Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:16118 comp.unix.advocacy:4397 comp.sys.sun.misc:17436 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:8144 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msunews!uwm.edu!biosci!parc!barrnet.net!syntex.com!usenet From: kdl@Syntex.com (Ken Latta) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit Subject: Re: What do people have against BSD (or Linux for that matter)? (was: Whither NeoSoft) Date: 7 Feb 1995 22:01:39 GMT Organization: Syntex (USA) Lines: 50 Message-ID: <3h8qk3$8bp@yoda.Syntex.Com> References: <id.HP3H1.8DI@nmti.com> Reply-To: kdl@Syntex.com NNTP-Posting-Host: pkdla5.syntex.com In article <id.HP3H1.8DI@nmti.com>, peter@nmti.com (Peter da Silva) writes: >In article <791834817snz@apis.demon.co.uk>, >Gordon L. Scott <Gordon@apis.demon.co.uk> wrote: >> That would certainly make the test more convincing, however a >> large part of the thread is comparing BSD/Linux/ etc. > >I'm not interested in comparing BSD or Linux from a performance standpoint >here, or BSD versus Solaris. I'm just supporting the claim that the Intel >based boxes can at the very least stand up to the Sparcs from a performance >and reliability viewpoint. > >If you really need CPU power, DEC and HP and IBM and SGI will be happy to >sell you a *real* high performance workstation. Sun is pretty much the PC >of the workstation market. They have done a reasonably good job in maintaining >backwards compatibility and they have an excellent application base, but in >terms of the hardware itself it's unexceptional. > >If I were to bet on the long term, though, I'd bet on DEC keeping things >compatible over Sun. Sun's switched CPU once, and more recently switched the >operating system base, but you can still buy a PDP-11 if you want to. The >only case I'm aware of where DEC has abandoned a viable platform is the >DECsystem line. During my 23 years at DEC I watched them force migrations on their installed base at about the same rate as every other vendor. RSX-11 went thru several permutations and VMS has changed enough at least a couple of times to cause binary incompatibility. Now they are pushing as hard as they can to migrate VMS customers to Alpha platforms. They all but forced users to give up their 9000's. Arguably, the PDP-15 was abandoned a little prematurely. The PDP-11 is still available because many of DEC's best customers are trapped in that architecture for special applications and cannot find an alternative that would not require total redesign. I imagine DEC would love to drop the 11 line. You castigate Sun for abandoning Berkeley, but where is Ultrix for Alpha? All vendors are subject to pretty much the same market forces and play the game pretty much the same way. As Lord Keynes is said to have remarked, "in the long term, you're dead" and that fairly well sums up the future of any platform. Neither SPARC nor Alpha are guaranteed a bright future. The platform that has remained most compatible for the longest period is the Intel PC, at least as expressed by the noname clone vendors, who cannot afford to implement unique features. This seems to show that an architecture can enjoy lengthy success without benefit of a hyperactive clock or a New Model of the Month Club. -- ------- Ken Latta ken.latta@syntex.com I am a contractor and have absolutely no authority whatsoever to speak for Syntex or anyone including possibly myself.