which way to go? Linux or QNX?

bridged with qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
Post Reply
Jun

which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Jun » Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:18 am

Hi all,

We are looking for a RTOS for our new product. After looking at some
commecial RTOSs such as VxWorks, Win CE, QNX, Linux(maybe this is not a real
RTOS), we may go with
Linux or QNX.

Can anybody tell me why you switch from Linux to QNX or
from QNX to Linux?

I am wondering why Bill Gates does not want to adopt some good ideas in
their RTOS!

Jun

Mario Charest

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Mario Charest » Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:28 am

"Jun" <jxuhot@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:al8knp$krc$1@inn.qnx.com...
Hi all,

We are looking for a RTOS for our new product. After looking at some
commecial RTOSs such as VxWorks, Win CE, QNX, Linux(maybe this is not a
real
RTOS), we may go with
Linux or QNX.

Can anybody tell me why you switch from Linux to QNX or
from QNX to Linux?

I am wondering why Bill Gates does not want to adopt some good ideas in
their RTOS!
I guess because they want to stick with their Win32API which
isn't real time friendly in the first place.
Jun



Xiaodan Tang

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Xiaodan Tang » Fri Sep 06, 2002 3:39 am

Jun <jxuhot@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi all,

We are looking for a RTOS for our new product. After looking at some
commecial RTOSs such as VxWorks, Win CE, QNX, Linux(maybe this is not a real
RTOS), we may go with
Linux or QNX.

Can anybody tell me why you switch from Linux to QNX or
from QNX to Linux?

I am wondering why Bill Gates does not want to adopt some good ideas in
their RTOS!
http://www.dedicated-systems.com/encyc/

They have a QNX 6.2 vs ELDS 1.1 evaluation report. There are numbers
in it, so you can see...

-xtang

Rennie Allen

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Rennie Allen » Fri Sep 06, 2002 3:48 am

Jun wrote:
Hi all,

We are looking for a RTOS for our new product. After looking at some
commecial RTOSs such as VxWorks, Win CE, QNX, Linux(maybe this is not a real
RTOS), we may go with
Linux or QNX.

Can anybody tell me why you switch from Linux to QNX or
from QNX to Linux?
Well, you are asking this in a QNX NG :-) In all seriousness though;
LinuxRT is a *very* crude RTOS. In LinuxRT you only have a small API
available to your RT apps (QNX extends the full Posix API to all apps).
If you have very basic real-time requirements (perhaps one module requires
hard real-time capability) LinuxRT might fit the bill, but if you are
doing a complex multi-process real-time application you would spend far
more development dollars getting around Linux limitations, than you would
save by not having to pay for QNX licensing.

Rennie

Miguel Simon

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Miguel Simon » Fri Sep 06, 2002 12:22 pm

Hi Jun...

We work with both Linux and QNX, and QNX is by far the more sound choice
worth every dollar that you spend. This is based on a number of years of
work and experience.

Read some of the whitepapers at

http://www.qnx.com/whitepapers/

That should tell you some of the story.

Also, you will hear about availability of drivers, well, it is a trade
off. Linux has lots of drivers that will frustrate you and drive you
crazy when debug time comes around, whereas QNX gives you a superior
-and easier- platform where you can port and debug drivers, and voila.
(we know this by experience in our research). It is a matter of where
you want to spend your time and resources.

Best Regards...

Miguel.


Jun wrote:
Hi all,

We are looking for a RTOS for our new product. After looking at some
commecial RTOSs such as VxWorks, Win CE, QNX, Linux(maybe this is not a real
RTOS), we may go with
Linux or QNX.

Can anybody tell me why you switch from Linux to QNX or
from QNX to Linux?

I am wondering why Bill Gates does not want to adopt some good ideas in
their RTOS!

Jun



Jens H Jorgensen

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Jens H Jorgensen » Fri Sep 06, 2002 1:16 pm

We went through a similar decision process about a year ago and ended up
with QNX. Here are some of the key decision factors:

- VxWorks is very expensive to get started with - pretty much disqualified
it. Furthermore I am not too impressed with its memory model.
- WinCE does not seem to be a very stable platform. I read some paper where
the tested the API robustness compared up against Linux, Win2K and Win9x and
it came out last among those.
- Linux as RT is very limited in the sense of real-time api. I think in most
LinuxRT your real-time process runs in its own little real-time area - so I
don't think you can use any of the device drivers from there. The device
drivers written for Linux was not written with real-time considerations
either. The same goes for RTX for Win2K/WinXP.


