Xref: utzoo comp.arch:22429 comp.unix.ultrix:7098
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!hsdndev!rutgers!modus!gear!cadlab!martelli
From: martelli@cadlab.sublink.ORG (Alex Martelli)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: ACE, buses, and the future of ultrix
Message-ID: <816@cadlab.sublink.ORG>
Date: 5 May 91 01:02:00 GMT
References: <1991Apr30.191117.4373@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> <32459@usc> <281f3e99.2f35@petunia.CalPoly.EDU> <1991May2.224316.17903@ico.isc.com>
Organization: CAD.LAB, Bologna, Italia
Lines: 20

rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) writes (in comp.arch, re ACE):
	...
:for OS software that has yet to be written, why did they need to pick two
:directions (times two hardware directions gives four?) instead of one?  I
:may be missing something important, but this aspect of ACE sure looks like
:one of those "it's a dessert topping; it's a floor polish" skits.

Don't forget they'll support BOTH Dec Turbochannel AND EISA... so, times 
two again... the bus variation may be the most important of the three, for
3rd party addon-board manufacturers, and for purchasers of vast numbers of
machines, who can't really buy machines with different buses if they want
to be able to minimize spare parts inventory for the addon cards.

I share your perplexity; and I shake my head at the rumor that Dec is going
to hand over Ultrix-cum-OSF/1, lock, stock, and barrel, to SCO, to become
the base of the ACEy ODT, which Dec will in turn adopt, dropping Ultrix...
I hope this last rumor is wildly unfounded???  We're evaluating a centralized
NFS server, and DS5500 was looking pretty good, but I would be VERY hesitant
to place in such a crucial hub role in our LAN a box from a company who has
just decided its system software is better manufactured by somebody else!