[Ashraf Altayeb]

Is BlackBerry a unix system, is this means it's same level of lenix, this means higher Level than android.
I mean c language then unix then BB10
But android c then unix then lenix then android

Posted via CB10

[thurask]

Anyway, QNX is Unix-like; similar principles/methods of operation, but not the same. Most operating systems are Unix or Unix-like, except Windows, of course.

Posted via CB10

[daves_25]

That jurassic park reference was the first thing I thought of too. That file viewer app is actually free to download (fsv or file system viewer/visiualizer). We used to run it on the IRIX machines at college, and say "this is a UNIX system!" then we'd check for Raptors.

BB10 is built on top of QNX, which is a POSIX micro kernel OS.

Posted via CB10

[jevinzac]

What is lenix?

Posted via CB10

[Pdinos3]

What is lenix?

Posted via CB10

An air conditioner of course

Typed on my PassportSQW100-1/10.3.1.2072

[wu-wei]

An air conditioner of course

Typed on my PassportSQW100-1/10.3.1.2072

No dummy, that's Lennox. And everyone knows Carrier is the way to go.

[Joshu42]

I'm not sure I understand fully what you want. But to answer your Thread question, QNX is a *nix real-time microkernel/OS. *nix means an Unix-like that behaves in a manner similar to a Unix system... like Linux (f.e. Android), MacOS X (Darwin), *BSD, Solaris, etc...

Why did you want to link a language and an OS ?

[ezikiah]

If it's got an X in the name it's UNIX

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.3442

Posted on my Q10.

[tdyhedge]

If it's got an X in the name it's UNIX

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.3442

Posted on my Q10.

Then how do you explain Solaris?

[thurask]

If it's got an X in the name it's UNIX

Q10SQN100-3/10.2.1.3442

Posted on my Q10.

Windows XP

Posted via CB10

[ezikiah]

Then how do you explain Solaris?

It doesn't have to have an X in it to be UNIX.
But if it has an X in it, it's UNIX

Posted on my Q10.

[Richard Buckley]

The short answer is QNX is not Unix.

As an OS Unix and QNX have almost nothing in common. QNX, many variants of Unix and Windows are Posix compliant. Posix is an interface standard that specifies how applications obtain services from an OS.

Z10STL100-3/10.3.1.1154

[roadrunner95]

Windex was already taken.

[MobileMadness002]

An air conditioner of course

Typed on my PassportSQW100-1/10.3.1.2072

That's "Lenox"

[crazy mazy]

This was an entertaining thread to say the least. Seems like no one gave the right answer, including the name of the Company that makes HVAC units LOL. For more information , Google "QNX" then go to the link "QNX Operating System - History of Operating Systems"

[vbdwork]

Google "QNX" then go to the link "QNX Operating System - History of Operating Systems"

No one is using Googlix these days, too complicated.

[gariac]

Get one of the shell apps and you can play with the OS in a command line manner

It accepts basic commands like cd, ls, etc. Also programs like ifconfig.


Posted via CB10

[yhamaie]

What is lenix?

He may have misspelled Linux, I suppose.

Posted via CB10

[gg bb]

From what I understand unix-like is a very broad description which describes most operating systems in general use today.
Windows is not unix-like. BlackBerry upto os 7 was not Unix-like. Symbian I don't believe was unix-like. Over past 10 years there has been a move towards unix-like operating systems with non unix-like operating systems slowly dying out. Windows being the only non unix-like os with any sinnificant user base.
Regarding unix-like operating systems: They all share some ancestry to the original Unix developed at Bell in 1969. Important similarities are that the operating systems are based on c language, are posix complaint and have common design which includes shell interfaces one or more of bsh,ksh,bash,csh.
Most unix-like os including AIX,HP-UK,SCO,BSD, Apple OS-X and QNX are based on a micro kernel design where the core of the OS is small.
Linux differs as it was designed heavily influenced by UNIX but with a monolithic kernel. This means that at the lowest level the os has much more compiled into it where a micro kernel accesses separate external modules monolithic kernel includes them. In theory the micro kernel design seems more efficient, better and should require less memory but it's not that simple (android Linux based os seems to require less memory than BlackBerry os 10 qnx based)
When talking about Linux there are a plethora of Linux versions which all have their own development streams but borrow from each other and unix as they evolve. Debian and RedHat are probably the main development streams. Ubuntu is a version of Linux which is piggyback on Debian with some tidying up branding and a more mass market apeal user interface, so each new version of Ubuntu is always based on the developments in Debian
Android is based on Linux (Debian like ubuntu) which is unix-like but was rewritten from scratch on a monolithic and open source (free software) design. Although Linux is open source the android layer is not.
OSX is unix-like, not open source and can trace it's Unix ancestry through BSD.
Symbian and older versions of Bbos were not unix-like and are no longer being developed.
BlackBerry OS10 is based on QNX which is unix-like in the same way OSX is. QNX (I think) was rewritten from scratch as a core remove all the crap unix which is probably the reason it's unix-like and not unix. Think SCO unix followed similar principles but targeted other application use.


