Deploying QNX on the desktop

bridged with qnx.cafe
Mario Charest

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Mario Charest » Thu May 27, 2004 4:15 pm

QNX used to have more of a presence in the retail industry,
for exactly those reasons.
For what reason isn't there anymore. Rick from Astra posted an old copy of
QNX News and I was amazed to see the number of "business" application.
Today most of these companies are out of business or stop producing QNX
software
John Nagle
Team Overbot

Bill Caroselli wrote:
Mario Charest <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:

MC > "John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message
MC > news:c8g40o$llu$1@inn.qnx.com...

QNX has potential as a desktop OS again,


MC > You must be living in an alternate dimension.


now that the
Windows and Linux worlds are starting to collapse under their
own weight. The total cost of ownership argument starts
to look good for QNX when you don't have to patch every week.


If OpenOffice were available on QNX, it would be a viable
system for business desktops.


MC > Are you on drugs?

John Nagle

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by John Nagle » Thu May 27, 2004 4:21 pm

That was a bit much.

There are many PCs out there used by people who only run
a few applications. The ongoing hassles associated with Windows
run up the total cost of ownership for businesses which must
deploy large numbers of PCs.

A locked-down machine with a browser, OpenOffice, and a
Java environment for business applications is exactly
what you want for call centers and similar clerical jobs.
The opening for QNX is that Microsoft can't resist dumping
the kitchen sink into their OS, making it vulnerable to attacks.
Total cost of ownership for big farms of dumb PCs is going
up because of Microsoft's security problems. QNX offers
an escape from the endless patching of the Microsoft world.

QNX used to have more of a presence in the retail industry,
for exactly those reasons.

John Nagle
Team Overbot

Bill Caroselli wrote:
Mario Charest <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:

MC > "John Nagle" <nagle@downside.com> wrote in message
MC > news:c8g40o$llu$1@inn.qnx.com...

QNX has potential as a desktop OS again,


MC > You must be living in an alternate dimension.


now that the
Windows and Linux worlds are starting to collapse under their
own weight. The total cost of ownership argument starts
to look good for QNX when you don't have to patch every week.


If OpenOffice were available on QNX, it would be a viable
system for business desktops.


MC > Are you on drugs?

Bill Caroselli

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Bill Caroselli » Thu May 27, 2004 4:33 pm

John Nagle <nagle@downside.com> wrote:
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

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Bill Caroselli » Thu May 27, 2004 4:48 pm

Mario Charest <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote:

MC > LOL, seriously, am I coming out rude? Hum guess I am ;-(

MC > Then it's time for some soul searching. Here goes; about 10-15 years ago I
MC > shared John's enthousiasm, I though QNX was the answer to it all. That the
MC > world needed QNX to solves all of its problem. EXperience showed me I was
MC > completely wrong. Being pretty hard on myself I kind of blame myself for
MC > even entertaining the though... I must have overimposed some of my own
MC > self image over John as if I was talking to myself. As I felt kind of dump
MC > to have think that QNX could become a good desktop.

I also shared your enthousiasm about the future of QNX 15 years ago. I
still wish it were true. But alas, reality has sunk in. Still I have hope
that one day . . .

MC > As for the "don't have to patch QNX every week", the reason is simple there
MC > is about 10% less code in QNX then in Wnidows. Still per line of code I
MC > would verture to say there is less bug in Windows then in QNX.

I assume that was a typo and you meant 10% as much code.

MC > Imagine this, Microsoft coming out and saying "We have stopped development
MC > of our current OS and will be coming out with a new and improved operating
MC > system that is 100% NOT binairy compatible". Imagine the Chaos. QSS did
MC > this twice for the OS and once for the GUI. I don't recall any headlines in
MC > the newspaper about it...

As a software developer I have also occasionally come out with a new and
improved version of my software that was NOT compatable with the old. This
is the only way you can make those quantum leaps ahead. Sometimes you just
have to admit that old design was inferior.

OK, so for now maybe QNX isn't the OS for everyone and every application.
It's true there used to be many third party applications. There used to be
a multi-user real-time spread-sheet. (I never tried it though I wish I had.)

So many of the "applications" that there are for QNX were ported from other
worlds. They can't take advantage of QNX like that. They need to be
written FOR QNX. Then you would start to see bug free applications, or
nearly so.

Mario Charest

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Mario Charest » Fri May 28, 2004 6:41 pm

MC > As for the "don't have to patch QNX every week", the reason is simple
there
MC > is about 10% less code in QNX then in Wnidows. Still per line of
code I
MC > would verture to say there is less bug in Windows then in QNX.

