Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!bbn.com!fkittred From: fkittred@bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge) Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix Subject: Re: Rumours about "new" U*IX ? (mild flames) Message-ID: <62062@bbn.BBN.COM> Date: 13 Jan 91 13:32:09 GMT References: <7177.278f2835@abo.fi> <7179@tekgen.BV.TEK.COM> <1991Jan12.174914.26621@crl.dec.com> <1991Jan13.070816.24882@ircam.fr> Sender: news@bbn.com Reply-To: fkittred@spca.bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge) Organization: Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc., Cambridge MA Lines: 63 In article <1991Jan13.070816.24882@ircam.fr> fingerhu@ircam.fr (Michel Fingerhut) writes: >Jim Gettys writes: >>Folks are certainly working on it (hard). > >Some questions arise... I have no relationship with DEC, but even I know the answers to some of these questions. >1. Will it work on *all* of DEC's platforms, i.e., the famous 58x0 as well > as DECstations 3100, for instance? We have both, and it would be unthinka- > ble to upgrade one type of machine without the other and have users lost > with yet another brand of U*ix. > >2. If it does, does this mean it's a multiprocessor U*ix? One that works ade- > quately with the 58x0? If you don't know that OSF/1 is based on Mach and Mach has become the operating system of choice for MIDI multiprocessors such as DEC's 58x0 series, then you don't deserve one of these computers and should have your wizard licence removed(;-). Since current versions of Mach are much more highly parallelized than Unix, OSF/1 will work much better on 58x0s than current the DEC offering (which is not saying much from what I hear). >3. If so, what about the other rumors about SCO UNIX? What rumors? I read several places the announcement that DEC is selling SCO Unix on their 386 boxes. Doesn't seem like a rumor to me. >4. What about the *reliability* of OSF/1 tools? *If* I am not mistaken, their > compiler is derived from gcc, which has known problems with DEC/MIPS archi- > tecture, and provides less debugging options than cc (which has some > problems too). (Is this why Jim Gettys says "We certainly ran large piles > of exiting executable we have here "... ) > ^^^^^^^ Well, you are mistaken. If you had been following gcc on the MIPS systems at all, you would have noticed over the last year a stream of high quality patches for gcc for DEC RISC systems emerging out of Michael Meissner at OSF. In fact, the DECStation is one of the OSF's reference ports for OSF/1. As for less debugging options, I don't believe you. There are many more error checking and debugging options for gcc than for MIPS cc. However, I am open to persuasion, could you list the debugging options available with MIPS cc and not with the gcc OSF ships? In addition, DEC will probably offer both compilers on their Ultrix-OSF/1 merge. >5. Will this software be supported by DEC? Give me a break. >'d much like to understand DEC's strategy -- after all we (the end users) >have to plan ahead too... Strategy, what strategy? Fletcher Kittredge Platforms and Tools Group, BBN Software Products 10 Fawcett Street, Cambridge, MA. 02138 617-873-3465 / fkittred@bbn.com / fkittred@das.harvard.edu