Obsessed? WTF?

bridged with qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
Robert Krten

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Robert Krten » Mon May 13, 2002 8:46 pm

camz@passageway.com wrote:
Rennie Allen <rallen@csical.com> wrote:
Hmmm, where does that put me (wanting an expanded explanation of the
correction of a correction :-)

We don't know.
All it sez in www.m-w.com is:

used by sovereigns; used by writers to keep an impersonal character

Sigh...

--
Robert Krten, PARSE Software Devices +1 613 599 8316.
Realtime Systems Architecture, Books, Video-based and Instructor-led
Training and Consulting at www.parse.com.
Email my initials at parse dot com.

Alec Saunders

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Alec Saunders » Tue May 14, 2002 1:27 am

I will echo Bill Caroselli's issue with re-submitting our information yet
again to QSSL. I'm feeling kinda edgy today so, I'll be blunt:

GET A F'ING DATABASE AND ***USE IT**

I have entered my information so may times, I'm getting tired of it.
Please,
create a database, link it to your website, key it off of email address
and
do a match when you want our info again... if you find our email, populate
the
form with our information so all we have to go is click submit/next.
Got it - loud and clear.

And on the DDJ thing -- yes, would have liked to have been in it. We
literally missed the date by 1 day. We will be in EDN and ESP though.

--
Alec Saunders (alecs@qnx.com)
VP Marketing, QNX Software Systems Limited

Ian Zagorskih

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Ian Zagorskih » Tue May 14, 2002 6:57 am

<camz@passageway.com> wrote in message news:abp6n9$lqm$1@inn.qnx.com...
Rennie Allen <rallen@csical.com> wrote:
Hmmm, where does that put me (wanting an expanded explanation of the
correction of a correction :-)


We don't know.
We both as a person and professional ? :)

// wbr

Dmitri Poustovalov

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Dmitri Poustovalov » Wed May 15, 2002 4:17 am

"Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)" <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:abe8c6$nad$1@inn.qnx.com...
Hi Alec

First, you promised us months ago that QSSL would not insist on all the
personal information every time someone goes to the download page.
Promise
broken - no surprise there.

Personally I'm not afraid of the "nerd" image. I'm a nerd and damn proud
of
it. I want me kids to grow up to be nerds.

But who is this ad campaign aimed at? Not at the nerds! We want to know
the facts. But let's face it, the facts aren't on your side lately. Your
ad campaign is aimed at the corporate CEOs that (you think) think of all
of
us that can put a coherent thought together as nerds. Well fine. I
understand that. QSSL needs to advertise to the corporate CEOs. Because
us
nerds are only too aware lately that QSSL has abandoned the software
development community.

If you want to sell product, you have to get us nerds to go to our CEOs
and
say, "We have to get this QNX thing. It works!"

Want to know what I'm telling my customers about QSSL? I tell them, "QNX4
was a fantastic product. It is extremely reliable an lightning fast.
Besides you can get old QNX4 licenses all over the place for a song. Yes,
it is true. QNX4 is sealed in stone and they'll never write so much as a
new device driver for next years latest and greatest hardware. But if you
can find the hardware that runs QNX4 it's the bomb. QNX6 is still missing
too many features. But worse than that, it is across the board slower in
every measurable way
Which way? Only number I've seen came from Dedicated Systems.
http://www.dedicated-systems.com/Encyc/ ... s/login.as
p
has a few reports RTOSes including VxWorks5.3/pSOS2/QNX4 report and QNX6
one. Since
testing for both reports was done on the exactly same platform with almost
the same test cases set,
the numbers are quite comparable. I did some home work comparing
VxWorks/pSOS/QNX4/QNX6.
A few things to mention:
- I had known VxWorks was not scalable on complex systems with dozens tasks,
but it's even worse
- Suprisingly for me QNX4 outperformed both VxWorks and pSOS in many hard
real-time aspects, for example in thread switch latency!
- QNX6 was sometimes a little bit better, sometimes a little bit worse than
QNX4, but QNX6 still outperformed VxWorks.
For example, accordingly to notes I have, for 128 tasks/threads QNX6 max
thread switch latency was 2.5 times (sic!) better than VxWork one.

