From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 10 18:32:11 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68D0416A4CE for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:32:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from srv1.cosmo-project.de (srv1.cosmo-project.de [213.83.6.106]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E41F943D29 for ; Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:32:08 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely5.cicely.de (cicely5.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301:200:92ff:fe9b:20e7]) (authenticated bits=0) hBB2Vdvq074235 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:31:57 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (cicely12.cicely.de [IPv6:3ffe:400:8d0:301::12]) by cicely5.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBB2VWWK083762 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:31:33 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: from cicely12.cicely.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id hBB2VW2u075353; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:31:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso@cicely12.cicely.de) Received: (from ticso@localhost) by cicely12.cicely.de (8.12.10/8.12.10/Submit) id hBB2VWsb075352; Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:31:32 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from ticso) Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:31:32 +0100 From: Bernd Walter To: eqe@cox.net Message-ID: <20031211023131.GV42518@cicely12.cicely.de> References: <200312092243.02269.eqe@cox.net> <200312100454.13107.eqe@cox.net> <20031210134703.GE42518@cicely12.cicely.de> <200312102053.55710.eqe@cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200312102053.55710.eqe@cox.net> X-Operating-System: FreeBSD cicely12.cicely.de 5.1-CURRENT alpha User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org cc: ticso@cicely.de Subject: Re: why support alpha?? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: ticso@cicely.de List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 02:32:11 -0000 On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 08:53:55PM -0500, eqe@cox.net wrote: > On Wednesday 10 December 2003 08:47, you wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2003 at 04:54:13AM -0500, eqe@cox.net wrote: > > > On Wednesday 10 December 2003 00:44, you wrote: > > > > On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 10:43:02PM -0500, eqe@cox.net wrote: > > > > > > Yes, you have a point here but I never said alpha hackers are working in > > > vain. I merely tryed to imply that their efforts could better serve the > > > freebsd community by concentrating our efforts on just platforms that are > > > more mainstream in the server market. I personally would stop dev. on > > > anything > > > > If you want mainstream go Windows. > you must be joking, but if not you have missed the point, read again. It's exactly what you said about architecture about OS in exactly the same hard words - just that you don't understand the architecture part. In the same way you don't want a mainstream OS I don't want a mainstream architecture. alpha is the only 64 bit platform supported by FreeBSD-stable right now - so it's the only supported 64 bit platform with production quality. If your application requires 64 bit then you have to take the risk of -current or buy an alpha - but applications that realy require 64 bit are almost always incompatible with risks. Hardware is bought with the intend to use it for several years - more time than 4.x will give. You can call alpha dead as long as you like, but I can tell you for shure that almost all alpha hardware that is build today will life much longer than most x86 hardware build today. Why think about optimzing for a current x86 CPU when you already know that you can't buy them next month? You also shouldn't forget that most of must development is in fact development about 64bitness, strong alignemnt and so on. Everything of them is required for other 64bit platforms as well. You don't want to be limited by 32bit x86 systems for ages right? For the same reasons I'm very happy about recent sparc64 progress because it has put a lot more developers on the 64bit table. -- B.Walter BWCT http://www.bwct.de ticso@bwct.de info@bwct.de