Skip navigation.
Home
The QNX Community Portal

View topic - QNX inspired operating systems.

QNX inspired operating systems.

For discussion of realtime and/or embedded programming.

QNX inspired operating systems.

Postby LeMercenaire » Sat Aug 26, 2006 10:42 am

Does anyone know, how many QNX inspired operating systems are there?.
Commercial or otherwise.
LeMercenaire
Active Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Bangalore, India.

RE: QNX inspired operating systems.

Postby mario » Mon Aug 28, 2006 12:28 pm

I think it would be very hard to say who inspired who. But i'd say none.
mario
QNX Master
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 1:04 am

RE: QNX inspired operating systems.

Postby Thunderblade » Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:22 am

There are some, i.e. Wings. http://www.king.igs.net/~billnacu/wings/
Thunderblade
Senior Member
 
Posts: 460
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:52 am

RE: QNX inspired operating systems.

Postby jinma » Tue Aug 29, 2006 5:40 pm

jinma
Senior Member
 
Posts: 426
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 10:13 pm

Postby LeMercenaire » Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:04 am

What about RadiOS. Though I do not get the point of writing the kernel etc
entirely in assembly. And BTW, what would be QSS's reaction if someone
wrote a OS somewhat similar to QNX6 in architecture, and made it
commercial.
LeMercenaire
Active Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Bangalore, India.

Postby mario » Wed Aug 30, 2006 12:59 pm

I think QSS patented some stuff, the message passing. Why you'd want to write the kernel in assembly: get every little bit of speed, some stuff is hard to do in C like playing with pages, setting up LDT/GDT etc, on x86 not all ring 0 instructions are available in C.
mario
QNX Master
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 1:04 am

Postby LeMercenaire » Wed Aug 30, 2006 2:11 pm

Sorry Mario. But about a OS ENTIRELY in assembly like RadiOS, if the point
is to make it public so that others can learn from it, the learner should be
a fanatic of assembly. Otherwise forget RadiOS for say 2 months, come back,
one would be hard put to remember the point one left off earlier.

mario wrote:I think QSS patented some stuff, the message passing.


And to drag on QSS's patenting of message passing etc, what if
someone created components like Process Manager and Send/Receive/Reply
similar in overall idea to QNX Neutrino, plus some additions, in their own
microkernel OS, but do not know how these components actually work in QNX
Neutrino, would that person find QSS lawyers knocking at his door at
midnight.
LeMercenaire
Active Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Bangalore, India.

Postby mario » Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:08 pm

LeMercenaire wrote:Sorry Mario. But about a OS ENTIRELY in assembly like RadiOS, if the point
is to make it public so that others can learn from it, the learner should be
a fanatic of assembly. Otherwise forget RadiOS for say 2 months, come back,
one would be hard put to remember the point one left off earlier.

mario wrote:I think QSS patented some stuff, the message passing.


And to drag on QSS's patenting of message passing etc, what if
someone created components like Process Manager and Send/Receive/Reply
similar in overall idea to QNX Neutrino, plus some additions, in their own
microkernel OS, but do not know how these components actually work in QNX
Neutrino, would that person find QSS lawyers knocking at his door at
midnight.


I guess if they patented it, it's not to protect themselves against code theft.. I don't know what are the detailed of that patent though.

A kernel is not a big thing in itself, but it's all the stuff around it that is really lots of work. So just writing a kernel and making it commercial would not really compete with QNX IMHO, even if the kernel is similar feature wise. When you think about it QNX kernel has a very limited feature set.

I went to the US patent web site but couldn't find it. It's worth going to have a look though, this patenting stuff is really getting out of hand...
mario
QNX Master
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 1:04 am

Postby mario » Wed Aug 30, 2006 3:16 pm

*UPDATE*

I went to the Canadian Patent site (QSS is after all a Canadian company). And I found a bunch of patent from QNX

http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent ... anguage=EN
http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent ... anguage=EN
http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent ... anguage=EN
http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent ... anguage=EN ( that is the one about message passing I think, seems kind of weak to me.)
http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent ... anguage=EN
mario
QNX Master
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 1:04 am

Postby LeMercenaire » Thu Aug 31, 2006 1:35 pm

mario wrote:*UPDATE*

I went to the Canadian Patent site (QSS is after all a Canadian company). And I found a bunch of patent from QNX

http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/details?patent ... anguage=EN ( that is the one about message passing I think, seems kind of weak to me.)