I assume that was a typo and you meant 10% as much code.
Yes I meant Windows has at LEAST 10 time the amount of code QNX has.
MC > Imagine this, Microsoft coming out and saying "We have stopped
development
MC > of our current OS and will be coming out with a new and improved
operating
MC > system that is 100% NOT binairy compatible". Imagine the Chaos.
QSS did
MC > this twice for the OS and once for the GUI. I don't recall any
headlines in
MC > the newspaper about it...

As a software developer I have also occasionally come out with a new and
improved version of my software that was NOT compatable with the old.
This
is the only way you can make those quantum leaps ahead. Sometimes you
just
have to admit that old design was inferior.

OK, so for now maybe QNX isn't the OS for everyone and every application.
It's true there used to be many third party applications. There used to
be
a multi-user real-time spread-sheet. (I never tried it though I wish I
had.)

So many of the "applications" that there are for QNX were ported from
other
worlds. They can't take advantage of QNX like that. They need to be
written FOR QNX. Then you would start to see bug free applications, or
nearly so.

Bob Smith

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Bob Smith » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:15 pm

I personally don't feel Linux is "there" as a Desktop OS. A desktop OS
needs to be SIMPLE, QNX and Linux are not for Grand Ma and Grand Pa. The
whole advantage of QNX is you can do anything you want if you know how to
configure it. You can boot to a command prompt from the boot image and
connect to a network fileserver... QNX is designed to flexable. Windows is
designed to let "Uncle Bill" run you computer for you, because he knows what
you need more than you do. Windows is better for Grand Ma and Grand Pa,
because they don't have to think to use it. Linux is getting FAT and is
still not easy to use, heck QNX is easier to use than Linux, and the type of
flexiblity that QNX has requires recompiling the kernel to do the same thing
in Linux. The difference is Linux is FREE and OPEN, which means you have a
huge following of software hippies developing (*Cough* HACKING *Cough*) new
software for Linux just because they can. QNX is a bussiness and software
hippies think QNX is "the man" because they won't give away their source
code (i.e. bread and butter).

QNX is a better operating system, than Linux or Windows from a purely
computer science standpoint. But OS X for the Mac is the only *nix that is
viable as a desktop, but hardware is too damn expensive for some one who
just wants a computer and doesn't know why. (Grand Ma and Grand Pa again.)
Which again leaves use with "Uncle Bill."


"Bill Caroselli" <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c9559b$adj$1@inn.qnx.com...
John Nagle <nagle@downside.com> wrote:
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

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Bill Caroselli » Wed Jul 21, 2004 1:50 pm

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 <bob@home.com> wrote:
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" <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
BS > news:c9559b$adj$1@inn.qnx.com...
John Nagle <nagle@downside.com> wrote:
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
qtps@earthlink.net

Miguel Simon

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Miguel Simon » Wed Jul 21, 2004 3:59 pm

Hi Bob...

Well put! I enjoyed your the reading. :)

Regards...

Miguel.


Bob Smith wrote:
I personally don't feel Linux is "there" as a Desktop OS. A desktop OS
needs to be SIMPLE, QNX and Linux are not for Grand Ma and Grand Pa. The
whole advantage of QNX is you can do anything you want if you know how to
configure it. You can boot to a command prompt from the boot image and
connect to a network fileserver... QNX is designed to flexable. Windows is
designed to let "Uncle Bill" run you computer for you, because he knows what
you need more than you do. Windows is better for Grand Ma and Grand Pa,
because they don't have to think to use it. Linux is getting FAT and is
still not easy to use, heck QNX is easier to use than Linux, and the type of
flexiblity that QNX has requires recompiling the kernel to do the same thing
in Linux. The difference is Linux is FREE and OPEN, which means you have a
huge following of software hippies developing (*Cough* HACKING *Cough*) new
software for Linux just because they can. QNX is a bussiness and software
hippies think QNX is "the man" because they won't give away their source
code (i.e. bread and butter).

QNX is a better operating system, than Linux or Windows from a purely
computer science standpoint. But OS X for the Mac is the only *nix that is
viable as a desktop, but hardware is too damn expensive for some one who
just wants a computer and doesn't know why. (Grand Ma and Grand Pa again.)
Which again leaves use with "Uncle Bill."


"Bill Caroselli" <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:c9559b$adj$1@inn.qnx.com...

John Nagle <nagle@downside.com> wrote:
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.


David Gibbs

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by David Gibbs » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:01 pm

Bill Caroselli <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . .
"Uncle Bill" would be Bill Gates. I thought it was clear in context.

-David
--
Please follow-up to newsgroup, rather than personal email.
David Gibbs
QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com

Mario Charest

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Mario Charest » Wed Jul 21, 2004 4:22 pm

"Bill Caroselli" <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:cdlsb9$du4$1@inn.qnx.com...
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.

