Subject: Re: Are PC164 based alphas supported?
To: Curt Sampson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
Date: 08/11/1997 09:00:52
> On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Andrew Gallatin wrote:
> > Ahh.. so this explains at least one reason why the linux people have
> > no truley generic kernel, and why their code is littered with #ifdefs
> > which distinguish betweeen SRM/MILO systems and each system type.
> > Right?
> Yes. Not only is there no generic kernel, there's no generic
> bootloader. MILO has to be recompiled for every different Alpha
> architecture it runs on, becuase it has embedded in it the custom
> PALcode for that architecture.
At least in my opinion, there's nothing wrong with having
machine-dependent firmware. Given what firmware does, that makes
sense. (Look at DEC, err, DIGITAL, err, DEC's firmware tree...) Of
course, most of that can be common source, and it's a revision control
On the other hand, not being able to have a GENERIC kernel is... not
so good. 8-)
p.s. I'm back to a somewhat-normal life now, so once I get caught up
with my e-mail I may actually have reasonable response time for lots