Some pluses and minuses

bridged with qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
Bill Caroselli

Re: Some pluses and minuses

Post by Bill Caroselli » Mon Feb 03, 2003 7:40 pm

Xiaodan Tang <xtang@qnx.com> wrote:
There is a "specific feature" in stack that IPFilter need to hook it up to
look the
packets. With 6.2.0, the feature is "accidently" removed from the
npm-tcpip-v4.so,
resulting that IPFilter can only works with npm-tcpip-v6.so.

This has been resolved so in 6.2.1, both npm-tcpip-v4.so and npm-tcpip-v6.so
will have that "specific feature", and IPFilter package will have two
binaries
ipfilter-v4.so and ipfilter-v6.so which works with different stack. (the
install
script in IPFilter will try to detect which stack you are running and set
the
proper link)

So it really have nothing to do with IPv6 (well, the ipfilter-v6.so would
understand
IPv6 packets of cause), but something in the npm-tcpip-v6.so stack.

Hope this could clear the things out :)
Perefctly. Thank you.

Serge Yuschenko

Re: Some pluses and minuses

Post by Serge Yuschenko » Tue Feb 04, 2003 4:54 am

I don't think that hiding software ever did any good to protect it. This
works for material world only. Usually a hidden thing is most wanted. If
anybody decides to use a software illegally the one will do it no matter
what. I think in software world everything comes to people's conscience and
law enforcement. It is impossible to find out if anybody playing with some
stolen commercial product at home. It is much easier and more reasonable to
trace a company illegally using such software and making a money of it.

Good example is QNX4. It has never been available for free, it has even been
protected with cryptic licensing mechanism, but, as far as I know, anybody
who really wanted it had it. Although, the tricky licensing caused a lot of
trouble to licensed users while configuring network.

Bill is "special case" only because he knocked on the front door. I'm sure
everybody else who needed mkifs just found it and didn't do a mountain out
of molehill. Does it make them offenders? Apparently yes, but did they
really do any harm to QSSL? Rather opposite. None of them are potential
customers themselves (no one would spend 4 - 8 grands just to feed one's
curiosity), but they can bring a real customer. They can and they will, but
only if they like the product and found everything they need in it.

It is not very easy to find a right place to draw that line between free
available set of tools and commercial one. From my point of view removing
mkifs makes NC a simple demo version. Someone who is used to working in IDE
might decide that NC is completely unusable because it doesn't have one.

By the way, did anybody notice what percentage of questions in qnx
newsgroups is answered by 3rd party enthusiasts?


Sincerely,

Serge


"Eric Johnson" <eric@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:b1euqb$hje$1@nntp.qnx.com...
"Bill Caroselli" <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b1cac9$98l$1@inn.qnx.com...
Adam Mallory <amallory@qnx.com> wrote:
....
That seems strange - I've emailed sales and we'll see what the deal
is.
I
find it hard to believe we won't sell to a potential customer.

It's just that the price is *totally* unreasonable for an individual.


Especially since all I really want is the mkifs utility.

Bill, I'm sorry that you feel our pricing is out of reach for your
purposes.

Obviously you are aware of QNX Momentics NC, which you can use for
personal
experimentation. As I know you are also aware, the NC version is missing
some key features (such as mkifs) that would be necessary for 'real'
embedded development. We found that commercial developers were using the
noncommercial version for commercial development, so we elected to draw a
line and remove functionality such that you could still use the NC version
to develop applications, but would be challenged to do commercial embedded
work. We tried to do this in a way that would still allow the bulk of
enthusiasts to continue their experimentation, and I believe we succeeded.
On a practical note, you may still be able to find copies of the
pre-Momentics QNX RTP 6.1 (on the internet, or perhaps you have a copy
already). While this is no longer up to date with our latest advances and
its use is strictly noncommercial, it does include the mkifs utility.

You started this thread in response to our sales group emailing you asking
which geographical area you are in, and accused us of playing games with
our
pricing.

