Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001 15:37:51 -0700 (PDT) From: Matthew Jacob <mjacob@feral.com> To: <jamesn@airmail.net> Cc: <freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Compaq's alpha unit being sold (off-topic) Message-ID: <20010625153152.G3157-100000@wonky.feral.com> In-Reply-To: <200106252230.f5PMTx788105@jamesnt.iadfw.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > I'm just noting that with the death of any serious corporate backing for > > servers for Alpha, the only thing left that could be taken seriously as a > > I think this may be the fatal flaw in your argument, that is assuming > there's been serious corporate backing for the Alpha at any point > in the last 5 years. Let's face it, DEC was closer to death than Oh, I know it wasn't really *seriously* backed. But there was enough continuing customer interest in it (~1 billion in sales for Wildfire is, in fact, interest) so that that it couldn't be written off as a total loss. ... > > server alternative to Intel is the UltraSparc platforms, and that's unlikely > > Tell that to IBM and Apple. I think you'll see both companies be > a bit more forceful with their positioning in the large server > market. Which is a good thing, as I'd be more than happy to buy > a large Apple PPC based servers when I can't buy Alphas anymore. Hmm! Where do I buy this big honking Apple PPC servers (I mean, the ones that aren't just repackaged/rebranded IBM 430P workstations)? Like, where are the nuclear wessels! :-) > > > to be a win for Open Source here either as there's less support in Sun than > > there was inside DEQ for Open Source. Oh well. > > So, you're arguing that Open Source works better when there's more > platforms to port your OS to? I'm not sure I agree. Just on the > surface, I'd say that's it's somewhat easier since you know who > your friends are, and what they are trying to hide. Yes. I am saying precisely this. With no enabling market, it's hard to keep the major player honest. > You are also assuming that Intel is like Microsoft. In several > ways they are (take a very close look at this agreement) but they > really aren't that interested in controlling what software you run. ROTFL. Totally. I really think that Intel would love to get out of the low margin silicon foundry business. The most certainly would like to see you run any kind of software that would increase chip sales. But more importantly they see their future as being a vertically integrated company, and that means that they certainly *will* care who they do deals with and spend any time at all helping. > Further, Intel realized a while ago that Microsoft isn't the only > game in town and really has almost no standing in the large > server market. Linux is the BSDs are far more important in this > segment and Intel knows this. Bah. IBM will take over Linux development by the end of next year. > > > [1] Though it generally is, but only because Dec never could get > away with the kinds of crap that LETNi does. > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010625153152.G3157-100000>