Skip navigation.
Home
The QNX Community Portal

View topic - QNX on the desktop, again

QNX on the desktop, again

Read-only archive of qnx.cafe (generail discussion forum) at inn.qnx.com

QNX on the desktop, again

Postby John Nagle » Mon Nov 27, 2006 6:32 pm

Back in the QNX NC era, there was a real effort to get QNX on the
desktop. That foundered because of marketing problems at QSSL.
The desktop might be worth looking at again, now that it's clear just how
awful Microsoft Vista is. There's an opening here.

If there was a solid NC version, with no nonsense about "expiration",
and open source developers were encouraged to develop for it, the
open source community might resume supporting QNX. OpenOffice, Java,
and a current version of Mozilla and Thunderbird, would be enough
to make it a useful desktop platform.

QNX on all your call center PCs would actually make sense.
Much lower total cost of ownership. It just works.

Something to think about.

John Nagle
Animats
John Nagle
 

Re: QNX on the desktop, again

Postby evanh » Sun Dec 03, 2006 6:29 am

John Nagle wrote:
.... OpenOffice, Java,
and a current version of Mozilla and Thunderbird, would be enough
to make it a useful desktop platform.


And BOINC! :)
evanh
QNX Master
 
Posts: 737
Joined: Sat Feb 01, 2003 8:04 am

Re: QNX on the desktop, again

Postby Mario Charest » Fri Dec 08, 2006 7:58 am

"John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message
news:ekf944$ndt$1@inn.qnx.com...
Back in the QNX NC era, there was a real effort to get QNX on the
desktop. That foundered because of marketing problems at QSSL.
The desktop might be worth looking at again, now that it's clear just how
awful Microsoft Vista is. There's an opening here.


You must be kiddin' right?

If there was a solid NC version, with no nonsense about "expiration",
and open source developers were encouraged to develop for it, the
open source community might resume supporting QNX. OpenOffice, Java,
and a current version of Mozilla and Thunderbird, would be enough
to make it a useful desktop platform.

That sounds like Linux no?

QNX on all your call center PCs would actually make sense.
Much lower total cost of ownership. It just works.


Are you running your own business? If not, you should give it a try.

Something to think about.

John Nagle
Animats
Mario Charest
 

Re: QNX on the desktop, again

Postby Mario Charest » Fri Dec 08, 2006 8:33 pm

Please ignore my comments, I was wrong and condescending.

"Mario Charest" <root@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:elb5if$oog$1@inn.qnx.com...

"John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message
news:ekf944$ndt$1@inn.qnx.com...
Back in the QNX NC era, there was a real effort to get QNX on the
desktop. That foundered because of marketing problems at QSSL.
The desktop might be worth looking at again, now that it's clear just how
awful Microsoft Vista is. There's an opening here.


You must be kiddin' right?

If there was a solid NC version, with no nonsense about "expiration",
and open source developers were encouraged to develop for it, the
open source community might resume supporting QNX. OpenOffice, Java,
and a current version of Mozilla and Thunderbird, would be enough
to make it a useful desktop platform.

That sounds like Linux no?


QNX on all your call center PCs would actually make sense.
Much lower total cost of ownership. It just works.


Are you running your own business? If not, you should give it a try.

Something to think about.

John Nagle
Animats

Mario Charest
 

Re: QNX on the desktop, again

Postby John Nagle » Sat Dec 09, 2006 5:20 pm

Mario Charest wrote:
"John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message

QNX on all your call center PCs would actually make sense.
Much lower total cost of ownership. It just works.


Are you running your own business? If not, you should give it a try.

Actually, when I ran Team Overbot, all our desktops were QNX
except for one Microsoft XP machine. Since we were using QNX
for real time, I wanted everyone familar with it.

I think it's time for a new version of the i-Opener. The
original version was dialup only, and too slow. Today, you;d
have a LAN-based unit. Useful
for all those places where people need web browsers but you don't
want to have to have sysadmins. Like hotel rooms, kiosks, etc.
The places where you see crashed Windows XP machines.

But with the current management direction of QNX, you
wouldn't dare do that. I keep hoping that QNX will be sold
off to Cisco.

John Nagle
John Nagle
 

Re: QNX on the desktop, again

Postby kwschumm » Sun Dec 10, 2006 3:00 pm

"John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message
news:elepa4$936$1@inn.qnx.com...
[...]
But with the current management direction of QNX, you
wouldn't dare do that. I keep hoping that QNX will be sold
off to Cisco.

Now that's a wonderful thought.
kwschumm
Senior Member
 
Posts: 306
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 12:46 pm

Re: QNX on the desktop, again

Postby Mario Charest » Mon Dec 11, 2006 7:55 am

"John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message
news:elepa4$936$1@inn.qnx.com...
Mario Charest wrote:
"John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message

QNX on all your call center PCs would actually make sense.
Much lower total cost of ownership. It just works.


Are you running your own business? If not, you should give it a try.

Actually, when I ran Team Overbot, all our desktops were QNX
except for one Microsoft XP machine. Since we were using QNX
for real time, I wanted everyone familar with it.

I didn't meant as a user I meant as making business decision, dollar wise.

I think it's time for a new version of the i-Opener.

Then if it is why don't you do it.

original version was dialup only, and too slow.

And that is why you think the i-Opener failed? Slow connection?

Today, you;d have a LAN-based unit. Useful
for all those places where people need web browsers but you don't
want to have to have sysadmins. Like hotel rooms, kiosks, etc.

Oh you mean a web browser without, flash, shockwave, java script, AVI,
MPEG2, DIVX, just name a few. Yah that will sell like hot cake. If you do
a little research you will find that such devices have failed miserably.

The places where you see crashed Windows XP machines.

But with the current management direction of QNX, you
wouldn't dare do that.

Why, what would prevent you from doing it. If you think the product would
sell then what's the hold up? What is it that QNX has a company is not
donig that prevent YOU from building such a product.

I keep hoping that QNX will be sold off to Cisco.

Another one of your other in depth financial analysis?

John Nagle

I wish one day I could be wise enough to let it be.

- Mario
Mario Charest
 

Re: QNX on the desktop, again

Postby John Nagle » Tue Dec 12, 2006 9:39 pm

Mario Charest wrote:
"John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message
news:elepa4$936$1@inn.qnx.com...

Mario Charest wrote:

"John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message

QNX on all your call center PCs would actually make sense.
Much lower total cost of ownership. It just works.


Are you running your own business? If not, you should give it a try.

Actually, when I ran Team Overbot, all our desktops were QNX
except for one Microsoft XP machine. Since we were using QNX
for real time, I wanted everyone familar with it.


I didn't meant as a user I meant as making business decision, dollar wise.


I think it's time for a new version of the i-Opener.


Then if it is why don't you do it.


original version was dialup only, and too slow.


And that is why you think the i-Opener failed? Slow connection?


Today, you;d have a LAN-based unit. Useful
for all those places where people need web browsers but you don't
want to have to have sysadmins. Like hotel rooms, kiosks, etc.


Oh you mean a web browser without, flash, shockwave, java script, AVI,
MPEG2, DIVX, just name a few. Yah that will sell like hot cake. If you do
a little research you will find that such devices have failed miserably.

Actually, such a product exists.

http://www.wired4fun.net/catalog/produc ... ucts_id=28

But it runs Windows XP Embedded.

And it reboots every day at 1 PM.

John Nagle
John Nagle
 


Return to qnx.cafe

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest