Slashdot Mirror
QNX "Opens" Source Code
Arista writes "QNX has announced that effective immediately, the company will open the source code to its QNX embedded, RTOS, microkernel operating system. From the press release: "Effective immediately, QNX will make source code for its award-winning, microkernel-based OS available for free download. The first source release includes the code to the QNX Neutrino microkernel, the base C library, and a variety of board support packages for popular embedded and computing hardware." OSNews features an interview with the CEO of QNX, Dan Dodge, on this announcement."
QNX has some of the best real-time features of any OS and its message passing architecture is reliable and pretty simple to use. The main problem so far was its price, lack of source and overall lack of applications. This will likely change quickly if it is open-sourced. I can see it become a serious contender to the various complex and poorly documented patches to turn Linux into a real-time system. Excellent news indeed.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
To many, `open source' simply means the source is available. And it is.
I've done a few embedded linux projects over the years - we would have loved to run QNX, as I was exposed to it in university and enjoyed it, very robust, supported etc - but the licensing fees are killer. The offered advantages, at least in the applications we've worked in make it a no brainer to go embedded linux.
Access to QNX source code is free, but commercial deployments of QNX Neutrino runtime components still require royalties, and commercial developers will continue to pay for QNX Momentics® development seats.
Looks like I'll be keeping my investment in embedded linux environments. Royalty vs. no royalty with same functionality, I'll tell you who wins every time. Linux keeps getting better, too.
..don't panic
The title of the press release is "QNX Publishes Neutrino Source Code and Opens Development Process". Arista, on the other hand, didn't seem to mind mangling this in order to get this article posted to Slashdot.
I imagine this kind of thing might be why Bruce Perens said way back in 1999 that it's time to talk about "free software" again.
http://outcampaign.org/
oh shut up you fucking fundamentalist commie. this is way better than not having access to the source code at all.
Minix 3
It looks very interesting to me.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I disagree.
Opening the source means people who could never afford to work with and learn this vital and amazing operating system, will have a real chance now. Just because it's not GPL'd doesn't mean this chance isn't a really good thing for people who want to program. Want to earn a living writing good software for something an industry needs and uses.
If more companies would do things like this with their products. I think you would see a great deal more enhancements and improvements in peoples ability to find employment and enhance their skills.
Take for example Blender3D. It's the little linux that could of the 3D CGI world. It has made amazing strides since it was purchased and it's source opened for the 3D and programming community. There you have OPEN Source. But still most major companies are using 3D Studio, Maya, Autodesk etc to make movies, commercials etc. None of who have a full version for hobbiests to use and build their talents on. While some may have education versions, most of them fall far shy of a full system so you learn how to do physics, and full lighting, cloth and hair for characters etc.
Without the chance to really play with all the bells and whistles you can't fully explore what something can do for you. And while you may build small animations they are heavily watermarked with 'Made with Bladiblah 3D trial version' etc.
I'm all for Free software and open source. But I'd never devalue the contribution of an effort like this.
Thank you for your patience.
Here's an article that explain the license and model
http://www.qnx.com/download/feature.html?programid=16868
and an FAQ:
http://community.qnx.com/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.community/wiki/FAQ
And it's not possible that people disagree with your definition and use "open source" to mean "the source code is open"?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Well they do make most of their money off royalties and annual dev kits fees. I think the idea is to get QNX into the academic arena, where you can warp the minds of future engineers and pick up some market share.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Nope, QNX is not going to be Free Software, let alone licensed under anything compatible with the GPL. It will be an infringement of the copyrights of both Linux and QNX to incorporate one's code into the other.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Anyone in the software field, or any related field, who thinks that "open source simply means the source is available" is dangerously ignorant. Anyone who speaks English but honestly thinks that words or phrases can only have one meaning is either 1) in denial or 2) doesn't really speak English.People redefining words to fit their agenda (for good or bad) is nothing new. And like it or not, the English language is ambiguous, and one word or phrase may mean different things to different people. And just because they use a definition that doesn't jive with the one you prefer, that doesn't mean they're `wrong'.
Insightful? I was trying to be funny... =( I guess I'm gonna have to go back to prop comedy.
If an officer ever threatens to taze you, say you have a pacemaker.
It's funny that you describe the dominant and very successful business model for the software industry as "confused". Not every company wants to be in the consulting and contracts business and many customers aren't interested in paying for such services.
I have used proprietary embedded OS's before and we never would have paid for consulting services or maintenance contracts. If the OS's is of good quality and is reasonably well documented, what else would we need? However, if the OS was available for free for commercial use, we'd be happy to use it without paying for it (We wouldn't care much about having the source code: the whole point of buying it is to avoid doing the work ourselves). On the other hand, if it required us to release our code, we'd probably pass on it.
I explained why they can't release the software as GPL and continue to sell licenses which is what they want to. I find it amazing that people with absolutely no experience of running a software business can tell people that do that if they give their software away they can still make money from "custom development workd and maintainance contracts". I think QNX knows more about whether that's possible or not than you do.
Instead they're chosing to try and hold on to a confused business model where they try to fool themselves and their customers into believing that the customers have to pay for the software.
That's hilarious. So you say their business model is "confused" because they "try to fool themselves and their customers into believing that the customers have to pay for the software". That actually sounds like the definition of a good business model to me - sell licenses for a fee.
Whereas in your business model they stop doing that and somehow karma will make sure they still get money from other things.
Seriously, I don't know how you can say that their business model is confused without seeing the irony.
Maybe you should try the same argument next time you see something you like in a shop. Tell the assistant that their business model is confused and outdated and they should give it to you for free and then make money out of a maintainance contract. Maybe you'll get some free stuff.
Incidentally, how much money have you spent on maintainance contracts for free software? Personally, I've spent exactly $0 over my entire life. I have paid a few thousand dollars for commercial software I like though. So if I'm typical, I'd say people people who want to go on selling licensed are onto a good thing and should ignore people like you trying to trick them into giving away their stuff. But I'm sure they're smart enough to know that anyway, just like this QNX guy does.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
And the American Heritage dictionary is supposed to be authoritative about software development and licensing?
Look up "trusted" in a dictionary and you won't find mention of the Orange Book or Common Criteria, but you'd better understand their definitions if you're going to talk about "trust" in a computer system.
Yes, natural language is ambiguous; one of the ways ambiguity is resolved is via context. "Work" means one thing when I'm talking about my paycheck, another if I'm talking about physics. If I said I get paid for my work on such-and-such-project and you asked how much force I exerted over what distance, you'd either be joking or you'd be dangerously confused.
"Open source", in the context of software development and licensing, is ambiguous only as a convenience for those who wish to create confusion and either sabotage, or ride the coat-tails of, the Open Source movement.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
There's a story about QNX I came across a few years ago.
It seems that some factory was using QNX to control a very important industrial robot. QNX had been installed and had run without flaw for a couple of years or more since it had been installed.
One fine November day, the consultant or contractor who handled that system among others was told that it had quit logging events a few months earlier. The consultant checked on it and found that the disk drive had failed the previous August.