Re: netbsd on vax 11/730; booting in sim

[Johnny Billquist <bqt%softjar.se@localhost>]

Jochen Kunz wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:37:36 -0500 (EST)
> der Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost> wrote:
>
> > So, check my understanding: what you're saying is that, in your
> > opinion, NetBSD should no longer bother with supporting legacy
> > hardware like vax - or, presumably, hp300 or mac68k or anything else
> > not capable of running whatever you consider essential to being a
> > non-"dinosaur". Correct?
> No. I consider a CDC-6600 or a PDP-10 or 4.2BSD a dinosaur.
> VAXen and m68k machines are already mammals. ;-)

Since 4.2 ran on VAXen, how do you get that? :-)

> I say: If you run current operating systems on old hardware, you have
> accept that it doesn't run that fast as a 10 year old version of that
> operating system. 

And I can't really see a compelling reason for why it should be so. But 
that's just me, I guess.
Why should newer always equal slower?

> And given all those VAXen around me I certainly don't want to cut
> support for VAXen in NetBSD.
>
> Also: We VAXherds are not the only users of NetBSD. There are other
> users with other priorities, other interrests and faster machines like
> Alpha, UltraSPARC and even PeeCees. Refusing to import "bloat" that
> those people want, _need_, only because it slows down our old VAXen, is
> a bit unfair.

True, in a way. But I think it's wrong to make the division between 
owners/users of modern hardware vs. old hardware. It's rather a division 
between people who want one set of features and functionality vs. 
another set of features and functionality.

There are problably those using VAXen (as well as new hardware) who 
would want all that Linux and Windows have.

And then there are those who would not. Who perhaps would prefer a 
system that still used ASCII, or possibly Latin-1. Who don't want PAM, 
LDAP, and any number of features that they consider are just a burden 
which is unwanted and unneeded. Unfortunately, there are less and less 
choices for that group of people to select from.
Every current OS is trying to mimic everyone else. The thing is, if 
that's what you want, there are already a number of existing choices for 
you to pick among.

> Also #2: DEC pulled the plug of the VAX architecture 15 years ago and
> replaced the VAX with Alpha. DEC did this because it was clear that the
> VAX couldn't compete with the rest of the industry. It was slow even
> bak in the late 80ies. (Compare a VAXstation 3100 againt a DECstation
> 3100 or a SPARCstation 1...)

Well, 15 years ago is a bit exaggerated. The last orders for VAXen were 
accepted in 2000. That's a bit over 8 years ago now. And it was COMPAQ, 
and not DEC by that time.

And as far a speed comparisions, that's difficult. The speed range of 
the VAXstation 3100 series is very wide. The 3100/76 is pretty ok.
And that one is contemporary with the SPARCstation 1, I believe.

        Johnny