Subject: Re: Is the kernel designed to return?
To: David A. Gatwood <email@example.com>
From: gabriel rosenkoetter <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/14/2002 20:39:10
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Mon, Jan 14, 2002 at 04:56:39PM -0800, David A. Gatwood wrote:
> > Sure, but #7 buys us 7200 (and 7400? Is that the right model
> > number?) support and gives support for PDMs another leg to stand on.
> 7500. And yes, it definitely makes sense to work on it for that reason.
> It just isn't a "show-stopper". :-)
No, no. I have a 7500, I know what it is. There's a PCI model in
addition to the 7200 with a soldered-on 601. It was either
education-only or non-US-only... the 8200, maybe?
I wasn't even considering the 7500 since any I've encountered
recently have already had an upgrade card in them, but yeah, it too.
> Maybe. I'm getting a 10 byte file, but that may be an IE issue.
I think it is:
grappa:~% ls -l netbsd/601UM.pdf
-rw-r--r-- 1 gr users 3253063 Jan 14 19:05 netbsd/601UM.pdf
I'm not sure it's necessarily the technical reference you had in
mind, but it is 777 pages short. ;^>
> Well, there's a pretty heavy cost in maintaining support for a bunch of
> old systems, even just in terms of all the testing and verification needed
> to make sure that they work. Not to mention that it would be a
> second^h^h^h^h^h^hthird booting mechanism to support....
True enough. But if NetBSD can do it...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (NetBSD)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----