[hrbuckley]

Originally Posted by OSexpert

Troll? Just because I wrote of a RIM product that has problems? The company could face bankruptcy if it is not careful. There is little room for errors in this game.
No I am not misinformed. You dont understand, that's the problem.
QNX is optimized for embedded applications. It IS powerful in that application, although it's reputation for reliability is over-rated.
The internet is not an embedded application. It has very diverse applications. QNX is not adequately addressing this. As I said, it's a single application operating system. From what I read, RIM does not even understand what these diverse applications are.

Well here I am posting on the internet, using a web app, running on QNX. It is, and has worked very well with good performance since I got it. 2.0 is better, even though it is a developer beta. But I may be a figment of my own imagination.

[NJBlackBerry]

Originally Posted by SomeExpert

Other companies started using this type of OS but abandoned it because it lacked power.

I repeat my question - what companies started using this type of OS but abandoned it.

Cite sources please. Otherwise, this is an opinion and should be labeled as such.

[hrbuckley]

And since most modern "monolithic" kernels use installable modules for the majority of OS tasks, the line between micro kernels and monolithic kernels has become blured. In fact there has for some time been a move to put a number of OS functions of Linux into user space, user mode file systems for example.

[daphne]

Originally Posted by OSexpert

Troll? Just because I wrote of a RIM product that has problems? The company could face bankruptcy if it is not careful. There is little room for errors in this game.
No I am not misinformed. You dont understand, that's the problem.
QNX is optimized for embedded applications. It IS powerful in that application, although it's reputation for reliability is over-rated.
The internet is not an embedded application. It has very diverse applications. QNX is not adequately addressing this. As I said, it's a single application operating system. From what I read, RIM does not even understand what these diverse applications are.

Why are you posting here on this forum? Are you the same person who posted on these 2 pages?
New BBX OS may be a Problem | Blog This Phone. Everything about cell phones
New BBX OS may be a Problem

Do you also use the online name sisolanda?
What is the purpose of posting this misinformation on this site and the other 2?
Why do you even care about RIM and BlackBerry? Surely you have some agenda. Please tell us what it is.

Do you realize you have zero credibility here?
Do you know that this forum is in no way connected to Research In Motion?

If you cannot or do not answer these questions, we will continue to assume you are either a troll or a spammer, perhaps an SEO spammer.

One more question? Are you being paid to post here on this forum?

[NJBlackBerry]

Or a disgruntled (or former) RIM employee...

[fourstringfuror]

Originally Posted by daphne

Why are you posting here on this forum? Are you the same person who posted on these 2 pages?
New BBX OS may be a Problem | Blog This Phone. Everything about cell phones
New BBX OS may be a Problem

Do you also use the online name sisolanda?
What is the purpose of posting this misinformation on this site and the other 2?
Why do you even care about RIM and BlackBerry? Surely you have some agenda. Please tell us what it is.

Do you realize you have zero credibility here?
Do you know that this forum is in no way connected to Research In Motion?

If you cannot or do not answer these questions, we will continue to assume you are either a troll or a spammer, perhaps an SEO spammer.

One more question? Are you being paid to post here on this forum?

. . . still waiting . . .

[OSexpert]

Originally Posted by NJBlackBerry

I repeat my question - what companies started using this type of OS but abandoned it.

Cite sources please. Otherwise, this is an opinion and should be labeled as such.

I already gave you the info. It's in the OP.
The argument of Microkernel vs. Monolithic has been thrashed out many times. research it on the Internet.

[daphne]

Originally Posted by OSexpert

I already gave you the info. It's in the OP.
The argument of Microkernel vs. Monolithic has been thrashed out many times. research it on the Internet.

No you did not state that info. You did not name any companies and you did not cite your sources.

[ezrunner]

Magic Bananas!!
Posted via BlackBerryForums.com Mobile

[NJBlackBerry]

So you stated that other companies have tried and failed, but you don't name them.
So it is your opinion (repeated from other blogs).

[fourstringfuror]

He claims to have experience, but doesn't know any names.

Maybe he IS a Sexpert!

[OSexpert]

Originally Posted by hrbuckley

In fact there has for some time been a move to put a number of OS functions of Linux into user space, user mode file systems for example.

If you think Linux is going in the direction of microkernels, you must be on crack.
Microkernels were created because it is too difficult to write bug-free code. Instead of coming up with better software languages, tools and practices they chose to reduce the size of the kernel so that there would be fewer bugs to contend with. The reason why there are so many bugs in software in the first place is that it is a practice carried out by blind cave-men using stone tools as implements.
Software is not a science. The mathematicians called it a science. But mathematicians don't know what science is. They don't even know what mathematics is. Calling the practice Computer Science does't mean it is a science.
So the main reason microkernels were created is that software i some kind of voodoo. The real solution is to use scientific methods and come up with a language that will allow you to write reliable code easily.
Most software projects are either cancelled, unusable, unreliable, too expensive, outdated etc. There is a lot of unhappiness among its users. This situation is unparalleled in human activity and completely irrational.

[NJBlackBerry]

Irrational would explain your last post, but you still are expressing your opinions and have not stated any factual information.

I repeat my question - what companies started using this type of OS (QNX) but abandoned it.

Voodoo indeed. What a crock.

[hrbuckley]

The reasons you state are also the reasons behind the modularization of monolithic kernels so that faults in a module does not cause a failure of the whole operating system. It also allows a system to be agile over time to respond to changing requirements by installing or removing modules without restarting the system. If you ever actually worked on a system that used a true monolithic kernel you would recognize the power and practicallity of modularization; and how similar that solution is to a micro kernel architecture. Instead you seem to be relying on a 10 year old debate.

BTW I'm still using my QNX based networked tablet (now with the developer 2.0 beta) I'm curious as to what issues you think I should be looking for.

[daphne]

I see the OP has either been copied on another forum or is posting the same crap with a different username. Something is very odd about this.

[NJBlackBerry]

Yes, with the same ridicule and scorn there too.

[dc/dc]

Originally Posted by howboy

why??? any reason......?

Because the OP is an idiot, and you seem like a spammer.

[NJBlackBerry]

Been watching him/her for the last 90 minutes...

[DallasFlier]

Originally Posted by OSexpert

If you think Linux is going in the direction of microkernels, you must be on crack.

Originally Posted by OSexpert

The reason why there are so many bugs in software in the first place is that it is a practice carried out by blind cave-men using stone tools as implements.

Originally Posted by OSexpert

But mathematicians don't know what science is. They don't even know what mathematics is.

Originally Posted by OSexpert

So the main reason microkernels were created is that software i some kind of voodoo.

Originally Posted by OSexpert

Most software projects are either cancelled, unusable, unreliable, too expensive, outdated etc.

WOW! It does sound kind of like someone's on crack here, but its not hrbuckley, its you!

[hrbuckley]