Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:10:41 -0500 From: "Lyndon Griffin" <lgriffin@naviant.com> To: "Christoph Haas" <ch@adimus.de>, "Alfred Perlstein" <bright@hotjobs.com> Cc: "Paolo Di Francesco" <paipai@tin.it>, <freebsd-sparc@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Sparc board, and clones Message-ID: <001101be1305$9b416130$71e2f4cd@tchaikovsky.naviant.com> In-Reply-To: <sa690h9ns4v.fsf@adimus.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alfred Perlstein <bright@hotjobs.com> writes: > This is to all those on the list, what i tried to strike up is for an > ultra-sparc port, i won't be working on any other models. But what about all those users that have some sort of "old" hardware at home (like SparcStations 10, 20, 5, 4 and so on) ? It's nice to support only the latest hardware, but here I think this way would be wrong. We should support both the "old" hardware baesd on sun4, sun4m, sun4d and the Ultra-based machines. ------------------- I want to expand... My input on developing only an UltraSPARC port is this: first off, the knowledge floating around about the Ultras is, in my experience, a lot less quantitative than information you can find about most "plain-old-SPARC" chips. Take into account that there is a lot of work that has already been done on sun4* architecture, in terms of other OS's, that is either GPL or open source - providing this project with a broad base of knowledge to borrow and build on. Finish off with I don't have an Ultra that I can use for development yet, so my contribution to a project that is only UltraSPARC is going to be nil. I don't think it is wrong to include Ultras in the port, but I believe it is stupidity to disclude earlier SPARCs. Disagreements welcome. <:) L To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-sparc" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001101be1305$9b416130$71e2f4cd>