From owner-freebsd-alpha Fri Jan 8 10:54:54 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id KAA07279 for freebsd-alpha-outgoing; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:54:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from zephyr.cybercom.net (zephyr.cybercom.net [209.21.146.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id KAA07272 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 10:54:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from rhuff@cybercom.net) Received: from shell1.cybercom.net (rhuff@shell1.cybercom.net [209.21.136.6]) by zephyr.cybercom.net (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00160 for ; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:54:21 -0500 (EST) Received: (from rhuff@localhost) by shell1.cybercom.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA01951; Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:54:20 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1999 13:54:20 -0500 (EST) From: Robert Huff Message-Id: <199901081854.NAA01951@shell1.cybercom.net> To: freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: horrible hack / SRM console In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: VM 6.34 under 20.3 "Vatican City" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Matthew Jacob writes: > This is a perennial problem. At some point *BSD is going to have > to consider how to work under ARC or AlphaBIOS. Last I heard this had been considered and rejected, based on: 1) the lack of difficulty in obtaining a SRM-using board, or installing it afterward. 2) ARC, while technically usable, is clearly The Wrong Choice. Robert Huff To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-alpha" in the body of the message