On March 23, Allison J Parent wrote:
> It's also a booby trap supporting older hardware as RLV11 is real old 
> and offers nothing over the RLV12.  This would apply to a few other 
> peripherals that come from the PDP-11 U/Q space.  For netBSD supporting 
> RLV11 is pointless.  For the rare user that needs RL01/2, the RLV12 is 
> the route and maybe a driver lofted from PDP-11 unix.  

  While I agree with most of your points, and I think that RLV11
support (for example) should be a lower priority, I think it's far
from pointless.  There's tremendous hack value in supporting all the
older hardware...it's educational, and it's good for people who don't
have good hardware sources.

  For example, I can remember when the RLV11 started to become a
pain...I couldn't afford two slots, so I wanted an RLV12.  They were
very expensive at the time, and I had no bucks, as I was in my early
high-school years.  I was stuck with the RLV11.  Nowadays, the RLV12
isn't so expensive, but they're getting hard to find for many people.
If some hobbyist comes across an RLV11 by chance, I guarantee they'll
appreciate our supporting it with NetBSD.

  Note that my point isn't about RLV controllers in particular...I'm
talking about *all* the older hardware.

  Again, I think it should be a low priority, but I feel it would be
of value.


                      -Dave McGuire
                       mcguire@neurotica.com