<   Certainly, but Antonio and Allison were giving these reasons as if
<refuting my statements about the facts. Reasons can NEVER refute facts.

I was in the meeting as a DEC employee you weren't.  Reasons were facts
if you were there.

<   Have you EVER seen anyone make such statements about a Pentium or a
<SPARC? Until your community starts treating VAXen equally seriously with

Of course not... this is port-vax.  There is a hint in there.
   
<   Yes.

At 18 I was booting PDP-8s and loading tapes on PDP-10.  By 38 was running
a small cluster (maybe a dozen systems).  I've been working with vaxen 
longer than your alive.  Try not to be insulting, you may actaully learn 
something.

<   But he is also using this fact to surmise that the two machines have
<similar architectures. This like taking the GENERIC.vax kernel and sayin
<that because it runs on all VAXen they are all very similar.

Hummm, first I have to become a man.  

Now as VMS user of some long time your comments don't apply there.  UNIX 
is a new thing for me as I don't count Venix, Linux and Ultrix as real 
unix though the seem to resemble it.  Though I do have working systems 
using all of these.  Anyhow unix conventions don't apply to VMS and I did 
say VMS behaves across vs2ks and MVIIs and remarkably ultrix does too 
without an intermediate build.  I've done enough RD54 swapping to enjoy 
that property.  It was very handy to image copy a base disk to another 
to make up a new system for a user.  I still do it here as it's faster 
than an install or build.

<> >Since I haven't laid my hands on our department's copy yet, and no on
<> >has bothered to send me a copy of the GENERIC kernel config file, the
<> >only config file that I have is the sample provided in "ULTRIX-32 V3.1
<> >UWS V2.1 Release Notes and Installation Guide" (AA-ME85B-TE).

Lets say that's really old as I'm running 4.3(circa 1993)!

<> 1) Nitpick: No machine is busless. Some lack expansion busses, but all
<> have at least one bus.

In the industry where you have not been, busless is generally accepted 
to me no expansion bus or the processor bus is not available for 
expansion.  That would also be saying the system is bounded as in its a 
generally fixed configuration.   We all know the microvaxII, Cvax
or 4004 chips have a data, address and control bus.  It means little 
when it is effectively inaccessable for modification or expansion.

I may add that the vs2k by your convention has at least two busses, NI 
and SCSI, neither of which make the processor bus any more accessable.

<> I doubt that you know more than the guy who pointed out that the concep
<> didn't exist at that time. I'm pretty sure that it's not as easy as yo
<> think to add the full-blown SCSI support.
<           ^^^
<   
<  You don't need to ADD it, it's ALREADY THERE. You simply need to stop
<ARTIFICIALLY BLOCKING it!

It isn't artificially blocked, it's available to any code, all ya gotta 
do is do it.  FYI, when I was DEC internal we even had some code that
ran the scsi on vs2ks from VMS as a secondary disk.  Unsupported worked 
really well with a RZ23 stuffed into the same box as a TK50(over the PS).
being in engineering we had little trouble making the cable with one 
more connector and all.  We used vs2ks as LAVCs(ni clusters), xterms, 
DECwindows systems, even postscript printing nodes to bandbuffer 
printers.  Lots of unsupported code, and the hardware did it.  


Allison