From owner-freebsd-alpha Sat Dec 4 16: 4:45 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from mailhost.whirlpool.com (mailhost.whirlpool.com [158.52.254.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DBF4B1529A for ; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 16:04:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from gillhaa@ghost.whirlpool.com) Received: (qmail 29664 invoked from network); 5 Dec 1999 00:03:59 -0000 Received: from ghost.whirlpool.com (158.52.19.3) by mailhost.whirlpool.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 1999 00:03:59 -0000 Received: (from gillhaa@localhost) by ghost.whirlpool.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id TAA23976; Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:03:59 -0500 (EST) From: Andrew Gillham Message-Id: <199912050003.TAA23976@ghost.whirlpool.com> Subject: Re: Q: Compaq, *BSD and 'Linux-only' AlphaBIOS (fwd) In-Reply-To: <19991204184618.A11619@rek.tjls.com> from Thor Lancelot Simon at "Dec 4, 99 06:46:18 pm" To: tls@rek.tjls.com Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 19:03:59 -0500 (EST) Cc: port-alpha@netbsd.org, alpha@freebsd.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL32 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Thor Lancelot Simon writes: > > I can't *believe* I'm having to say this again, for the Nth time in as many > months: > > The PALcode included in MILO has severe bugs. You can't use > it to run BSD, or OSF/1 for that matter. It's remarkable that > you can use it to run Linux, and sundry reports of Linux > instability when run with MILO make me suspect that, in fact, > you can't. In essence what you're saying is that no Alpha OS is capable of actually talking to the bare hardware? e.g. PALcode is still required after the kernel is loaded? e.g. Windows NT has PALcode embedded in it somehow? This sounds familiar, but I'm still confused about it. Why can't the PALcode be reverse engineered, or otherwise re-written? [snip] > Gee, it'd be nice if anyone would _remember_ this explanation for more > than a month this time. Maybe the explanation is missing some details. I have typically thought of the "SRM is required for NetBSD/alpha" along the lines of "OpenFirmware is required for NetBSD/macppc." (e.g. to boot and get started) The impression I have now is more like "SRM is required for NetBSD/alpha" along the lines of "BIOS is required for Windows." (e.g. calling the BIOS all the time for services) I said it was a stupid question. -Andrew -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Gillham | This space left blank gillham@whirlpool.com | inadvertently. I speak for myself, not for my employer. | Contact the publisher. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message