So that leaves you with QNX - the choice is simple.
--
Jens


"Jun" <jxuhot@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:al8knp$krc$1@inn.qnx.com...
Hi all,

We are looking for a RTOS for our new product. After looking at some
commecial RTOSs such as VxWorks, Win CE, QNX, Linux(maybe this is not a
real
RTOS), we may go with
Linux or QNX.

Can anybody tell me why you switch from Linux to QNX or
from QNX to Linux?

I am wondering why Bill Gates does not want to adopt some good ideas in
their RTOS!

Jun



Jun

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Jun » Tue Sep 10, 2002 8:09 am

Thanks!


"Mario Charest" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message news:al8sff$pfm$1@inn.qnx.com...
"Jun" <jxuhot@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:al8knp$krc$1@inn.qnx.com...
Hi all,

We are looking for a RTOS for our new product. After looking at some
commecial RTOSs such as VxWorks, Win CE, QNX, Linux(maybe this is not a
real
RTOS), we may go with
Linux or QNX.

Can anybody tell me why you switch from Linux to QNX or
from QNX to Linux?

I am wondering why Bill Gates does not want to adopt some good ideas in
their RTOS!

I guess because they want to stick with their Win32API which
isn't real time friendly in the first place.


Jun






Dmitri Ivanov

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Dmitri Ivanov » Wed Sep 18, 2002 7:00 am

So that leaves you with QNX - the choice is simple.
Ok, but which one? With several years of QNX6 being on the market
can anyone pinpoint the real-life advantages comparing to QNX4.25?

I've been working with QNX4.25 for the past two years and I've
been playing with QNX6.0.1 for some time. I'm wondering, should
I switch to QNX6 in my real-life projects, and if yes, why?

tia,
dmitri

Rennie Allen

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Rennie Allen » Wed Sep 18, 2002 10:20 am

Alain Magloire wrote:

: who thinks Eclipse is better is only thinking that because they believe
: any IDE is better than no IDE. Since I can still stick with command line
: tools, I will continue to do so.

Your choice, the command line tools will not go away anytime soon.
But the IDE will still improve and provide ergonomic ways to do things
like System Information, Profiling, Tracing, Debuguing etc ...
True, the IDE is still young, there is on going work to make it
a first class environment.
I am equally comfortable with the command line or an IDE. Eclipse is
one of the best IDE's out there (I've tried many of them). There is no
question that there will always be something that you can't do
conveniently in an IDE; but for the things you can do conveniently, you
*are* more productive (given an equivalent amount of IDE training and
command line training - myth: IDE's can be learned in a day). Any s/w
engineer worth their salt should be able to use both, and any
development environment worth *its* salt should provide both.
off topic
Lots of youngster out of school seems to be lost, if they do not have
Windows or visual basic.
/off topic
Yes, and it is this fact, that (IMO) leads to (unfounded) anti-IDE bigotry.

PS: one can only be more productive in Eclipse *after* it's loaded ;-)

Rennie Allen

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Rennie Allen » Wed Sep 18, 2002 1:03 pm

Robert Krten wrote:
Not only that, but IDEs (and GUIs in general) are *impossible* to automate.
Impossible is a strong word.
You can't write a script that moves the mouse, clicks on "File", pulls down
a menu, and clicks on a selection at 2 am based on a cron script!
Actually, you can (at least on Windows). Rational has a tool called
Visual Test that does exactly that. We use it here and it performs well
for us. Could we theoretically use it to do automated builds ? Yes.
Would it be the easiest and most convenient way to do automated builds ?
No.
This means that for automated build, regression testing, and a host of
other issues (which can be the basis of a flamewar) GUI-based tools
are completely useless.
Again, "completely useless" is a strong phrase. Visual Test is most
definately not "completely useless".
Hence, we *need* command lines to be *guaranteed*
to be around forever.
Forever is a *very* long time :-)

Rennie Allen

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Rennie Allen » Wed Sep 18, 2002 1:07 pm

Alain Magloire wrote:
Rennie Allen <rallen@csical.com> wrote:

Eclipse JDT(Java developement) is probably one of the best out there,
and getting better(see Eclipse-2.0.1).
My experience is with Eclipse 1.0, 2.0, and 2.0.1 when I refer to it's
capabilities I am refering to the latest and greatest.
: PS: one can only be more productive in Eclipse *after* it's loaded ;-)

8-), touche'!
At this moment, it's not a priority, maybe the gcj(Gcc Java compiler) will
help in the very long run 8-)
I leave Eclipse running all the time. The only problem with that, is
the memory usage; but, memories cheap, so I am not suggesting changing
priorities (a complete CDT definately is what I see as the #1 prio).

