of connected, online cell phones, pda's and, hopefully, web pads, will require solid, tiny OSs.
Again, there's no reason it can't be done with Linux either!
-Yoink! -
Re:Are they riding coattails or have I misread thiThey are making most of their source code available. That's giving something back. Their Business FAQ says:
Which portions of the QNX platform can I access in source form?
Also they say:You can download source for most components, including driver toolkits, OS utilities, TCP/IP stacks, startup code, media players, Internet applications, games, and so on. Components that will remain protected include the OS kernel, core OS modules (e.g. QNX process manager, QNX file system manager), and software licensed from third parties.
Why doesn't QNX provide source to the kernel and other core OS modules?
I completely agree them them here. I used QNX for 3 years and never needed to see how the kernel was implemented. Sometimes to help writing my own applications I needed request the source code in their system utilities under a Non-Disclosure Agreement. Now these should be freely available without an NDA.Because QNX developers don't need kernel source to extend the OS. With QNX's advanced architecture, most OS-level services (drivers, file systems, and so on) exist as user programs that run outside the kernel, just like regular applications. As a result, developing OS extensions doesn't require kernel source - or for that matter, kernel debuggers (tricky) and kernel programmers (expensive). You just use the same tools as for developing user applications.
While our embedded customers want the flexibility provided by source code, they also demand a stable, high-performance core of technology that they can rely on. With our approach, they can enjoy both. Put simply, we can offer OEMs key benefits of an open source OS, but without the drawbacks.
But I think this is a bogus excuse. If a customer wants a a stable, high-performance core of technology, they could choose to use QNX Software Systems core only, but that doesn't stop QSS from open sourcing it.I think the real reason why they don't open source is a comercial one. Maybe they would be better off open source the lot and offer their services for hire, but that's a risky decision which is theirs to make. At this point in time I'd rather thank them for code they are making available, instead of chastizing them for the code they aren't making available.
-
Slashdot's Linux zealots spreading misinformation.
QNX's definition of the Neutrino microkernel(from the QNX Neutrino System Architecture Guide):
Neutrino is a microkernel implementation of the core POSIX features used in embedded realtime systems, along with the fundamental QNX message-passing services. The POSIX features that aren't implemented in the microkernel(file and device I/O, for example) are provided by optional processes and shared libraries.
What this means is the architecture is such that you do not have to worry about what the kernel does, it is like a police officer at an intersection directing traffic, it controls the interaction of the process's and applications which are running on your system.
The Neutrino microkernel has kernel calls to support threads, message passing, signals, clocks, timers, interrupt handlers, semaphores, mutexes and condvars.
Everything your OS needs...
QNX Software systems has been in the embedded world for 20 years, it's kernel technology and architecture is second to none. This is what they do, and they do it very very very well. That is not going to change, no matter what anybody says. Especially people who make generalizations, claiming to know what/how/who the embedded market is and needs. Here is a company who specializes in realtime kernels, supporting/developing/fixing/optimizing/designing. By the mere architecture which they have chosen/developed, they allow you to tailor and customize the rest of the OS to YOUR needs, without having to worry about the kernel(foundation) because YOU know(or should) that there is a company who has 20 years of expertise behind it. This allows you to concentrate ALL your efforts on YOUR applications and drivers for YOUR custom devices. The most amazing thing here is that QNX will be releasing source code for many QNX applications, drivers and libraries, to help you on your way. Here is a press release from the end of April,from their site:
http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr24_00-openpl.html
Not to mention much of the Linux/Unix open source base is easily portable to QNX!!!!!!!
Using resources in this way in my opinion is the BEST way to use and develop a product. STOP trying to re-invent the WHEEL!!! It is you with the narrow-minded opinions, who will be left behind, when YOUR managers finally realize the HUGE potential available to them with QNX, watch out!
To find out for yourself what QNX and the QNX Neutrino OS is all about go to the online docs and read the first couple of chapters on the System Architecture, this will clear up some of the confusion posted here by the realtime OS-challenged...
The link is
http://qdn.qnx.com/support/docs/neutrino_qrp/ind ex.html
Long time QNX/Linux/Microsoft(ya,ya) user. -
Slashdot's Linux zealots spreading misinformation.
QNX's definition of the Neutrino microkernel(from the QNX Neutrino System Architecture Guide):
Neutrino is a microkernel implementation of the core POSIX features used in embedded realtime systems, along with the fundamental QNX message-passing services. The POSIX features that aren't implemented in the microkernel(file and device I/O, for example) are provided by optional processes and shared libraries.
What this means is the architecture is such that you do not have to worry about what the kernel does, it is like a police officer at an intersection directing traffic, it controls the interaction of the process's and applications which are running on your system.
The Neutrino microkernel has kernel calls to support threads, message passing, signals, clocks, timers, interrupt handlers, semaphores, mutexes and condvars.
Everything your OS needs...
QNX Software systems has been in the embedded world for 20 years, it's kernel technology and architecture is second to none. This is what they do, and they do it very very very well. That is not going to change, no matter what anybody says. Especially people who make generalizations, claiming to know what/how/who the embedded market is and needs. Here is a company who specializes in realtime kernels, supporting/developing/fixing/optimizing/designing. By the mere architecture which they have chosen/developed, they allow you to tailor and customize the rest of the OS to YOUR needs, without having to worry about the kernel(foundation) because YOU know(or should) that there is a company who has 20 years of expertise behind it. This allows you to concentrate ALL your efforts on YOUR applications and drivers for YOUR custom devices. The most amazing thing here is that QNX will be releasing source code for many QNX applications, drivers and libraries, to help you on your way. Here is a press release from the end of April,from their site:
http://www.qnx.com/news/pr/apr24_00-openpl.html
Not to mention much of the Linux/Unix open source base is easily portable to QNX!!!!!!!
Using resources in this way in my opinion is the BEST way to use and develop a product. STOP trying to re-invent the WHEEL!!! It is you with the narrow-minded opinions, who will be left behind, when YOUR managers finally realize the HUGE potential available to them with QNX, watch out!
To find out for yourself what QNX and the QNX Neutrino OS is all about go to the online docs and read the first couple of chapters on the System Architecture, this will clear up some of the confusion posted here by the realtime OS-challenged...
The link is
http://qdn.qnx.com/support/docs/neutrino_qrp/ind ex.html
Long time QNX/Linux/Microsoft(ya,ya) user. -
Re:QNX 4/Neutrino and SMP
For smp in QNX RtP check out http://staff.qnx.com/~cdm/smp/. QNX Neutrino is the OS used for the QNX RtP (the "desktop" qnx). And QNX 4 is the os used for embedded applications (can probably be used as a desktop os aswell).
Check out http://www.qnxstart.com for lots more qnx stuff and downloads. -
Re:Phoenix rises again
Sorry folks, but I've been using QNX every day for the last three years so your "efficiency" bullshit just doesn't fly with me. It still annoys me that Amiga dumped QNX in favor of kowtowing to the Linux crowd.
FYI, Tao's JVM also runs in QNX which runs on multiple CPU's. And as for developers:
Amiga: 15,000
QNX: 300,000