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."

Comments

That's cool

[suso]

These are the guys that released that really cool Desktop GUI + PPP stack + web browser and OS on a single floppy disk back in the 90s. I remember also reading that the Photon GUI would let you pass applications between computers through a dock on the side of the screen. Neat stuff.

Re:That's cool

[porkThreeWays]

So a dual license? Blasphemy! I've never heard of a successful open source project using dual licensing!

Re:That's cool

[TheRaven64]

I've never heard of a successful open source project using dual licensing! From TFA:

We aren't releasing the OS code under an open source license. Dual licensing is fine, but none of them is open source. Also from TFA:

If fact, we're providing three licenses: one for commercial users, one for noncommercial users, and one for QNX technology partners. It's no different from Microsoft's Shared Source. None of the licenses counts as Free Software.

Re:That's cool

[Mr. Slippery]

To many, `open source' simply means the source is available.

"Open source" is a term of art with a very specific meaning.

Anyone in the software field, or any related field, who thinks that "open source simply means the source is available" is dangerously ignorant.

Re:That's cool

[Hal_Porter]

And it's not possible that people disagree with your definition and use "open source" to mean "the source code is open"?

Re:That's cool

[dougmc]

"Open source" is a term of art with a very specific meaning That's one definition. Here is another. `Of or relating to source code that is available to the public'.

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'.

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.

Re:That's cool

[porkThreeWays]

Insightful? I was trying to be funny... =( I guess I'm gonna have to go back to prop comedy.

Re:That's cool

[Mr. Slippery]

That's one definition. Here is another. `Of or relating to source code that is available to the public'.

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.

Voting machines

[goombah99]

This is huge news. One of the most popular paper ballot systems, the ES&S model 100 optical scan runs on QNX. this means it is now theoretically possible that ES&S could go open source if they wanted to.

Re:Voting machines

[friedman101]

They already did, here's a snippet

int maxDonation=0;
int bestCandidate=0;
for (int a =0; a<= numCandidates-1; a++) {
if (candidates[a].donation > maxDonation) {
maxDonation = candidates[a].donation;
bestCandidate = a;
}
}

candidates[a].CastVote();

Re:Voting machines

[rar]

int maxDonation=0;
int bestCandidate=0;
for (int a =0; a<= numCandidates-1; a++) {
if (candidates[a].donation > maxDonation) {
maxDonation = candidates[a].donation;
bestCandidate = a;
}
}
 
candidates[a].CastVote();

Not only corrupt, but also buggy. It always casts the vote for the last guy + 1, overflowing the candidates array. Apparently the last defense of democracy is that people code like crap.

Microkernel? WTF?!

[crush]

Don't they know that it's standard wisdom on Slashdot that microkernels can't work? What's wrong with these guys?!!! Myself, I'm still waiting for GNU/Hurd :)

Re:Under what license

[betterunixthanunix]

TFA:

" under a new hybrid software licensing arrangement. "

And:

" 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. "

(Hint: It's definitely not GPL)

Re:Microkernel? WTF?!

[Spy der Mann]

Myself, I'm still waiting for GNU/Hurd

Oh right, I heard Duke Nukem forever requires it.

They're being demolished by linux

[xtal]

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.

It's "shared", not "opened".

[darkonc]

Don't drink the PR Cool-Aid(tm) boys. Distinguish this PR hype from reality and call it what it really is -- "Shared Source". It's not Open Source(tm), and it's not "Free".

You need licenses to do things like release your own version, and that puts it in the same ballpark as Microsoft's shared source initiative.

Frustrating: QNX

[fm6]

I find the history of QNX very frustrating. When I first heard of it in the mid 80s, it was advertised as a simple Unix-like OS with very low hardware requirements. It was network-aware, supported distributed computing, and had a nice microkernel architecture.

But the most important thing was that it was a real OS, with the ability to multitask and to effectively isolate hardware from software. Contrast this with MS-DOS 3.0, which had only the most primitve, kludgy excuse for background processing. (Patterson knew zilch about os design when he set out to clone CP/M; it never occurred to him that OS code needed to be reentrant. And MS-DOS did a really lousy job of isolating hardware from software. Ironically, this fuckup assured lockin of the IBM-compatible/PC combination: software written for this platform was essential impossible to port to other platforms.

What was particularly tantalizing was that QNX claimed to run well even on very limited hardware — even 8088 systems were said to run robustly. And it shared some key features with CTOS an first-rate OS that was then dying off, due to its dependence on proprietary hardware.

The problem with QNX was that commercial license fees were very high; that's why I never played with it. It did become popular at universities (cheap academic licenses) and among certain kinds of embedded application developers (because of its nice feature set and minimal hardware requirements. I'm told that by the late 80s, most video stores used POS systems based on QNX.

Then MS-DOS/Windows started grabbing more and more of the market and QNX was forced to specialize. So for a long time now they've advertised themselves as a real-time operating system. And yes, their real-time features are very good — but they're just one part of a really good general-purpose OS.

Now, much too late to do me any good, there's an open-source version of QNX. I wish the QNX OSS community well, but there's just no place for it in the world I work in. Hopefully, embedded application developers will keep QNX alive. But I'll always be sad that QNX never found a following among common PC users — which it surely would have if the marketplace were driven by technical excellence instead of various sordid realities. This is one of the great lost opportunities in computing history. And should be a lesson to Linux advocates who think they can easily displace Microsoft.

in other words

[josepha48]

QNX is not doing as well as they would like, so they think they can capitalize on open source and maybe take advantage of those who are afraid of the GPL v3.

Yeah that may sound trollish, but there are several companies that are doing the open source thing because they are not doing so well.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, I'm just saying QNX is not doing as well as I think they would like to.

Re:Microkernel? WTF?!

[cerberusss]

Myself, I'm still waiting for GNU/Hurd

Oh right, I heard Duke Nukem forever requires it.

No, the Duke box will actually say "GNU/Hurd or better". That's why I installed Vista.