I'm not so sure. I read an intesting report that compare COO for Windows
versus Linux and the main problem with Linux was that you needed to retrain
people learning the new applications. I don't remember what the conclusion
was but I beleived it said, for new stuff Linux has a slight edge, but that
edge isn't enough to recover the cost of going from a Windows environment to
a Linux environment.

Robert Krten

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Robert Krten » Wed Jul 21, 2004 5:24 pm

David Gibbs <dagibbs@qnx.com> wrote:
Bill Caroselli <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . .

"Uncle Bill" would be Bill Gates. I thought it was clear in context.
It was clear to me...

Someone's got a big head :-) :-)

Cheers,
-RK
--
[If replying via email, you'll need to click on the URL that's emailed to you
afterwards to forward the email to me -- spam filters and all that]
Robert Krten, PDP minicomputer collector http://www.parse.com/~pdp8/

Bill Caroselli

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Bill Caroselli » Wed Jul 21, 2004 8:34 pm

Robert Krten <rk@parse.com> wrote:
RK > David Gibbs <dagibbs@qnx.com> wrote:
Bill Caroselli <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:
I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be the Uncle Bill you refer to or not,
but . . .

"Uncle Bill" would be Bill Gates. I thought it was clear in context.
RK > It was clear to me...

RK > Someone's got a big head :-) :-)

RK > Cheers,
RK > -RK

Obviously, this appears to be true.

Sorry folks!

John Nagle

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by John Nagle » Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:31 pm

Bill Caroselli wrote:
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.
Right.

Here's a typical application: A device like the old
i-Opener, intended for hotel rooms. But this time with an Ethernet port.
Use QNX 6.30. Provide a browser and a few basic
applications: Web surfing, room service,
billing, etc. Put everything in
a read-only file system or on the server. Any problems
can be resolved by power cycling.

Now that QNX has a mini-browser that's further along
than Voyager, and Microsoft has stopped changing HTML,
this is possible again.

If QNX isn't interested in doing things like this, why
are they putting effort into browsers at all?

John Nagle

Dean Douthat

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Dean Douthat » Sun Jul 25, 2004 1:28 pm

The security question with QNX is, IMHO, almost identical with the security
question of Linux (and BSD). Security attacks are not generally aimed at
kernel, process manager, file system, and the like, in short, the primitive
elements of the OS. Rather they are aimed for the most part at the IP stack
and applications such as Apache for servers and browsers, mail clients, etc.
for clients. In these areas, QNX has not been subected to the same level of
scrutiny as Linux (or BSD), rather, it has been subjected to the exact same
scrutiny.

"Pete DiMarco" <peted@ifspurity.com> wrote in message
news:Voyager.040519135716.166A@node1...
Previously, John Nagle wrote in qnx.cafe:
QNX has potential as a desktop OS again, now that the
Windows and Linux worlds are starting to collapse under their
own weight. The total cost of ownership argument starts
to look good for QNX when you don't have to patch every week.
[TEXT DELETED]

Linux is collapsing under its own weight? I thought this was
"the year of desktop Linux"...? :-)

Not that I have anything against QNX, but has it been subjected
to the same level of scrutiny as Linux with respect to buffer
overruns and other security weaknesses? That seems to be what
drives the creation of patches. Has QNX received a security rating
from the NSA (or maybe the RCMP would be more appropriate)?

- PDM

--
+----- Pete DiMarco ------+---------------------------------------+
| Staff Software Engineer | Web: www.ifspurity.com |
| Integrated Flow Systems | Email: peted [At] ifspurity [Dot] com |
+-------------------------+---------------------------------------+
Opinions expressed here are my own, not those of my employer.

Kris Warkentin

Re: Deploying QNX on the desktop

Post by Kris Warkentin » Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:10 pm

Dean Douthat wrote:
The security question with QNX is, IMHO, almost identical with the security
question of Linux (and BSD). Security attacks are not generally aimed at
kernel, process manager, file system, and the like, in short, the primitive
elements of the OS. Rather they are aimed for the most part at the IP stack
and applications such as Apache for servers and browsers, mail clients, etc.
for clients. In these areas, QNX has not been subected to the same level of
scrutiny as Linux (or BSD), rather, it has been subjected to the exact same
scrutiny.
While that may be true, we are, in fact, leveraging a certain amount of
others technology. One can generally use any Unix style program with
little or no modification on Neutrino. Many of the high-exposure
servers on a QNX system (mail, dns, web, etc.) will come from open
source so, for example, if a bug is fixed in Apache, an admin can use
the latest version and protect his system. If someone wants to use
qmail instead of sendmail and the package hasn't already been built by
someone else, it's often just a configure/make away.

cheers,

Kris

Post Reply

Return to “qnx.cafe”