Mario, thanks for the patents-search. I agree with You that patenting ideas
on transparently distributed message-passing is too vague. Especially when the claims on this topic by QSS goes like this :

http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/claims?patent_ ... anguage=EN

And about the asynchronous messaging :

http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/claims?patent_ ... anguage=EN

are they talking about Neutrino Pulses, or UNIX-like Signals. If the
latter, then Signals have been there for ages now.

From reading all those patent-claims, I could only grant that the one
about Photon is the one which I think they can fairly claim as their own.
So would all this mean a non-start for those who want to or have written
microkernel + QNX Neutrino-like kernels (or OSs) and want to make their
money from it.
LeMercenaire
Active Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Bangalore, India.

Postby mario » Thu Aug 31, 2006 3:17 pm

LeMercenaire wrote:
And about the asynchronous messaging :

http://patents1.ic.gc.ca/claims?patent_ ... anguage=EN

are they talking about Neutrino Pulses, or UNIX-like Signals. If the
latter, then Signals have been there for ages now.


Signals don`t have the concept of channels, also signals don`t carry payload (messages). Signals are not queued. Quite different the async messages.
mario
QNX Master
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 1:04 am

Postby maschoen » Thu Aug 31, 2006 5:58 pm

LeMercenaire wrote:
mario wrote:*UPDATE*
Mario, thanks for the patents-search. I agree with You that patenting ideas
on transparently distributed message-passing is too vague.

I think this is all in the nature of patents themselves. When you try to claim a software patent, if you are a little to specific, then you make it easy to do an end run on it. Lawyers tend to write patent claims up in a vague manner so that later in court they can claim a very broad area of ownership. That doesn't mean that you really do own the broad area, just that you can go to court trying to defend it. One unusal (in US courts) feature about patents is that you automatically get legal fees as part of the damages if you win.
So would all this mean a non-start for those who want to or have written
microkernel + QNX Neutrino-like kernels (or OSs) and want to make their
money from it.

I really doubt you would have a problem from QNX or anyone else trying to sell a microkernel. You might have a problem if you infringe on their patents.
maschoen
QNX Master
 
Posts: 2461
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2003 5:18 pm

Postby LeMercenaire » Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:53 am

mario wrote:Signals don`t have the concept of channels, also signals don`t carry payload (messages). Signals are not queued. Quite different the async messages.


Ofcourse, silly me.

maschoen wrote:I really doubt you would have a problem from QNX or anyone else trying to sell a microkernel. You might have a problem if you infringe on their patents.


Ah. That puts, as is said in India, life into my life. But does anybody know
the experiences of the writer of RadiOS (which is similar to QNX Neutrino)
when he might have perhaps tried to sell solutions built around RadiOS.
But QSS could also be flattered if people start creating what are more or
less, clones of QNX.

I am a recent convert (since 5 years) to microkernels. So maybe
I am too zealous in propagating this architecture, by word and deed. But
what has been the experience of the oldies (heh heh) of microkernel.
LeMercenaire
Active Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Bangalore, India.

Postby mario » Fri Sep 01, 2006 2:14 pm

I can't speak for QSS, but unless your a big startup company with 50 employes or more I wouldn't worry about QSS comming down on you. There are plently of company out there that sell microkernel , but they are in a different market segment then QSS. Although the kernel might be an important part of why you'd pick the OS, it really more about the gravy around the kernel that separate them.
mario
QNX Master
 
Posts: 4117
Joined: Sun Sep 01, 2002 1:04 am

Postby LeMercenaire » Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:55 pm

mario wrote:Although the kernel might be an important part of why you'd pick the OS, it really more about the gravy around the kernel that separate them.


My OS (Dragunovos) cannot claim that now atleast its gravy is tastier than in
QNX. There's no GUI and multiprocessing. So no support for self-hosted IDE and
desktop or server application. But all this will come about in 8 to 9 months.

But even now I say to people that QNX is the best OS in the world. As I have
read in these pages earlier : 'Use Linux if You want to run a file-server, use QNX if
You want to run a nuclear reactor'. Me thinks QSS is flattered with all this
attention. But I ask again to those who have been using QNX for a long time,
are they still carrying the flag for microkernels, or have they been disillusioned?.
LeMercenaire
Active Member
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 12:49 pm
Location: Bangalore, India.

Next

Return to Realtime and Embedded

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests