Subject: Re: David Miller is on the list

From: Mike McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 12:51:24 -0700

A dumb question, what exactly is the purpose of porting Linux to
SGI/Mips boxes? At one time, it was proposed as a way that all of the
people how just got dropped from support to maintain there machine's
usefull life. Now, people are talking about embedding linux in
printers and Nintendo boxes! Or as an alternative to Irix on our
current machines. Personally, I think the port should concentrate on
R3K boxes with/without graphics. (It'd be nice if we could release the
info so that X11R6 could be built on the old boxes.) The port should
be a 32 bit port. (Does gcc even support 64 bit MIPS 27 ISA?) It also
be nice if the R3K port would also work on the R4K machines that are
fading away, ie. Indy's, Indigo2's.

  Mike McDonald
  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (William J. Earl)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:20:50 -0700

> fading away, ie. Indy's, Indigo2's.

     Different people have different motivations, and you have heard
some of them.  My main interest is in two parts.  First, on
current-production low-end workstations, I would like to compare linux
performance to IRIX performance.  If linux is much better on most
measures, in ways which matter to end users, then we would need to
consider it as a choice for low-end systems.  If it is better only in
some dimensions, then we can use it as an existence proof that there
are ways to improve IRIX in those dimensions.  It is hard to compare
software running on different hardware, but software running on
identical hardware is directly comparable.

     Second, I believe that UNIX-based systems are gratuitously incompatible,
compared to NT, and that this is an impediment to competing against NT in
low-end servers and workstations.  Since most efforts to standardize 
interfaces and administration for UNIX systems have been very slow and
incomplete, due to conflicting interests of the vendors involved, I would
like to try using linux as a vehicle for creating a de facto standard.
Where appropriate, we should give away some enabling technology, such
as Web-based administration scripts.  We really compete on application
performance.  Trying compete in areas such as administrative commands,
which are peripheral to the user's main interests, is, on balance, almost 
certainly counterproductive.  This will be even more the case as we begin
selling into larger installations (with a large number of units, not the
odd one or two systems we often sell at present).

     linux for older boxes is a fine thing, and not unduly difficult
to do, at least on the workstations, but there are a lot more
R4000-and-better boxes out there now.  As for embedded systems, there
are actually pretty decent real time systems, some with POSIX
compliance, which support MIPS processors.  I doubt that the success
of MIPS processors in embedded systems is much limited by software
availability.

---

From: [email-masked] (Ariel Faigon)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:26:53 -0700 (PDT)

Mike asked (not a dumb Q, BTW):
>SGI/Mips boxes?
Looks like there are many opinions. I don't care as long as we
manage to do this port. Whatever we port it to (and the wider the
port is) SGI is going to benefit tremendously. You may read
my Linux pages (http://info.engr/~ariel/linux) to understand why
my personal conviction (and others) is so strong.

Some of the nice things about Linux are:

	1) It can work from RAM (virtual disk),
	    So it follows that it is easily ROMable and
	    embeddable (much more so than IRIX)

	    I have developed embedded apps for several years in my past
	    and I can tell you that my life would have been infinitely
	    easier had I been able to develop in a Linux env.
	    Only the thought of having the same env on the host
	    and the target is revolutionary by itself (and possible!)

	2) It has a small footprint so naturally it is a good candidate
	   for embedded market.

	3) It has a common single source code for 32-bit and 64-bit
	   machines (Alpha). So we shouldn't think of this as an "either/or"
	   proposition.

P.S.
gcc doesn't have support for 64 bit MIPS 27 ISA, I guess, but
nobody is stopping us from using our compilers (as well as gcc
at our convenience).
-- 
Peace, Ariel

---

From: Mike McDonald <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:54:29 -0700

>From: ariel@yon (Ariel Faigon)
>Subject: What target (was David ...)
>To: linux@yon
>Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 13:26:53 -0700 (PDT)

>nobody is stopping us from using our compilers (as well as gcc

  I strongly believe that using our compilers would be a "bad" thing
for the initial port. Requiring someone to buy IDO inorder to compile
a free OS seems like the "wrong" thing to me. Now, if we (SGI) decide
to ship a Linux version, then yes, using our compilers is OK. Let's
just make sure that the port is dependant on our compilers in any way
at this point. (I doubt that's what you were suggesting. I just want
to make it clear before we get started.)

  Mike McDonald
  [email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Ariel Faigon)
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:27:36 -0700 (PDT)

>Mike dijo:
>>yo dijo:
Bob and I are working separately on making our compilers (actually only
the C one, not Ada :-) be bundled with Irix (and possibly licence enabled
for a nominal fee, which can be done automatically without human
intervention -- surprisingly this may increase revenues because
the cost of handling goes to zero and the potential upside due to
lowering barriers is large). I think we have a very good chance of
acheiving this as soon as our upcoming big software release.

Also, I agree, we should make sure that whatever we do is buildable
by gcc. And we should also be paying Cygnus to do a real supported
full port (including ld), but this is harder to achieve (need $$$
from management) at this point.  However, after we have Linux and it
takes off, everything related to free software would be possible :-)
-- 
Peace, Ariel

---

From: "Greg Chesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:39:31 -0700

I'm pleased that we are getting a Linux port started and that there
is an incredible degree of interest and enthusiasm. This is independent
of which hardware configurations will or should be supported.
I see good reasons for doing all of them.

I hope that the
self-selected "steering committee" will generate some consensus tomorrow
as to priorities.  If there is no consensus, then Larry McVoy and I will
make an "executive decision" based on available hardware resources
and a shortest-path approach to getting a first port.

greg

---

From: "Greg Chesson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 15:43:51 -0700

Right.

The objective with bringing David in has been to get something started....
a first port as an "enabling technology".  I believe that many good things
will happen as a result.

greg