<What they should have done is created an abstract hardware interface,
<where it would be easy to interface with everything.  Just a generic
<interface.  Only speeds, I/O bandwidth and performance would differ.

What do you think MSCP and TMSCP are?

<What would be nice would be to create a generic hardware interface for
<some new architecture, say 512 bits wide, in 32bit blocks or so.  In the
<first generation of the architecture, you only use either the first 32 or
<64 bits.  Later on, you can expand.  Also, you might be able to say, make

This was and is not done for a reason, it's expensive.

<sort of like the Emulex qbus scsi host adapter.  It emulates MSCP.  Oh
<well, I think my fantasy architecture would be nice, but nobody in there
<right mind would make it. It is just too good of an idea to actually be
<put in use.  It would be truly plug and play.  Cards plugged into the bus

Gee, VAXen sorta work that way.  VMS does this.  The problem is NetBSD
is not 20 years old so all of the development that happend over time 
now has to be done for the first time.  Such is life when you construct a 
new OS from the ground up.

<would send some sort of identifier stating their type.  Based on slot
<number, they would get priority (disks 0-7 for scsi controller in slot 1,
<disks 8-11 for ide controller in slot 4, etc).  Blech!  I'm falling in
<love with that thing, and it isn't even real.  :-)

Read up on Unibus, Qbus and BI and see how many of your ideas are really 
old and already there.  Still the core work to build around stuff like that 
has to be done.

If you were porting the up and comming netwondows to a PCs or sun(s), HP, 
and long list to follow you end up with the same complaint for each and 
every.  such is the difficulty of forward looking in a legacy world.

Allison