I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . . I was replying to John Nagle's comment. He was refering to
environments where companies use many PCs and each one only needs to run
a limited number of well defined applications. Many of these applications
DO exist in the QNX world.
The cost of ownership for big companies *isn't* the cost of purchase!
The expense for big companies is the cost of maintenance. MS systems are
forever screwing up. Worse than that, if your on a network to the rest
of the world, these systems are plagued with viruses every week! We run
an expensive anti-virus package (add that to the cost of ownership for MS)
and at least one virus still gets through every week.
To say that if a company could put QNX systems on their employees desks
would be cheaper was the point that I was agreeing with.
Bob Smith <firstname.lastname@example.org
BS > I personally don't feel Linux is "there" as a Desktop OS. A desktop OS
BS > needs to be SIMPLE, QNX and Linux are not for Grand Ma and Grand Pa. The
BS > whole advantage of QNX is you can do anything you want if you know how to
BS > configure it. You can boot to a command prompt from the boot image and
BS > connect to a network fileserver... QNX is designed to flexable. Windows is
BS > designed to let "Uncle Bill" run you computer for you, because he knows what
BS > you need more than you do. Windows is better for Grand Ma and Grand Pa,
BS > because they don't have to think to use it. Linux is getting FAT and is
BS > still not easy to use, heck QNX is easier to use than Linux, and the type of
BS > flexiblity that QNX has requires recompiling the kernel to do the same thing
BS > in Linux. The difference is Linux is FREE and OPEN, which means you have a
BS > huge following of software hippies developing (*Cough* HACKING *Cough*) new
BS > software for Linux just because they can. QNX is a bussiness and software
BS > hippies think QNX is "the man" because they won't give away their source
BS > code (i.e. bread and butter).
BS > QNX is a better operating system, than Linux or Windows from a purely
BS > computer science standpoint. But OS X for the Mac is the only *nix that is
BS > viable as a desktop, but hardware is too damn expensive for some one who
BS > just wants a computer and doesn't know why. (Grand Ma and Grand Pa again.)
BS > Which again leaves use with "Uncle Bill."
BS > "Bill Caroselli" <email@example.com
> wrote in message
BS > news:firstname.lastname@example.org
John Nagle <email@example.com
JN > That was a bit much.
JN > There are many PCs out there used by people who only run
JN > a few applications. The ongoing hassles associated with Windows
JN > run up the total cost of ownership for businesses which must
JN > deploy large numbers of PCs.
JN > A locked-down machine with a browser, OpenOffice, and a
JN > Java environment for business applications is exactly
JN > what you want for call centers and similar clerical jobs.
JN > The opening for QNX is that Microsoft can't resist dumping
JN > the kitchen sink into their OS, making it vulnerable to attacks.
JN > Total cost of ownership for big farms of dumb PCs is going
JN > up because of Microsoft's security problems. QNX offers
JN > an escape from the endless patching of the Microsoft world.
JN > QNX used to have more of a presence in the retail industry,
JN > for exactly those reasons.
JN > John Nagle
JN > Team Overbot
I think you make a good point.
Bill Caroselli -- Q-TPS Consulting
1-(708) 308-4956 <== Note: New Number