Posted via CB10

[Richard Buckley]

From what I understand unix-like is a very broad description which describes most operating systems in general use today.
Windows is not unix-like. BlackBerry upto os 7 was not Unix-like. Symbian I don't believe was unix-like. Over past 10 years there has been a move towards unix-like operating systems with non unix-like operating systems slowly dying out. Windows being the only non unix-like os with any sinnificant user base.
Regarding unix-like operating systems: They all share some ancestry to the original Unix developed at Bell in 1969. Important similarities are that the operating systems are based on c language, are posix complaint and have common design which includes shell interfaces one or more of bsh,ksh,bash,csh.
Most unix-like os including AIX,HP-UK,SCO,BSD, Apple OS-X and QNX are based on a micro kernel design where the core of the OS is small.
Linux differs as it was designed heavily influenced by UNIX but with a monolithic kernel. This means that at the lowest level the os has much more compiled into it where a micro kernel accesses separate external modules monolithic kernel includes them. In theory the micro kernel design seems more efficient, better and should require less memory but it's not that simple (android Linux based os seems to require less memory than BlackBerry os 10 qnx based)
When talking about Linux there are a plethora of Linux versions which all have their own development streams but borrow from each other and unix as they evolve. Debian and RedHat are probably the main development streams. Ubuntu is a version of Linux which is piggyback on Debian with some tidying up branding and a more mass market apeal user interface, so each new version of Ubuntu is always based on the developments in Debian
Android is based on Linux (Debian like ubuntu) which is unix-like but was rewritten from scratch on a monolithic and open source (free software) design. Although Linux is open source the android layer is not.
OSX is unix-like, not open source and can trace it's Unix ancestry through BSD.
Symbian and older versions of Bbos were not unix-like and are no longer being developed.
BlackBerry OS10 is based on QNX which is unix-like in the same way OSX is. QNX (I think) was rewritten from scratch as a core remove all the crap unix which is probably the reason it's unix-like and not unix. Think SCO unix followed similar principles but targeted other application use.


Posted via CB10

A lot of this depends on your point of view, and as such can lead to some heated discussions. The most widely accepted definition of a micro-kernel based OS is the one that is also accepted on Wikipedia: "A microkernel is a minimal computer operating system kernel which, in its purest form, provides no operating system services at all, only the mechanisms needed to implement such services, such as low-level address space management, thread management, and inter-process communication (IPC)."

Linux is widely accepted as a monolithic kernel based OS, as are traditional Unix and operating systems derrived from it. The page above lists the OSs that are generally known as micro kernel based. You will note that while there are many "Unix like" OSs on the list, there are no actual Unix, Linux, BSD or derivitive OSs. Apple's offerings are also not on the list even though they predate BB10 and Tablet OS which are.

The reason this definition of a micro kernel based OS is so important is that it differentiates based on the property that is most important to proponents and users of micro kernels. In a monolithic kernel, all OS services are provided by processes running with kernel priviledge. With a micro kernel OS services may be provided by processes running with kernel priviledge, but can also be run with priviledges unique to the requirements of providing the service. So a device driver could be run so that it has access to the hardware it controlls, but no other kernel or OS functions. This has important implications on security and stability.

As for Windows not being Unix like, that is mostly an artifact of the user interface, which in windows is derrived from C/PM. There are many software suites that can be installed on Windows to provide a Unix like experience.

[gg bb]

Thanks for putting me straight,
Qnx has a micro kernel architecture. I was sure unix was micro kernel as I did once work with AIX (although not at kernel level) which now realize hasn't been micro kernel well for too long to show how old I am.
There's a well known article 'Tanenbaum, Torvalds dabate' which for some reason I was thinking of as between Linux and unix when infact it was linux/minix?


Posted via CB10

[daves_25]

Torvalds / Tannenbaum was about micro vs. Monolithic, and the specific implementations were Minix / Linux. Minix provided some of the inspiration for linux, but Linus decided to go with a monolithic kernel design, whereas Minix was a showcase piece of micro kernel design.

Posted via CB10

[anon(5789608)]

Is BlackBerry a unix system, is this means it's same level of lenix, this means higher Level than android.
I mean c language then unix then BB10
But android c then unix then lenix then android

Posted via CB10

QNX isn't a Unix. Today, Unix is a certification.

Only OSX (Apple), AIX (IBM), HP-UX (HP) and Solaris (Oracle) ARE unix systems.

"Unix-like" term doesn't exist. QNX have the POSIX certification. Linux, BSD etc don't have but are similiar.

