Subject: Re: SRM vs ARC
To: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
From: Tom Linden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/11/1997 18:52:03
On Mon, 11 Aug 1997, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
> [ These are not the words or thoughts of my employer... 8-]
> > It is not encouraging to see that even DEC's own people don't like SRM.
> What, you think everybody within Digital likes VMS, UNIX and NT?
> or likes the Alpha? or likes the VAX? or ...?
> There are a lot of technical arguments both for and against a lot of
> pieces of hardware and software. SRM is a just piece of software,
> albeit one which is critical for certain operating systems to work on
> certain systems.
> > I like SRM, although I'd like to see more documentation for it.
> There actually are some pretty good user docs...
How about ARC documentation for those of us who have ARC only
machines and want to run UNIX?
> > There are clearly a lot of untapped powerful features in there.
> Yes, and the development of those powerful features have had a large
> cost, both in firmware size and in stability and reliability.
> Many, in fact I'd say _most_, of the features in the newer versions of
> the SRM console are ... useless for the functions that console
> firmware is supposed to perform. I'd trade multiple processes, lots
> of interactive help, 'more', pipes, a shell-like language, etc., away,
> if that meant that I could have firmware which would reliably boot the
> machines i've had to use over the past couple of years. The old
> TurboChannel-system SRM was great: it wasn't very intelligent, but it
> worked. The new SRM is much more "intelligent," but the fact of the
> matter is, (in my experience, with Digital UNIX and NetBSD) when you
> try to reboot with it sometimes it just doesn't reboot, and that's