OpenQNX :: The QNX Community Portal

My company, a Spanish System Integrator in the Industrial Automation
named SPIN, has decided to not use QNX anymore in new projects. We will
center our efforts in Microsoft platforms. The main reasons to take this
decision are:


· The Market is not asking for applications developed under QNX. The
Market looks for Microsoft platforms. There are a lot of years that we
are not able to introduce a QNX system in a new customer plant.
· Our business is Industrial Automation. In this field the main tools we
use are PLCs and SCADA systems. There is no sense to compete with PLCs
using embedded systems. Popular SCADA systems run always on Microsoft
platforms, except few rare cases, far away of our world.
· In our installations we put always first brand computers like Dell,
HP, IBM. These computers come always with a Microsoft operating system
incorporated (sometimes we can chose between Microsoft and Linux). If we
want to use QNX we must pay also for Microsoft. There is no sense.
· It's difficult in Spain to find people with high "C" skills. If we
also search for people with QNX and Photon knowledge the task is
impossible. We have a high cost in people formation to be able to work
with QNX. This problem doesn't arise using Microsoft technologies.
· Time ago we migrated from QNX2 to QNX4. We where obligated to change
compiler and debugger, graphical interface and database. Migration of
developed applications was painful and expensive, and help received from
QSSL as useful tools, or commercial discounts was inexistent at all.
Btw, QNX4 is much better than QNX2.
· To continue using QNX we must migrate again from QNX4 to QNX6. The
change seems easier than the old one (QNX2 to QNX4), but looking at this
news it seems there are a lot of little problems, also to pass from 6.2
to 6.3. All of this gives us to think that QSSL doesn't care about the
needs of his customers. Specially if they are of a small size, as our
company.
· It seems that QSSL is abandoning our business, and is focusing their
efforts in the embedded market, looking for big contracts with big
companies.
· Currently, QNX is remaining in a little market segment. Respect to
general applications they have not succeed to Microsoft pressure, from
big platforms (2000, XP, 2003, .) to small ones (Windows CE, XP
embedded, .). Respect to more professional applications the big
competitor is again Microsoft, and also Linux, BSD, and recently Linux
RT. Convince a new customer to use Linux is easier that convince it to
use QNX. This point was explained directly to QSSL some years ago. Their
answer was that the situation will change, but they can't tell us which
will be the change at this moment. After some years nothing has changed,
and if we can appreciate a little change, this change is to worst
situation. We suspect the announced change was the defunct QNX 6 N.C.
effort.

Really it's a shame to throw away the work and effort of more that 15
years based on QNX systems, but as they tell in our country, "one can't
swim always against the river". We can't wait forever for a QNX boom
that never arrives, and that every day seems to have less chances to
arrive.

In our opinion, technically QSSL software is superior to Microsoft one.
The difference is not as big as in the QNX2 days, but it still exists.
But for economic and marketing reasons we must abandon this great
technology.


Bye QNX.

Why don't you use MS for front end for UI work and QNX embedded systesm on
the actual critical devices? Customers don't even have to know they are
using QNX.

My company, a Spanish System Integrator in the Industrial Automation
named SPIN, has decided to not use QNX anymore in new projects. We will
center our efforts in Microsoft platforms. The main reasons to take this
decision are:


· The Market is not asking for applications developed under QNX. The
Market looks for Microsoft platforms. There are a lot of years that we
are not able to introduce a QNX system in a new customer plant.
· Our business is Industrial Automation. In this field the main tools we
use are PLCs and SCADA systems. There is no sense to compete with PLCs
using embedded systems. Popular SCADA systems run always on Microsoft
platforms, except few rare cases, far away of our world.
· In our installations we put always first brand computers like Dell,
HP, IBM. These computers come always with a Microsoft operating system
incorporated (sometimes we can chose between Microsoft and Linux). If we
want to use QNX we must pay also for Microsoft. There is no sense.
· It's difficult in Spain to find people with high "C" skills. If we
also search for people with QNX and Photon knowledge the task is
impossible. We have a high cost in people formation to be able to work
with QNX. This problem doesn't arise using Microsoft technologies.
· Time ago we migrated from QNX2 to QNX4. We where obligated to change
compiler and debugger, graphical interface and database. Migration of
developed applications was painful and expensive, and help received from
QSSL as useful tools, or commercial discounts was inexistent at all.
Btw, QNX4 is much better than QNX2.
· To continue using QNX we must migrate again from QNX4 to QNX6. The
change seems easier than the old one (QNX2 to QNX4), but looking at this
news it seems there are a lot of little problems, also to pass from 6.2
to 6.3. All of this gives us to think that QSSL doesn't care about the
needs of his customers. Specially if they are of a small size, as our
company.
· It seems that QSSL is abandoning our business, and is focusing their
efforts in the embedded market, looking for big contracts with big
companies.
· Currently, QNX is remaining in a little market segment. Respect to
general applications they have not succeed to Microsoft pressure, from
big platforms (2000, XP, 2003, .) to small ones (Windows CE, XP
embedded, .). Respect to more professional applications the big
competitor is again Microsoft, and also Linux, BSD, and recently Linux
RT. Convince a new customer to use Linux is easier that convince it to
use QNX. This point was explained directly to QSSL some years ago. Their
answer was that the situation will change, but they can't tell us which
will be the change at this moment. After some years nothing has changed,
and if we can appreciate a little change, this change is to worst
situation. We suspect the announced change was the defunct QNX 6 N.C.
effort.