UNIX 03
Registered Products:

Apple Inc.: OS X version 10.10 Yosemite on Intel-based Mac computers
Fujitsu Limited: Solaris™10 Operating System on Fujitsu PRIMEPOWER� 64-bit SPARC� Based Platforms
Hewlett-Packard Company: HP-UX 11i V3 Release B.11.31 or later on HP Integrity Servers
IBM Corporation: AIX 5L for POWER V5.2 dated 8-2004 or later with APARs: IY59610, IY60869, IY61405 with VAC 6.0.0.8 or later on pSeries CHRP systems
IBM Corporation: AIX 5L for POWER V5.3 dated 7-2006 or later on Systems using CHRP system architecture with POWER™processors
IBM Corporation: AIX 6 Operating System V6.1.2 with SP1 or later on Systems using CHRP system architecture with POWER™ processors and 2, 8 or 128 port async cards
Inspur Co., Ltd: Inspur K-UX 2.0 on Inspur TS K1 system
Oracle Corporation: Oracle Solaris 11 FCS and later on SPARC-based platforms, 32-bit and 64-bit and on X86-based platforms, 32-bit and 64-bit
Oracle Corporation: Solaris 10 Operating System plus patch 118844-06 for X86 and on, on 64-bit X86 based systems
Oracle Corporation: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit and 64-bit SPARC based systems
Oracle Corporation: Solaris 10 Operating System and on, on 32-bit X86 based systems

Register of Open Branded Products

[m3mb3rsh1p]

True, UNIX is a certification and as such QNX isn't UNIX. I do think, however that there is something to having UNIX-like design and wish all these systems would stop avoiding the truth and just embrace the identity. It would help to further unify / standardise OS knowledge and documentation among end users.*

Since QNX is primarily aimed at embedded systems, there is no intended user interaction with the OS because every target usually *requires a specialised UI. E.g Ford drivers might not need the tar command from their console; X-Ray technicians might not need the various commands because "x-ray daemon" and "x-ray-ui" are probably the only user applications running on their system.

If remote access to a QNX system is needed, e.g. consumers are finally starting to hear about "Internet of things"... then someone running a UNIX system can/should expect QNX to respond to these venerable UNIX facilities and it might become necessary to pursue UNIX certification.*

- I want to remotely monitor / control my auto piloted aircraft.*
- I want to perform surgery using my remote-controlled robot.
- I want to schedule a TV recording and instruct my fridge-cooker to prepare dinner so that I can just get home and enjoy a meal while watching my show
- my friends / coworkers / family might want to do the same thing at the same time

Do you want a whole mess of incompatible devices with APIs from each manufacturer requiring special programming, scripts and apps that can only be used by products from the same manufacturer and that will become obsolete once the "new and improved" version comes out so you are forced to buy in?

Why not simply use a standard system that has been around for decades and be able to run a standard script that is practically guaranteed to be interpreted identically by all your *devices?

That's what UNIX certification provides. Tomorrow Microsoft or Apple could create their own standard to "unify system management, interoperability and multi-user devices." Manufacturers, the media and general consumers would eat it up as the greatest thing ever invented in the world of computers. UNIX users would know better.*

The finer differences and technicalities are irrelevant in the big picture. QNX may not be certified but the spirit of UNIX most certainly burns brightly within its soul. That X is a deliberate acceptance of the UNIX spirit and as the world of electronic computers devolves around planned obsolescence, Memory-guzzling, APP-mania and incompatible vendor APIs, the vision of a cohesive, networked, distributed, SIMPLE computerised world becomes harder to achieve.

Windows 8.1 is a great OS but last night I tried copying a directory's contents into another containing the same files but the desktop explorer utterly refused because "there was no space left" instead of asking to overwrite! Ugh! This kind of nonsense pertaining to simple tasks long-since solved is what aspiring to a great standard is intended to eliminate.*
*

[gariac]

Your comment about the xray tech and QNX reminds me of a laser I used to use in semiconductor probing. The expletive deleted thing would occasionally zap when I didn't hit the button. My technique was to operate at low power and multiple zaps so the occasional zap where I didn't want it usually wasn't an issue. But the thing glitched.

But my point here is you really need a bulletproof OS if you are interfacing to the outside world. It would be undesirable to send an xray burst prior to the operator getting behind the shield.

I had laser retina repair a few years ago. There I in the chair and I'm thinking "I hope this thing doesn't glitch. "

BTW, minix is another micro kernel linux.
http://www.minix3.org/
I've loaded it on an Arm SBC, but it unfortunately doesn't have USB. You need to cross compile it, but have no fear. Minix is easily the biggest thing I ever compiled, but the process works like a champ. The person(s) who set up the makefile is/are total gurus.



Posted via CB10

Edit: I missed the other post on Minix.