Slashdot Mirror


QNX RtP 6.2 World Preview

Jason writes: "OSNews is running an exclusive preview of the brand new version 6.2 of the QNX realtime operating system. The article is going through the installation process, the Photon user interface (lots of screenshots included), the internals, and the advantages and disadvantages of the OS as a desktop system. QNX RtP 6.2 is expected to be released for free (for non commercial usage) before March."

9 of 209 comments (clear)

  1. QNX goes back a *long* way by InterruptDescriptorT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Do any Canadians (perhaps only Ontarians) remember the ICON computers they used to have in elementary and high schools? The ICON, also known as the 'Bionic Beaver', was a computer manufactured by CEMCorp (Canadian Educational Microprocessor, IIRC) that was meant to bring data processing and computer skills to thousands of high-school students.

    The design of the machine was interesting--intelligent nodes running an 80186 connected by ArcNet to a central server node--but they ran a version of QNX. I remember the slightly different set of commands than we are familiar with in UNIX: for example, to go up a directory, it was 'cd ^', files could be deleted with 'zap', and commands could be easily run on remote nodes by prefixing the command with [nodenum].

    It was on this machine and OS that I cut my teeth in C, 80x86 assembly and basic networking concepts (I wrote a small multi-node chat program using the virtual circuit calls in QNX), and as such I was always have very fond memories of it. Thanks for letting me reminisce. :-) (BTW, if anyone has one and is planning on getting rid of it, I'd gladly take it off your hands.)

    --
    Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
  2. A simple OS for mom by Pengo · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Maybe this is it. Show her how to dial up with the modem, use launch the email client and web client and find a version of AIM and there you go. I imagine that because it's UNIX(like), you should be able to run it non-priviliged without problems or fear of someone else messing it up.

    Has anyone tried running this on slow hardware? (Such as a P133 or something w/32 megs ram?) How does it fare?

    1. Re:A simple OS for mom by nhavar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The slowest machine I've set this up on is a P75 w/32 megs of ram. It worked fine although with the video card I had it couldn't get to higher color depths. Amazingly I didn't have to do anything to configure the modem, sound card or NIC and everything ran fine. Really helped a novice get on the net quick and play a few games that they like to play. No need to spend $600 for a new PC just so someone can surf the net and get mail and play card games, dust off the old PC and slap QNX on easier than a Mandrake install.

      --
      "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
  3. Re:Hello Point... you've missed it. by ergo98 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You're totally wrong. QNX Neutrino is a bottom to top OS from tiny machines to clusters of high power hardware. QNX has pushed their OS on thin-cients, Internet Appliances, etc, it isn't just for embedded monitoring hardware. Indeed the big QNX push is "QNX on a floppy" that basically turns a PC into an IA.

  4. QNX: longtime (semi) embedded player by RatOmeter · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As has been pointed out in other post(s), QNX has been around a long time. In fact, they first called it Qunix, but AT&T (Bell Labs) slapped'm down on that long ago.

    I'm heard first-hand testimonials attesting to its bullet-proof operation which makes it a great choice for controlling machinery. You can also install, de-install just about any service/driver/app without needing to reboot.

    Where I work, we make large, expensive automated testing equipment (lotsa horsepower, moving parts, other dangerous shit). We wanted to eval QNX about 3 years ago, but they told me they only provide free eval copies to their $100K plus customers. We make about 7 to 12 machines per year; they slammed the door in my face.

    Now (and their previous free non-comm version) that the've got a pkg I can use to eval, it's too late. Even if we were still in a position to choose QNX, I doubt we'd easily forget our previous snubbing.

  5. Some hangups. by be-fan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    QNX RtP has tons of potential, but there are lots of things holding it back as a desktop OS:

    1) Lack of unified VM/buffer-cache. The size of the disk cache is fixed rather than dynamically adjusted depending on need.

    2) Lack of proper swapping. Since swapping kills embedded apps, RtP lacks good swapping. Use of swap has to be explicitly coded into the app, and was implemented as sort of a hack to allow gcc to be self-hosted.

    3) Real-time scheduler. The hard-real time scheduler might be nice on an embedded system, but on a desktop system (where fairness takes a back seat to user-percieved responsiveness) it doesn't work well.

    4) Crappy disk subsystem. I don't know if this problem has been fixed in 6.2 (I doubt it) but RtP has a really slow disk system. The IDE drivers have issues and the filesystem is ancient.

    Some of the numbers that RtP shows aren't as impressive as they could be. 0.55us context switches sound great, but Linux can do switches on that order as well. Still, RtP is a great system. QNet, in particular, is very featureful, and Photon totally destroys X in every area except maybe 3D support. It has superlative network transparency, a good (fast) widget set, incredible fonts (courtesy of BitStream's FontFusion) and a nice, lean, architecture. If QSSL would port Photon to Linux (which wouldn't be that hard, given that both are mostly straight POSIX) I'd pay to run it.

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    1. Re:Some hangups. by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Real-time scheduler. The hard-real time scheduler might be nice on an embedded system, but on a desktop system (where fairness takes a back seat to user-percieved responsiveness) it doesn't work well.

      Huh? Fairness is the enemy of responsiveness. There is no back-seat. On an RT system, if you have your UI run at a higher priority than your cpu-sucking apps, you get responsiveness that Windows/Linux users can only dream about.

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  6. Internet Appliance != Desktop by MosesJones · · Score: 4, Interesting


    And an internet appliance is a minimal spec box, possibly without a hard-disk that has a cheap screen (possibly touch screen). Again its not aimed at the Microsoft market so the original point still holds. The cluster stuff is for specific tasks and not the desktop. The point is quite simple. Not every OS out there is meant to run the same way as windows, there is a wonderful world out there of OSes that are aimed at different tasks, all too often Slashdot is concerned, and its readership only aware, of the MS style of market.

    OS/390, AS/400, EPOC, QNX etc etc etc... well cool OSes for paticular circumstances.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  7. Alas, QNX! by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Never heard of these machines, but as you describe them, their design makes a lot of sense. At about that time, I was working for Convergent Technologies, which mostly made systems that ran CTOS. Like QNX, CTOS had a message-passing architecture, and was thus very well-suited to distributed computing. QNX has always struck me as more elegant than CTOS, though.

    When I left Convergent, I ended up working with 8086 and 80286 systems -- and found the limitations of MS-DOS really painful. QNX was then being marketed as a DOS alternative. They claimed to be able to do serious multitasking on 8 mhz systems. I actually found that claim credible, not to mention tantalizing. But I never got a chance to test it. The QNX license fees were just too high.

    It's a real pity QNX wasn't in the picture when IBM was shopping around for a PC OS. History would be very different!