Subject: Re: Are PC164 based alphas supported?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Gallatin <email@example.com>
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..