5 ms·
QNX really needs to modernize if they want to survive. Their tooling ecosystem is stuck in 2008, and their kernel's performance is pretty low. IIRC, the kernel
by nrclark 2y ago
QNX really needs to modernize if they want to survive. Their tooling ecosystem is stuck in 2008, and their kernel's performance is pretty low. IIRC, the kernel itself is also single-threaded, and can't take advantage of multiple CPUs (even if tasks can be SMP scheduled).
Their moat is supposedly their ASIL certification, but I see that value shrinking more and more over time for the following reasons:
1. If your product has a software-related failure, customers won't care about all of your certifications. Only the end product.
2. I'm not convinced that the QNX kernel is less buggy than the Linux kernel. Also, most failures don't tend to be kernel related.
- foundry27 2y agoWhat kind of tooling modernization would even make a difference? At least SDP 8.0 overhauled the kernel to not be locked to a single thread anymore, which is nice IMO
- agustamir 2y ago> kernel's performance is pretty low Can you elaborate on this? How is it "low"
- NoahKAndrews 2y agoThey did, in the next sentence
- Beretta_Vexee 2y agoThere is a very large installed base of machines running on QNX, including medical equipment, radio communications, railway switches, automotive modules, etc. Most manufacturers are upgrading in small steps and absolutely do not want to start from scratch with their software layer. Most manufacturers are upgrading in small steps and have no desire to start from scratch with their software layer. At best, they will add a touch screen, an arm processor and an Android system, but only for the interface. The critical parts will remain under QNX. The same is true for VxWorks, a large proportion of industrial PLCs, electrical networks, water and sewage systems depend on VxWorks. QNX and VxWorks are omnipresent but invisible systems.
- burstmode 2y ago>If your product has a software-related failure, customers won't care about all of your certifications. Only the end product. If you're in a market where a ASIL certification is needed, the customers ONLY care about this certifications. I keeps them out of jail.
- nrclark 2y agoCan you point me at some more detailed rules that support your assertion? Not trying to argue - I’m actually interested to read more details on that.
- throwaway173738 2y agoIt’s not really a rule, but rather in some environments you have to be able to say in court that you did everything you could to make sure your software worked safely and correctly. Sometimes you will be risking criminal charges if you can’t.
- rwmj 2y agoIt's the reason why some companies, like IBM [disclosure: I work for Red Hat], seem to sell products even though there seems to be little rational reason why customers would buy them, as in they have poorer performance or quality at a much greater price. Those products are certified against dozens of financial, safety, security or other standards, and customers in certain markets (government, military, nuclear, automotive etc) simply have to buy the certified products. The consequences of not doing so range from products not being supported, all the way to going to jail for gross negligence. Edit: I wrote a rather highly rated HN comment about why Red Hat makes money last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35588297 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35588297
- jeffrallen 2y agoAnother example of this is FIPS-140 crypto. It is objectively bad crypto in the 2020's. But it's mandated in some settings for either bureaucratic reasons or due to regulatory capture.
- cbsks 2y agoQNX Muon removed the global kernel lock so it has much better multi-core performance.
- jeffreygoesto 2y agohttps://www.qnx.com/developers/articles/rel_7063_0.html#whats_new https://www.qnx.com/developers/articles/rel_7063_0.html#what...