From owner-freebsd-alpha Wed Jan 7 13:09:01 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id NAA10435 for alpha-outgoing; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:09:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from roguetrader.com (cold.org [206.81.134.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA10416 for ; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 13:08:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from brandon@roguetrader.com) Received: from localhost (brandon@localhost) by roguetrader.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id OAA28731; Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:08:22 -0700 (MST) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:08:21 -0700 (MST) From: Brandon Gillespie To: John Birrell cc: "Jordan K. Hubbard" , jim.king@mail.sstar.com, freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Alpha port.. In-Reply-To: <199801062023.HAA09855@freebsd1.cimlogic.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Wed, 7 Jan 1998, John Birrell wrote: > Sorry, but I *still* don't see what this achieves other than further > fragmenting an already low user-base. Actually, doing the Alpha port seems to me like a great idea--simply because it forces FreeBSD to be 64bit clean. i386 is not going to be 32bit forever--infact isn't it going to 64bit with the Merced chip? Actually, isn't the Merced chip largely composed of alpha technology? Hmm, I have too many rumors bouncing around in my head and no substantiated facts... sorry. The rumor about its use of alpha technologies aside--I am about 99% sure that it is supposed to be true 64bit--so making FreeBSD 64bit clean simply is a good idea, regardless of what platform it ends up for. -Brandon