On Mar 27, 2010, at 8:19 AM, Hubert Feyrer wrote:
On Sat, 27 Mar 2010, Herb Peyerl wrote:We don't have any of the problems that QNX has. But this isn't a QNX bashing forum.I wouldn't consider listing the areas where we are superior to QNX as bashing.
Sigh.We don't have qnet for IPC so it's not relevant. qnet is endian specific so you can't do qnet between 2 hosts of different endianness in the same chassis (or inter-chassis for that matter).
Our malloc doesn't suck yak testicles.Our toolchain isn't supported only on Windows. (by "supported", I mean if you call with a question on the Linux compiler, you won't get an answer. You need to reproduce your problem with the windows compiler to get someone to talk to you.)
Getting our application to perform under QNX at even near the same performance that it had on Linux on the same hardware was like making dents in wallboard with your forehead; and QNX FE's were of no help. (I would go so far as to say negative help).
See? Not easy to compare because none of the issues I had with QNX were relevant to NetBSD... However, they may be relevant to someone who chose QNX over Linux or NetBSD and is why I'd already spoken to Jack privately..