Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!clyde!akgua!sb1!sb6!bpa!burdvax!presby!seismo!hao!hplabs!sri-unix!temple%UMass-ECE@csnet-relay
From: temple%UMass-ECE%csnet-relay@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: QNX
Message-ID: <14158@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Nov-83 09:55:00 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.14158
Posted: Mon Nov 28 09:55:00 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 4-Dec-83 08:30:48 EST
Lines: 30

From:  Matthew Temple <temple%UMass-ECE@csnet-relay>


I thought I'd add another operating system into the fray.  I can't claim
it to be "the Best," but I like it a lot.  QNX is unix-like and has many
similar utilities.  It comes with a c-compiler, assembler, editor, is
multi-user, multi-tasking, etc.  Supports 256 tasks on an IBM-PC.

(By the way -- although it is designed for the PC, it's running happily
on my Columbia Data machine -- more about that iun another letter).

QNX's most interesting feature is its message-based interprocess communication
that allows for very slick synchronization.  ...would that VMS were so elegant.
All tasks have distinct, unique ids -- they may be sent to, replied to.
There are global prots which may be attached to -- attaching to an attached
port returns the id of an attached processes.  When many processes try to
send to a receiving process, their messages automatically queue up.  Well,
in short, QNX is a fine tool.  I've never used OASIS or XENIX (although
we do run Berkeley 4.1 under EUNICE here).

My point here is that QNX is a good tool.  Do ANY of the OASIS touters have
any experience with QNX.  And if they don't how do they have the nerve to
make claims?  How many "Bests" coming over this information exchange
should be supplied with the following caveat: "This product is the
absolute best thing in Netland.  In fact, it's so good, I don't even
fell the need to ever try anything else.  In fact, I never have tried
anything else."  ??

					Matthew Temple
					Smith College