Subject: Re: Are PC164 based alphas supported?
To: None <>
From: Andrew Gallatin <>
List: port-alpha
Date: 08/06/1997 17:43:40
Matthew Jacob writes:
 > >Matthew Jacob writes:
 > > > >
 > > > >Must I do this?  The Digital Unix certified CPU's seem to cost twice as
 > > > >much.  The reason were going for the AlphaPC's though is that they are
 > >
 > >Right.  Its Digital's Digital UNIX / OpenVMS copy protection fee..
 > >
 > >It seems like the "right" thing to do might be to modify NetBSD so as
 > >to be bootable by the linux bootloaders.  This idea has been tossed
 > >around before.. Aside from philisophical objections, it would be a lot
 > >of hard work. Nobody's volunteered yet.
 > Umm. You mean *like* milo? Yeah, I might go for that if we could fix milo to
 > allow it to reenter the prom.

Yeah.  Just like milo..  I didn't realize that it doesn't re-enter the
prom.  How do you halt a linux box then?

 > >.. 
 > >
 > >Uh.. Actually I think that Digital UNIX is pretty darned nice as long
 > >as you've got plenty of RAM to throw at it.  Somebody with a BSD
 > >background should find it quite comfortable.  You can safely delete
 > >most of the userland bloat.
 > Well, you're entitled to your opinion....I've worked with OSF/1 since
 > before silver master (on seed Flamingo units), and it hasn't gotten
 > substantially better in that period of time (that's gotta be about 6
 > years now...). It's bloated in the kernel, and slow, and buggy. They
 > try, but they don't succeed, thus violating Yoda's rule #1. I'd cut

I've worked with it since 1993 (1.3 on hot pink Flamigos).  I think
its gotten substantially better (at least much more stable).  The only
commercial OSes I have to measure it against are Ultrix & Solaris &
I'd prefer it to either of those... Let's agree to disagree.

 > them some slack, but in my opinion DEC will die if they continue
 > the premise of supporting the OSF/1 product by making people pay for
 > it who don't want it.

I agree 100% with you there..