Rennie

Kris Warkentin

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Kris Warkentin » Wed Sep 18, 2002 2:13 pm

Superior thread and SMP support, better Posix compliance, better development
tools (Eclipse), more hosts (Windows, Solaris, Linux, RTP), more targets
(x86, arm, sh4, xscale, mips, powerpc), better networking support... I'm
sure others could list more yet.

cheers,

Kris

"Dmitri Ivanov" <ivdal@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:am97s4$1n0$1@inn.qnx.com...
So that leaves you with QNX - the choice is simple.

Ok, but which one? With several years of QNX6 being on the market
can anyone pinpoint the real-life advantages comparing to QNX4.25?

I've been working with QNX4.25 for the past two years and I've
been playing with QNX6.0.1 for some time. I'm wondering, should
I switch to QNX6 in my real-life projects, and if yes, why?

tia,
dmitri

Rick Duff

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Rick Duff » Wed Sep 18, 2002 2:41 pm

Kris Warkentin wrote:
Superior thread and SMP support, better Posix compliance, better development
tools (Eclipse), more hosts (Windows, Solaris, Linux, RTP), more targets
(x86, arm, sh4, xscale, mips, powerpc), better networking support... I'm
sure others could list more yet.
I was considering holding back my reply to this, but since it IS in the
advocacy group, I just _had_ to reply. :-)
Superior thread and SMP support.
Given there was only application level threading in QNX4 and no SMP, it
make it easy to be _superior_.
better Posix compliance
True.
better development tools (Eclipse)
Not in 1000 years. I will give you the gcc route is better only because
of the portability issues, not because it is a better compiler. Anyone
who thinks Eclipse is better is only thinking that because they believe
any IDE is better than no IDE. Since I can still stick with command line
tools, I will continue to do so.
More hosts
One of QNX's strength (IMHO) has always been self hosting. Since this
is true for both versions, it only matter to those who want to give up
the advantages of self hosting.
more targets
Yes, this is definitely a great advantage. It allows you to postpone
the hardware choice (in some designs) til later in the process, thus
choosing the latest processor, regardless if it was even the same family
that you started with.
better networking support
In that you have a newer tcp stack and support IPv6, true. I am not
convinced you have either the stability or performance that you had in
QNX4. And certainly QNET is no where near as useful in QNX6 as it is in
QNX4.

Other advantages of QNX6 include documented DDK's and BSP's. It is very
easy (in relative terms) to bring QNX up on any new board which has
adequate documentation.

On the other hand, QNX6 has neither the stability or performance that we
came to expect with QNX4.

Having said all of that, I have used QNX4 since it was still an alpha
quality product which forced you to reboot back to QNX2 in order to
report bugs and have used QNX6 since it was only Neutrino 1.0. On a day
to day basis, I develop in QNX6 and will continue to do that for any
projects I have a choice over. It has it's issues, but it is well on
it's way to be the superior product that QNX4 is.

Rick..
--
Rick Duff Internet: rick@astranetwork.com
Astra Network QUICS: rgduff
QNX Consulting and Custom Programming URL:
http://www.astranetwork.com
+1 (204) 987-7475 Fax: +1 (204) 987-7479

Guest

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Guest » Wed Sep 18, 2002 3:07 pm

Rick Duff <rick@astranetwork.com> wrote:
better development tools (Eclipse)

Not in 1000 years. I will give you the gcc route is better only because
of the portability issues, not because it is a better compiler. Anyone
who thinks Eclipse is better is only thinking that because they believe
any IDE is better than no IDE. Since I can still stick with command line
tools, I will continue to do so.
I couldn't agree more. When I first saw the training videos for Eclipse
it looked amazing, and in many ways it is. I too am a "die hard" command
line kind of guy and eclipse has so far failed to convince me to give up
my old ways. If you _are_ and IDE personality, than you will find the new
eclipse environment very beneficial.

