- Home
- ...
- Operating Systems
- BlackBerry QNX
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux
- BlackBerry QNX-vs-Red Hat Enterprise Linux
Compare BlackBerry QNX and Red Hat Enterprise Linux 
- Users report that Red Hat Enterprise Linux excels in scalability with a score of 8.6, allowing businesses to grow without significant performance degradation. In contrast, BlackBerry QNX, while also scalable, received a slightly lower score, indicating it may not handle large-scale deployments as effectively.
- Reviewers mention that Red Hat's automatic security updates scored an impressive 8.9, providing peace of mind for users concerned about vulnerabilities. BlackBerry QNX, while offering security updates, scored lower at 8.1, suggesting that users may need to be more proactive in managing their security posture.
- G2 users highlight the ease of setup for Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which scored 8.5, making it a favorable choice for organizations looking to implement a robust operating system quickly. BlackBerry QNX, however, lacks a specific score for ease of setup, which may indicate potential challenges during initial deployment.
- Users on G2 report that Red Hat's quality of support is rated at 8.8, with many reviewers praising the responsiveness and expertise of the support team. In comparison, BlackBerry QNX's support quality is rated lower at 8.1, suggesting that users may experience longer wait times or less effective assistance.
- Reviewers mention that Red Hat Enterprise Linux shines in performance management with a score of 9.0, indicating robust tools for monitoring and optimizing system performance. BlackBerry QNX, while functional, does not match this level of performance management, which could impact users relying on high-performance applications.
- Users say that Red Hat's OS integration scored 8.8, making it easier to work with other software and systems, which is crucial for enterprise environments. BlackBerry QNX, while capable, received a lower score, indicating potential integration challenges that could hinder workflow efficiency.
By having some experience in Eclipse and Linux, you will be able to set up an embedded development platform in your machine quite easily.
Support. And in nature it is extremely difficult to build a complex system that has many components. This is because the bare micro-kernel only provides an ability of scheduling the components, however, if one wants those components systematically working...
I really liked the agility of its language, I also loved its ease of use, I also liked its compression, the detection of errors as well as its security, for me it is a very complete software that adapts to my needs.
You don't get the newest version of packages. This is a trade-off with stability, but it's still a bummer that you don't have easy access to more recent software. RHEL 6 also uses Gnome 2 by default, which feels seriously outdated.
By having some experience in Eclipse and Linux, you will be able to set up an embedded development platform in your machine quite easily.
I really liked the agility of its language, I also loved its ease of use, I also liked its compression, the detection of errors as well as its security, for me it is a very complete software that adapts to my needs.
Support. And in nature it is extremely difficult to build a complex system that has many components. This is because the bare micro-kernel only provides an ability of scheduling the components, however, if one wants those components systematically working...
You don't get the newest version of packages. This is a trade-off with stability, but it's still a bummer that you don't have easy access to more recent software. RHEL 6 also uses Gnome 2 by default, which feels seriously outdated.
