Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 20:29:50 +0100 From: Bernd Walter <ticso@cicely8.cicely.de> To: Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.xs4all.nl> Cc: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, Ruslan Ermilov <ru@FreeBSD.ORG>, current@FreeBSD.ORG, alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Latest binutils import breaks Alpha cross compiles Message-ID: <20020130192950.GK2932@cicely8.cicely.de> In-Reply-To: <20020130193229.A43663@freebie.xs4all.nl> References: <3C576050.560CB337@mindspring.com> <20020130162039.D14D63A9A@overcee.wemm.org> <20020130091313.C69440@dragon.nuxi.com> <20020130193229.A43663@freebie.xs4all.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 07:32:29PM +0100, Wilko Bulte wrote: > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 09:13:13AM -0800, David O'Brien wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2002 at 08:20:39AM -0800, Peter Wemm wrote: > > > That's easy to say when signing up somebody else to do the work. > > > > > > Seriously though, in spite of pretending otherwise, i386 *is* our reference > > > platform, and the "other" platforms require people with the hardware and > > > interest to keep it "alive". > > ... Not to forget knowledge and time. > > > If there isn't enough critical mass to keep it going, then it is dead > > > by definition. > > > > This is my current feeling -- that Alpha 5-CURRENT no long has any > > critical mass. Thus it isn't worth the time or trouble. I'm would not call it dead only because it's always behind development. The latest alpha-current I'm running is nearly a month old - just because I always want to see a stable i386 before which I havn't seen for the last weeks. Sorry - I can't spend my time on alpha *and* machine independ bugs. > > My interests have moved over to sparc64 and x86-64 where I believe there Many alpha bugs and problems are there because of LP64 not because of alpha - other LP64 platforms will put LP64 into a much stronger position and help alpha a lot. I was always interested in FreeBSD-alpha because of having more than 4G memory and more than 4G address space - mostly the later. None is working - Memory is limited to 2G and increasing MAXDSIZ to big values is simply broken. Not ashtonishing that there is no big interest for anyoone to use FreeBSD-alpha in production - you can have these limits cheaper and without the bug troubles using Intel hardware. I always been sorrowed to run an FreeBSD-alpha as a cvsup server. > For x86-64 I see the point, sparc64 is not something I would want to spend > any time on (no disrespect to the sparc64 folks, I just don't think sparc > will have any great momentum). > > > will be a much larger following. It is shame after I've spent several > > thousand $$ on Alpha hardware over the past three years. That's what makes me still beleave in FreeBSD-alpha. Alpha is the cheapest 64 bit platform available. Think a moment on what you have paid for your sun labeled symbios. > And Alpha hardware is so much nicer than the x86 crap out there :( The same goes for sparc64 compared to x86. And sparc64 has a better future from the hardware perspective. I can understand why people are looking forward to sparc64. -- B.Walter COSMO-Project http://www.cosmo-project.de ticso@cicely.de Usergroup info@cosmo-project.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020130192950.GK2932>