Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!cluster!softway!gary
From: gary@softway.oz (Gary Corby)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: The value of QNX
Keywords: IBMPC/AT/386, Distributed.
Message-ID: <2540@softway.oz>
Date: 16 Jan 90 06:13:28 GMT
References: <3528@zorba.Tynan.COM> <2525@softway.oz> <1990Jan11.144750.11631@isy.liu.se>
Organization: Softway Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia
Lines: 31

pen@elinor.lysator.liu.se (Peter Eriksson) writes:

>And since the password file isn't public, the normal user cannot change
>his password at will, and the sysop will know all users passwords. This 
>I didn't like at all, so I wrote a login server that took care of the
>passwords for the users and store them in a non-reverseable encrypted
>format. By using the server, anybody can now change their password
>at will, and the sysop will not be able to find out the individual
>passwords. Incase anybody is interrested in this program, please
>let me know.
>/* Peter Eriksson (InterNet: pen@elinor.lysator.liu.se) */

I certainly would be, and so I imagine would anyone else with a QNX
system.  Perhaps this is a job for comp.sources.misc?

I would be interested to know why QNX is not more popular than it is.
QNX would seem to have great advantages for networked PC environments,
yet not that many people seem to know about it.  Why, for example,
should you not use QNX rather than one of the commercial LANs?  I'm 
not sure what the current costs are, but I have a feeling QNX run-time 
licenses would be cheaper than the software for, say, a Novelle network.
Are there any opinions out there on this?

Another question:  Has anyone done any large porting jobs between
UNIX and QNX?  What were the worst problems?

Gary
-- 
Gary Corby  (Friend of Elvenkind)			Softway Pty Ltd
						ACSnet: gary@softway.oz
					UUCP: ...!uunet!softway.oz!gary