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.