Our internal sales teams and distribution partners are arranged
geographically. Sales inquiries from a region are forwarded to the
appropriate channel, and that is why we needed to know where you were
inquiring from.

We do not play games with our pricing. Our North American pricing for QNX
Momentics products was published in a press release in June of last year
and
has not changed since. This pricing, which does not include support, is:

QNX Momentics Professional Edition: US$8,695
QNX Momentics Standard Edition: US$4,295

If feel you are a special case and it would be to our mutual benefit to
give
you a break on the price, it would probably be a lot more effective to
have
a friendly discussion with your sales rep than to post angry messages in
the
advocacy forum. I personally reviewed the email message our sales rep rep
sent you. It was friendly, polite, gave you the pricing info you
requested,
and ended in an invitation to contact the rep if you needed more
information. It certainly did not imply anywhere that we are not
interested
in selling to individuals.

- Eric

Guest

Re: Some pluses and minuses

Post by Guest » Tue Feb 25, 2003 7:18 pm

Eric Johnson <eric@qnx.com> wrote:
"Bill Caroselli" <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote:
Adam Mallory <amallory@qnx.com> wrote:

It's just that the price is *totally* unreasonable for an individual.
I completely disagree. The 4K US price tag appear steep, but if you compare it
to what you paid for QNX4, it's right in line. The equivalent QNX4 development
system may even have been MORE expensive, I haven't run the actual numbers, but
the ball park ones were:

QNX4 OS runtime $1000
QNX4 Photon runtime 200
QNX4 Voyager 2.02 200
Watcom C 1000
Watcom C++ expansion 200
QNX4 TCP/IP runtime 350
QNX4 TCP/IP development 800
QNX4 Photon development 1500
QNX4 X runtime 500
QNX4 X development 1000
----
Total 6750

So the costs for an equivalent QNX4 development system are significantly
higher than the costs for the same environment with QNX6.
Especially since all I really want is the mkifs utility.

Bill, I'm sorry that you feel our pricing is out of reach for your purposes.

Obviously you are aware of QNX Momentics NC, which you can use for personal
experimentation. As I know you are also aware, the NC version is missing
some key features (such as mkifs) that would be necessary for 'real'
embedded development. We found that commercial developers were using the
noncommercial version for commercial development, so we elected to draw a
line and remove functionality such that you could still use the NC version
to develop applications, but would be challenged to do commercial embedded
work.
I think the removal of mkifs was complete bull-shit myself, but I can often
be a crufty old fart. I heard the story a bit differently, and this is why
I have the "BS" opinion. Here is the story I heard:

Several customers were using NC to develop projects, and did most if not all
of the development work with NC. They only contacted QSS once they were
ready to go into production and would typically only purchase ONE development
seat. If they had 20 developers, the QSS sales group saw this as a loss of
19 dev seats, instead of the potential for X runtimes. That aside, they were
also upset that they were "out of the loop" in terms of knowing that company
X was developing a QNX-based project, and they quite simply wanted to have
the visibility of that up front.

Those are valid concerns, but they fail to address the actual way that a
"cheater" company would try to cheat thier way out of buying 20 dev seats.
It is doubtful, that even after being forced (by the removal of mkifs) to
purchase a dev seat that they would ever buy more than one. They could
easily buy one seat, and then copy the missing binaries to the other NC
machines. They could use qnet to make the full dev seat available to all
users, they could run it as a build machine, coding most things on their
NC boxes, and then dong the full / daily builds on the one dev machine.

My point is that the removal of mkifs doesn't truely address this, and it
never can. It creates more bitching from the community than it's worth,
since there are many legitimate uses of mkifs that do not pertain to
commercial development (building firewall on floppy for instance).

If QSS thinks the the removal of mkifs REALLY prevents the cheaters from
cheating, they are fooling themselves.

I *DO* completely agree with the removal of the alternate platforms
from the NC distribution (it was probably a mistake to include it in
the 6.2 NC distribution in the first place). The inclusion of ARM and
the iPaq/eQip reference platform makes sense, since it handily shows the
ease with which cross-platform development can be done.

Personally, I think that mkifs should be in the NC distribution.

Cheers,
Camz.

Greg Bergsma

Re: Some pluses and minuses

Post by Greg Bergsma » Fri Feb 28, 2003 5:46 am

G'day Bill!

Hmmm....it seems that if you could buy a lower cost QNX 6 dev seat with all
the bells and whistles, yet were prevented from deploying it on commercial
runtime systems as a result, then this would satisfy your need?

If that's it, then maybe there's a chance it could be considered by QNX. If
your situation changed, then maybe it would make sense to pay the
difference, in order to be able to deploy commercial runtimes.

Keep in mind that I am not with QNX any more and am not speaking on their
behalf. But if this is what you need, I can make some suggestions - but no
promises.

Cheers,


Greg Bergsma
Director, Business Development
Symmetry Innovations P/L
Email: gbergsma@symmetry.com.au
Web: www.symmetry.com.au

"Bill Caroselli" <qtps@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b1bs3h$jvt$6@inn.qnx.com...
First, since I've been using tin I must say that I've noticed
inn.qnx.com is _fast_! There is virtually no noticible latency
between posting an article and seeing it available.

Kudos to whomever.

How are you hosting inn.qnx.com?


Now on the downside. I just sent an e-mail to sales@qnx.com requesting
pricing on a personal use Momentics SE. They sent me back an e-mail
wanting to know where I was from.

I *do* understand that any company is willing to negotiate special
prices for favored customers. But I'm requesting to buy ONE OF for
personal use. I'll pay list price (whatever that is).

QSSL has played games with their pricing for years. Why can't they just
say "It costs this much." I mean really guys, grow up!

--
Bill Caroselli -- Q-TPS Consulting
1-(626) 824-7983
qtps@earthlink.net

Cowboy

Re: Some pluses and minuses

Post by Cowboy » Sat Mar 01, 2003 3:40 am

In article <b1mbl1$fc4$1@inn.qnx.com>, Bill Caroselli wrote:
Eric Johnson <eric@qnx.com> wrote:

If feel you are a special case and it would be to our mutual benefit to give
you a break on the price, it would probably be a lot more effective to have
a friendly discussion with your sales rep than to post angry messages in the
advocacy forum. I personally reviewed the email message our sales rep rep
sent you. It was friendly, polite, gave you the pricing info you requested,
and ended in an invitation to contact the rep if you needed more
information. It certainly did not imply anywhere that we are not interested
in selling to individuals.

I don't feel I'm a special case. I'm Joe Blough Nobody who wants to
stick a UNIXy OS on my desk. I can try RTP-NC. But it is missing
several features that I want to try (mkifs, ipv6, ip-filter). So I can
agree to pay a reasonable fee for all the bells and whistles.

Oh well. Red Hat ain't that expensive.
Slackware, Debian, and others are downloadable essentially for free.

Just an observation....

I suspect that, like myself, those features missing from NC could
and would be bought by individuals such as Bill, and myself, as
add-ons to the NC version already available.

Those features only, could be sold to individuals only, at a
reasonable one-off price, and with appropriate licensing
agreement.

--
Cowboy

We come to bury DOS, not to praise it.
-- Paul Vojta, vojta@math.berkeley.edu

Guest

Re: Some pluses and minuses

Post by Guest » Sat Mar 01, 2003 4:57 pm

curt@gwis.com sed in <slrnb4vldj.60u.curt@desktop.cowboy.loc>:
Those features only, could be sold to individuals only, at a
reasonable one-off price, and with appropriate licensing
agreement.
The problem is that QSSL isn't convinced enough that this is affordable.
OTOH they may haven't done any marketing research on this.

Suggestion to QSSL: Mail the NC downloaders for poll if they want to buy
"additional package". Having potential customer numbers is better
than no data.
Although I bet nobody will respond on price around $100US just for mkifs.

(This is barely spam but some would think so;
next time post the "privacy policy" -- haven't you been working on this??)
--
kabe

Post Reply

Return to “qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy”