Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 19:08:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Ross Harvey <ross@teraflop.com> To: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, grog@lemis.com, peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: StrongARM and history Message-ID: <199805210208.TAA01396@random.teraflop.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>>>>>>> do we have a strong-arm version of FreeBSD coming up? :-) >>>>>> I suspect you'll find a NetBSD version. (There was a talk at AUUG'97 >>>>>> on DEC's NC `DNARD', based on a SA-110. >>>>> >>>>> Sigh. >>>>> >>>>> Word has it that DEC sold out to Microsoft and scrapped the project. >>>> >>>> Yes, NetBSD supports the arm32 and the DNARD (there are at least a thousand >>>> around here and there) in particular. >>>> >>>> I heard that rumor too, that M$ said: "So, if you want Windoze NoThanks to >>>> keep running on the alpha, cancel that NC project". >>>> >>>> But, I don't totally believe it. They may have even said it, but I bet >>>> Compaq would have pulled the plug anyway: I mean, the whole point of the >>>> NC is to make an alternative to the corporate PC avalanche...why would >>>> Compaq fund such a thing now that they have the keys? Of course, the >>>> cancellation did seem a little early to be a Compaq move. Who knows? >>> >>> Your prejudice against Compaq seems ill-founded. They didn't buy up >>> Tandem and DEC just to kill their operations. I do a lot of work for >>> Tandem, and I'm very impressed about how Compaq have focussed the UNIX >>> operation and got it moving ahead. To turn the question around, why >>> would Compaq not fund such a thing now that they have the keys? >> >> I didn't mean this pejoratively with respect to compaq. But the >> obvious answer to your question "why would Compaq not...?" is: >> because the NC's raison d'etre was to undercut PC sales; it was >> developed _entirely_ to provide an alternative to buying high-end >> megacorp PC's. And it was being...given...away. > >I didn't know they were giving it away. > >Compaq seem pretty smart people, and all evidence to the contrary, I >think that they are not overly interested in being in bed with >Microsoft. They build hardware. The NC is hardware. Why shouldn't >they be interested? They don't have to be the ones who give it away. Your statements are correct, as far as they go. But I think what you are missing is: [1] the NC is _cheap_ hardware, the high-end PC's are (or were, at the time the NC project began) a lot more expensive. And [2], note what "DNARD" stands for: "Digital Network Appliance Reference Design". "Reference Design" as in: given away, with schematics, dimensions, free cool NetBSD software (with some FreeBSD stuff, too), and active solicitation for _anyone_ to make them. Even if it was exactly a PC there are obvious reasons why Compaq _might_ have prefered not to be doing that. I'm not sure how big a discussion this is worth, though, since [1] I'm just speculating, and [2] we are kind of beating this compaq vs NC point to death. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199805210208.TAA01396>