Really it's a shame to throw away the work and effort of more that 15
years based on QNX systems, but as they tell in our country, "one can't
swim always against the river". We can't wait forever for a QNX boom
that never arrives, and that every day seems to have less chances to
arrive.

In our opinion, technically QSSL software is superior to Microsoft one.
The difference is not as big as in the QNX2 days, but it still exists.
But for economic and marketing reasons we must abandon this great
technology.


Bye QNX.

I feel like members of my own family are dying off.

I do completely understand and agree with your motives though.

For what it's worth, people still trying to market QNX based systems need to
take a black box aproach. Don't tell anyone that ity's "QNX inside". QSSL
doesn't care about brand name recognition anymore anyway.

I just received the May 2005 edition of "Embedded Systems Programming",
which is sent to people who went to the Embedded Systems Conference.

There are no mentions of QNX whatsoever. Not in the articles, and
not in the ads.

There's a nice article, "Survey Says Software Tools More Important than
Chips", on how tool availability affects CPU selection. 32-bit CPU
usage is up,
and multi-CPU systems now have significant market share. Those are the
markets for which QNX is best suited.

It's sad.

John Nagle

Hi John...

...off-the-subject...

Your comment reminds me that some people in high places still think that
global warming is not real..., and choose to do nothing about it.
Hummm, go figure.

It seems that sometimes decision makers lack any one portion/combination
of some reality, common sense, understanding, and/or vision. Or may-be
that some individual/special interests are more powerful than... oh
well, who cares.

Best Regards...

Miguel.

John Nagle wrote:

I just received the May 2005 edition of "Embedded Systems Programming",
which is sent to people who went to the Embedded Systems Conference.

There are no mentions of QNX whatsoever. Not in the articles, and
not in the ads.

There's a nice article, "Survey Says Software Tools More Important than
Chips", on how tool availability affects CPU selection. 32-bit CPU
usage is up,
and multi-CPU systems now have significant market share. Those are the
markets for which QNX is best suited.

It's sad.

John Nagle

Well, 7 months after the initial decision to abandon QNX, things are
changing.
There is an opportunity to continue using QNX (6.3, of course).

At this moment we are evaluating QNX 6.3 combined with MySQL database.
The initial results are good.

To fully succeed the technical test we need a driver able to communicate
with
new Rockwell PLCs (ControlLogix and CompactLogix family) using ethernet.

I'll appreciate any hint in finding those drivers.


Thank you

Joan Baucells

Well, 7 months after the initial decision to abandon QNX, things are
changing.
There is an opportunity to continue using QNX (6.3, of course).

At this moment we are evaluating QNX 6.3 combined with MySQL database.
The initial results are good.

To fully succeed the technical test we need a driver able to communicate
with
new Rockwell PLCs (ControlLogix and CompactLogix family) using ethernet.

I'll appreciate any hint in finding those drivers.

Thank you

Joan Baucells

http://www.rongage.org/

They works great on QNX 6.3, and is free (GNU LGPL)

Joan Baucells wrote:

Well, 7 months after the initial decision to abandon QNX, things are
changing.
There is an opportunity to continue using QNX (6.3, of course).

At this moment we are evaluating QNX 6.3 combined with MySQL database.
The initial results are good.

To fully succeed the technical test we need a driver able to communicate
with
new Rockwell PLCs (ControlLogix and CompactLogix family) using ethernet.

I'll appreciate any hint in finding those drivers.

Thank you

Joan Baucells