> > The *BSD reliance on the SRM seems to basically limit the Alpha
> > purchase choices to Compaq.  I.e., not Samsung/AlphaProcessor.
> 
> This is currently correct.  It is, however, erroneous to think that 
> either a) we're not aware of this, or b) we're somehow indifferent or 
> inactive on the subject.  I know for a fact that the folks on the FreeBSD 
> side of the fence have been pursuing every avenue we've come across, and 
> I hardly expect the NetBSD people have been any less active.  There are 
> simply some very substantial obstacles currently in the way of a 
> breakthrough.

The SRM vs. AlphaBios/ARC issues are a phantom. *BSD has a long way to go
to fully support the SRM capapble machines before worrying about platforms
which don't have SRM. This is a sideshow. I would have said it was more
critical if Tru64 died, but much to &my& surprise it was NT-Alpha that
walked the plank, not DUh (now Tru64). Given that Tru64 is very
successfully selling on the leading new Dompaq platforms (and depends on
SRM), I rather doubt *BSD will get all that left behind because we've not
gotten ARC/AlphaBios yet.

If somebody wants to continue doing ARC/AlphaBios- that'd be great, but
even better for *BSD (all of *BSD) would be making sure that Tru64
binaries like Oracle and so on can be successfully run- and that support
for AdvFS gets into *BSD happens. Those two items would generate
considerably more interest in *BSD on Alphas than ARC/AlphaBios support.

-matt

p.s.: note that I very carefully am saying *BSD here- all of the *BSD
systems would benefit in coordinating on this.