From owner-freebsd-chat Wed May 20 20:46:58 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id UAA06893 for freebsd-chat-outgoing; Wed, 20 May 1998 20:46:58 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from softweyr.com ([204.68.178.33]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id UAA06824 for ; Wed, 20 May 1998 20:46:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Received: from softweyr.com (localhost.softweyr.com [127.0.0.1]) by softweyr.com (8.8.8/8.8.7) with ESMTP id VAA01128; Wed, 20 May 1998 21:44:09 -0600 (MDT) (envelope-from wes@softweyr.com) Message-ID: <3563A305.54564AC4@softweyr.com> Date: Wed, 20 May 1998 21:44:05 -0600 From: Wes Peters Organization: Softweyr llc X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.04 [en] (X11; I; FreeBSD 2.2.6-RELEASE i386) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ross Harvey CC: avalon@coombs.anu.edu.au, grog@lemis.com, peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: StrongARM and history References: <199805210208.TAA01396@random.teraflop.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Ross Harvey and Greg Lemis argued back and forth: > >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. And you both missed the important point: Compaq didn't get the part of DEC that makes microprocessors in the great DEC sell-off, Intel did. The DNARD was a typical effort by microprocessor vendors; look at examples from Fujitsu (SPARClite), Hitachi (SH series), Sun Microelectronics (embedded SPARC), etc. Compaq is probably not interested in DNARD because *they don't own it.* And give Compaq some credit. They've made a lot of weird machines over the years, but they pretty much lead the charge into the low- cost PC market with several of their Presario models. If there is money to be made in NCs, NPCs, or any other "thin" computers, they will probably be there, too. This is a market that is still in its infancy, and will probably be a well-entrenched technology 5 years from now. Right now, it's bleeding edge, from the standpoint of the hardware, the software, and the 'what to do with it.' -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.softweyr.com/~softweyr wes@softweyr.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message