It is *always* important to bear in mind that there is little that the
IDE does that is not possible from the command line itself. In reality,
the IDE uses command line utils for most things.
More hosts

One of QNX's strength (IMHO) has always been self hosting. Since this
is true for both versions, it only matter to those who want to give up
the advantages of self hosting.
Absolutely, the people doing xdev from Windows, or Solaris [last time I
checked Kris, QSS had not released or announced xdev support for Linux,
so that one is news to us] have either been forced to use work within
those operating systems, or have not experienced the TRUE POWER of working
in the self-hosted environment. As someone on IRC is fond of saying...

"Self-Hosted is the One True Path! Submit!"
better networking support

In that you have a newer tcp stack and support IPv6, true. I am not
convinced you have either the stability or performance that you had in
QNX4. And certainly QNET is no where near as useful in QNX6 as it is in
QNX4.
Neither am I. FLEET and the global namespace in QNX4 was light-years ahead
of QNET in QNX6. With that being said, QNET still has a lot of potential.
The entire networking model in QNX6 is much nicer, allowing for multiple
protocol support and translation to be implimented relatively easy. The
ability to use the ipfilter package for NAT and firewalling is a very useful
addition. QNET over IP is virtually useless due to security issues.
Having said all of that, I have used QNX4 since it was still an alpha
quality product which forced you to reboot back to QNX2 in order to
report bugs and have used QNX6 since it was only Neutrino 1.0. On a day
to day basis, I develop in QNX6 and will continue to do that for any
projects I have a choice over. It has it's issues, but it is well on
it's way to be the superior product that QNX4 is.
I am in the same situation, I've been done QNX2, QNX4, NTO 1.0, and now QNX6
development. I would choose and reccomend QNX6 for all new projects.

One thing that (surprisingly) Kris neglected to mention is that of runtime
pricing. QNX4 had no pricing model for low and medium volumes of runtime
licensing. That made the OS costs of a QNX4 system with OS, TCP/IP, and
Photon that represented < 1000 units annually was full price, approximately
$850 + $200 + $100 = $1150 US. QNX6 has single and low-volume runtimes an
order of magnitude less, with volume discounts available after only a few
units. That alone makes QNX6 a much better choice than QNX4.

Cheers,
Camz.

Alain Magloire

Re: which way to go? Linux or QNX?

Post by Alain Magloire » Wed Sep 18, 2002 3:31 pm

Rick Duff <rick@astranetwork.com> wrote:
: Kris Warkentin wrote:
:>
:> Superior thread and SMP support, better Posix compliance, better development
:> tools (Eclipse), more hosts (Windows, Solaris, Linux, RTP), more targets
:> (x86, arm, sh4, xscale, mips, powerpc), better networking support... I'm
:> sure others could list more yet.
:>

: I was considering holding back my reply to this, but since it IS in the
: advocacy group, I just _had_ to reply. :-)

Same here 8-)

....

:> better development tools (Eclipse)

: Not in 1000 years. I will give you the gcc route is better only because
: of the portability issues, not because it is a better compiler. Anyone

The Integrated Developement Environment(IDE) will use whatever tools to do
the job. You have issues with gcc, ok, but not the same problem.

: who thinks Eclipse is better is only thinking that because they believe
: any IDE is better than no IDE. Since I can still stick with command line
: tools, I will continue to do so.

Your choice, the command line tools will not go away anytime soon.
But the IDE will still improve and provide ergonomic ways to do things
like System Information, Profiling, Tracing, Debuguing etc ...
True, the IDE is still young, there is on going work to make it
a first class environment.

In any case, what your saying goes the opposite of what customers/sales etc ..
been saying; to get better integrated tools. Arcane command line, a la
Unix hacker is hardly sufficient.
<off topic>
Lots of youngster out of school seems to be lost, if they do not have
Windows or visual basic.
</off topic>

PS:
BTW, I'm an "old" Unix hacker, and will not touch anything but vi/make
but will not push my way of working on others.

Of course:
#include "disclaimer.h"
etc ..

Post Reply

Return to “qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy”