Subject: Re: Problems with current (1.6X) on vax?
To: Johnny Billquist <>
From: John Klos <>
List: port-vax
Date: 09/03/2003 14:55:03

> > I am not proposing it be eol'd.  But, there are beginning to
> > be some limitations popping up, e.g., ram size, gcc hogishness,
> > and that kind of thing.  If those don't turn out to be problems,
> > then VAX forever!.....(:+}}....

> Ram size is hardly a problem in the forseeable future. Admittedly, there
> are *some* VAXen that suffer from ram-shortage, but there are some VAXen
> with plenty of ram.

The tenacity (and patience) of the true VAX hackers is not to be
underestimated. Even if it takes a month to compile the OS, I have a
feeling there will be people out there doing it.

> gcc hogishness is a more serious problem in that case. It really should be
> addressed, but somehow I doubt it will happen.

We'll probably have a "normal" gcc on larger machines and a trimmed down
one on smaller machines. There's no reason why, after moving to NetBSD 2.0
and gcc 3.3, people might not want to choose to continue to use gcc

VAX is a testament to the portability of NetBSD, and I think it will be
around for a very long time to come.

> > The year 2032 was a joke thingy.....(:+}}...
> That's not the end of VAX, just the end of Unix. :-)
> (Or was it 2036? I never can seem to remember, and I don't feel like doing
> the math again.)

Oh, someone will make it unsigned (there never was much of a use for
negative time) if not made 64 bit. Unsigned will give us another 68 years;
64 bits will give us a calendar which could include the beginning and the
end of the universe (292 billion years in each direction).

John Klos
Sixgirls Computing Labs