Windows CE/Embedded NT expansion, for example in industrial automation
sector, is remarkable. That kinda explains why WinCE/QNX6 report has been
issued. What I 'd like to see are "VxWorks5.3 vs. QNX 6.x" and "VxWorksAE
vs. QNX6.x" reports.

Cheers,
-Dmitri
AND QSSL doesn't seem to care. Instead they come back
and say 'yes, we know it is slower but it can run on all these different
hardware platforms'." Well, guess what. Most developers are only
developing for one platform. I have still only successfully installed
QNX6
on systems where I could install in on a Windows partition first. I can't
even get straight answers on how to install QNX6 onto a system that only
has
a QNX4 partition.

"Alec Saunders" <alecs@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:abe6rc$llk$1@nntp.qnx.com...

Thanks for the pat on the back Kevin.

Let me explain a little bit about the obsessed campaign, guys. First,
good
advertising generates comments, so I take your immediate comments as a
bit
of a compliment :)

Second, you should know we didn't do this in a vacuum. We asked our ad
agency to give us something that was edgy, and that would draw people
in.
They had 5 concepts, including the obsessed concept. We focus group
tested
the concepts, and then chose from the two most popular, of which the
obsessed concept was the winner. Dan loved it, too. Then we went around
QSSL's offices with a professional photographer and shot pictures of our
own
staff. You should see the one of me :) The person in question is one
of
our developers, and he's definitely not nerdy. Obsessed with building
great
products for our customers... sure. And that was the concept we were
trying
to push.

Anyway, it's going to run for a while yet, and we'll be monitoring how
effective it is pretty closely. And you know, if it doesn't achieve vs
the
objective metrics we set for it, then we'll do something else. That's
the
beauty of advertising -- you can measure it, figure out what the ROI is,
and
decide if it's the right thing to be doing based on hard facts.

Cheers!

Alec.

-----
Alec Saunders
VP Marketing, QNX Software




Rennie Allen

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Rennie Allen » Wed May 15, 2002 12:26 pm

Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) wrote:
First of all I was only comparing QNX4 & QNX6.

Write a utility that reads sequentially through an entire hard drive, QNX4
is faster.
Write a utility that lseek()s and reads backwards through an entire hard
drive, QNX4 is faster.
Compile a project of 100 or more modules averaging 1000 lines each, QNX4 is
faster.
Do a memmove() of a million bytes a thousand times, QNX4 is faster.
Don't even consider the time it takes to read through a directory and open()
1000 files and close them. QNX4 is faster.

All of these tests were done on three different hardware platforms for both
QNX4 and QNX6.
And not one of these measurements (with the possible exception of the
memmove) has even the slightest bearing on real-time characteristics. If
you perform all of these same tests with QNX4 and Windows 2000, I bet
W2K would trounce QNX4; does that mean W2K would make a better RTOS than
QNX4 ?

Rennie

Volny DE PASCALE

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Volny DE PASCALE » Wed May 15, 2002 2:08 pm

Wow ! I just LOVE off topic subjects.
I've read somewhere taht the habit of saying "we" when a ruler spoke
originated in the days of the triumvirate in Rome (just before the empire,
some 50 years B.C.)
As any member of the triumvirate was supposed to speak for the three of
them, they would never say "I", but "we".
Unfortunately I'm unable (yet) to find any serious references for that nice
story.

And by the way, I did love QNX 2. ;-)

--
--------------------------------------------------
Volny DE PASCALE
EBIM S.A.
ZI Saint-Joseph
FR-04100 MANOSQUE
email volny.de.pascale@ebim.fr
Tel. 33 (0)4 92 72 18 66 - Fax 33 (0)4 92 87 31 86
--------------------------------------------------

"Mitchell Schoenbrun" <maschoen@pobox.com> a écrit dans le message news:
Voyager.020513093310.200A@schoenbrun.com...
Previously, Rennie Allen wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

I had always thought the "royal we" was a reference to the Queen as both
a person and a position (i.e. "We are not amused" meant that the Queen
was neither personally, nor professionally, amused). Does any one know
if this is actually the case, or is the Queen simply batty ?

Hmmm. I'd be interested too, after hearing about the "royal we" for so
long. It brings into possibility all sorts of new interesting uses.
For example, the CEO of "Enron" could now responsibly say "We are
f*#$%'d".




Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com


Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) » Wed May 15, 2002 5:17 pm

First of all I was only comparing QNX4 & QNX6.

Write a utility that reads sequentially through an entire hard drive, QNX4
is faster.
Write a utility that lseek()s and reads backwards through an entire hard
drive, QNX4 is faster.
Compile a project of 100 or more modules averaging 1000 lines each, QNX4 is
faster.
Do a memmove() of a million bytes a thousand times, QNX4 is faster.
Don't even consider the time it takes to read through a directory and open()
1000 files and close them. QNX4 is faster.

All of these tests were done on three different hardware platforms for both
QNX4 and QNX6.

"Dmitri Poustovalov" <pdmitri@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:absja1$96v$1@inn.qnx.com...

Which way? Only number I've seen came from Dedicated Systems.

http://www.dedicated-systems.com/Encyc/ ... s/login.as
p
has a few reports RTOSes including VxWorks5.3/pSOS2/QNX4 report and QNX6
one. Since

Mario Charest

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Mario Charest » Wed May 15, 2002 7:53 pm

"Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)" <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:abu4gp$fj8$1@inn.qnx.com...
First of all I was only comparing QNX4 & QNX6.

Write a utility that reads sequentially through an entire hard drive, QNX4
is faster.
heu? For me QNX6 is about 5 times faster while using 60% less CPU
Write a utility that lseek()s and reads backwards through an entire hard
drive, QNX4 is faster.
Compile a project of 100 or more modules averaging 1000 lines each, QNX4
is
faster.
That's not the OS that's GCC.
Do a memmove() of a million bytes a thousand times, QNX4 is faster.
Don't know about that one.
Don't even consider the time it takes to read through a directory and
open()
1000 files and close them. QNX4 is faster.
Yes open is more expensive, but it does more.

Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) » Wed May 15, 2002 8:55 pm

Really? Using the same hardware on both QNX4 and QNX6?

What is your hardware?

"Mario Charest" <goto@nothingness.com> wrote in message
news:abudln$m4j$1@inn.qnx.com...
"Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)" <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:abu4gp$fj8$1@inn.qnx.com...
Write a utility that reads sequentially through an entire hard drive,
QNX4
is faster.

heu? For me QNX6 is about 5 times faster while using 60% less CPU

Mario Charest

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Mario Charest » Thu May 16, 2002 12:42 am

"Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)" <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:abuha8$oj4$1@inn.qnx.com...
Really?
Really ;-)
Using the same hardware on both QNX4 and QNX6?
Yes and on two machine.
What is your hardware?
Dell Inspiron 7500 and dual celeron.

The difference is QNX6 uses DMA which makes a HUGE difference.

Note that 6.2 is slightly better at using/detecting DMA depending on your
chipset.

It's possible that if QNX6 isn't using DMA that's it's slower then
QNX4, I don't know.
"Mario Charest" <goto@nothingness.com> wrote in message
news:abudln$m4j$1@inn.qnx.com...

"Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)" <QTPS@EarthLink.net> wrote in message
news:abu4gp$fj8$1@inn.qnx.com...
Write a utility that reads sequentially through an entire hard drive,
QNX4
is faster.

heu? For me QNX6 is about 5 times faster while using 60% less CPU



Mitchell Schoenbrun

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Mitchell Schoenbrun » Thu May 16, 2002 12:50 am

Previously, Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:
Write a utility that reads sequentially through an entire hard drive, QNX4
is faster.
Write a utility that lseek()s and reads backwards through an entire hard
drive, QNX4 is faster.
While I disagree about the current importance of this Bill,
it does send my hackles up. I think it is well known that
QSSL does not like the performance of their QNX 6 I/O. The
overall structure was redesigned from QNX 4 to deal with a
natty problem, that in QNX 4 it was very hard to deal with
things like SCSI scanners and tape drives, or Fibre channel
networking capabilities. The problem for QNX 4 is that the
drivers were on the bottom of the stack so to speak and
support other than straight disk I/O had to be added to
Fsys. QNX 6 turned the stack upside down so that a driver
requests support from below for, say a file system. This is
all well and good, but apparently the first implementation
required a lot of extra copying of data, which once you get
your caching straight, causes most differences in the speed
of file systems. Good old DOS which copied data data
directly from hardware to your buffer had great throughput.
So as a consequence, QSSL decided to NOT release the interface
specifications. This was because they were going to fix
things real soon now, and they didn't want people, I guess
like me, complaining that they changed things. This was
true even though I literally begged and promised that I would
not complain.

So here we are, how many years later? Still no new I/O system,
apparently because the important customers don't really care,
and still no specs. Yak yak yak.

Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com

Rennie Allen

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Rennie Allen » Thu May 16, 2002 8:36 am

Mario Charest wrote:
I realized this when a customer of mine expressed releif hearing QNX6
was using GCC. But then again he is worry that QNX is too depend
on IBM for eclipse (he related some story were IBM decided to
change directory and abandon lots of 3rd party in the process)
Yes, IBM could change direction, but since they have open sourced their
entire contribution, I don't think QSSL has a lot of risk associated
with Eclipse (it sure is a lot better than anything they could have
achieved alone).

I think that IBM is really bearing the risk. This is just one of their
skirmishes with Sun, and the worst that can happen to QSSL is that they
end up with an IDE that doesn't have the same level of support as the
leading Java workbench (whatever that might be). That puts them a long
way ahead of where they were (which was no IDE at all).

IMO I think Eclipse has a good chance of becoming the leading
environment in a couple of years, if this happens, then QSSL wins really
big (i.e. it would put them light years ahead of WindRiver in the tools
department, and with an OS that is already light years ahead, I think we
would see QSSL and WindRiver switch market positions).

Rennie

Armin Steinhoff

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Armin Steinhoff » Thu May 16, 2002 9:21 am

"Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS)" wrote:
First of all I was only comparing QNX4 & QNX6.

Write a utility that reads sequentially through an entire hard drive, QNX4
is faster.
Write a utility that lseek()s and reads backwards through an entire hard
drive, QNX4 is faster.
May be .. but also the handling of interrupts takes more CPU power for
QNX6 than for QNX4.

This is visible when I run a PROFIBUS-DP slave board under QNX4 or QNX6
.... the interrupt load is very high if the slave board is the single
slave (not the standard case) in a DP network (interrupts every
20-30us). Both resource managers running mainly the same code ... but
the CPU load is _much_ higher with QNX6.

Is the optimization of the interrupt handling on the to-do list of
QSSL ?

Armin




Compile a project of 100 or more modules averaging 1000 lines each, QNX4 is
faster.
Do a memmove() of a million bytes a thousand times, QNX4 is faster.
Don't even consider the time it takes to read through a directory and open()
1000 files and close them. QNX4 is faster.

All of these tests were done on three different hardware platforms for both
QNX4 and QNX6.

"Dmitri Poustovalov" <pdmitri@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:absja1$96v$1@inn.qnx.com...


Which way? Only number I've seen came from Dedicated Systems.

http://www.dedicated-systems.com/Encyc/ ... s/login.as
p
has a few reports RTOSes including VxWorks5.3/pSOS2/QNX4 report and QNX6
one. Since

Rennie Allen

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Rennie Allen » Thu May 16, 2002 10:04 am

Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) wrote:
And let's fact it, QNX4 did NOT have multi-thread support.
It only pretended to.
Glad to hear you referring to QNX4 in the past tense (your making
progress - I'd guess you're at step 6 in the 12 step "get off of QNX4"
program :-)
Maybe unlike you, my customer was
not willing to pay for writing something that had planned obsolescence.
I bet they don't want to pay for anything to be written under Windows
then :-)

Rennie Allen

Re: Obsessed? WTF?

Post by Rennie Allen » Thu May 16, 2002 10:48 am

Bill Caroselli (Q-TPS) wrote:
QNX4 is dead. You know it and I know it. QSSL will never enhance it again.
But it is a far superior product for "new" system development. LONG LIVE
QNX4. It is what I am recommending to anyone starting new development.
OK, maybe step 4 is a better guess :-)

Post Reply

Return to “qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy”