> The other alternative for us is QNX which has little market recognition.
> WSJ and BW never talk about QNX, plenty of articles are written on Linux.
>
> Market recognition does not mean that Linux is better that QNX from a
> technical point of view, but it does mean a prospective customer will more
> readily accept a Linux solution.
Here I agree with Pierre totally. QNX is the best thing you can find for
INTEL. I used it more than 15 years ago, much before Linux surfaced, and
found it fine from the very beginning. I kept somewaht up to date by
following their site.
I can just say that it was, and I think still is, the only Unix that
coud be used like DOS. At that time a couple of diskettes and manuals
and a fully fledged UNIX was in my inhexpierenced hands in a couple of
hours. My applications used QNX much as RTL modules with its DOS
emulator in place of Linux. The only thing I disliked was some form of
integralism in biasing everything to send/receive/replay. That apart I
see just only a couple of very important reasons for Linux to be largely
used in place of QNX: it's free and has a bazar developement style that
forces you to take its side.
But from the technical point of view is like INTEL 8088 beating Motorola
6800, 20 years ago.
bY the way believe me I'm neither a QNX shareolder nor a reseller.
Ciao, Paolo.
--- [rtl] ---
To unsubscribe:
echo "unsubscribe rtl" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] OR
echo "unsubscribe rtl <Your_email>" | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----
For more information on Real-Time Linux see:
http://www.rtlinux.org/~rtlinux/
