Subject: linus.linux.sgi.com

From: Alex deVries <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:24:04 -0500 (EST)

I don't mean to seem like a bother, but what is the deal with
linus.linux.sgi.com? We really need that machine for development.  I think
it's been a week now.

If SGI isn't going to be able to support that service, that's fine.  Could
you let us know so we can make other arrangements?

-- 
Alex deVries, puffin on LinuxNet.
I know exactly what I want in life.

---

From: Eric Kimminau <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 13:28:07 -0500

> you let us know so we can make other arrangements?

Im probably poking my nose in where Im not needed but Im digging in to see if
I can find the problem. 

EAK.

-- 
---------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7
Eric Kimminau        [email-masked]      Field Technical Support
       SGI 39001 W. 12 Mile Rd.  Farmington, MI 48331-2903
      Vox:(248)848-4455  Fax:(248)848-5600  VNET:6-327-4455  

              "I speak my mind and no one else's."
 "I am a bomb technician. If you see me running, try to keep up..."
                    http://support.sgi.com

---

From: Richard Hartensveld <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 10:44:25 -0800

> you let us know so we can make other arrangements?

I've got a challenge S connected to the internet on a 34mbit connection,
running the (somewhat modificated) hardhat distribution.

I am more then willing to host the linux/SGI pages on this machine, and put
the machine up
for development if people are intrested.

I don't know if the www.linux.sgi.com machine is ever going to get back up,
but if it isn't,
this is maybe a solution?

Greetz,

Richard

---

From: [email-masked] (Ariel Faigon)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 11:09:53 -0800 (PST)

Hi,

Looks like I need to give a status update on linus.linux.sgi.com.

First, let me tell you all that I'm really taken aback by this
situation.  I've seen postings on slashdot.org suggesting that
SGI has taken this machine down because it is in bed with
Microsoft etc. etc. and all kinds of negative speculation and
nonsense.  I was even contacted by the press on this (could
you believe that :-)  Let me make it very clear:

	1) No one at SGI has taken this service down and
	   guess what: we are going to bring it back up again.

	2) The machine itself is not down. The problem is in the
	   routing to the machine and from what I last heard,
	   it seems to be a hardware problem.

	3) I talked to people who can help fixing this and they
	   want to help, the only problem they have is that they
	   have other "real-work" priorities which is why it is
	   talking so long to fix it.

	4) The timing when this thing decided to break (close to the
	   announcement of the SGI Visual Workstation) is purely
	   coincidental.

	5) As far as many of us SGI'ers are concerned, SGI support
	   to Open Source and the Linux community will only grow
	   with time.   See for example Jeremy Allison's cool
	   Samba 2.0 announcement yesterday:

		http://lwn.net/daily/samba2.0.html

	   As some of you know, SGI now is the main founder of
	   the Samba project putting real big money and serious
	   (Origin server) hardware donations to help it grow,
	   improve, and kick butt.

Mirroring linus.linux.sgi.com is a good idea and once it is
back up I encourage more volunteers to step up and do it.

Thanks for your patience and support!

--
Peace, Ariel

:
:Alex deVries wrote:
:
:> I don't mean to seem like a bother, but what is the deal with
:> linus.linux.sgi.com? We really need that machine for development.  I think
:> it's been a week now.
:>
:> If SGI isn't going to be able to support that service, that's fine.  Could
:> you let us know so we can make other arrangements?
:>
:
:I've got a challenge S connected to the internet on a 34mbit connection,
:running the (somewhat modificated) hardhat distribution.
:
:I am more then willing to host the linux/SGI pages on this machine, and put
:the machine up
:for development if people are intrested.
:
:I don't know if the www.linux.sgi.com machine is ever going to get back up,
:but if it isn't,
:this is maybe a solution?
:
:Greetz,
:
:Richard
:
:

-- 
Peace, Ariel

---

From: [email-masked] (Alan Cox)
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 21:29:57 +0000 (GMT)

> Microsoft etc. etc. and all kinds of negative speculation and

Umm.. thats slashdot for you Im afraid. Proof that the IQ of a group
of people is frequently the sum of the lowest 10% of the members

Alan

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:59:18 +0100

> 	   it seems to be a hardware problem.

The tracroute I just did looks like a) SGI's engineering pipe needs a
serious upgrade due to packet loss and b) there is a routing loop somewhere.
So if the router people can't fix it maybe moivng the machine to an address
which actually has a functional setup?

> 	   announcement of the SGI Visual Workstation) is purely

Seconded.  SGI (and actually the whole industry) is _W_A_Y_ more OSS
friendly than /. rumors say.

Quite frankly, having to answer several private emails aobut this topic I'm
still surprised how much policital damage a stupid messed up route can
cause.

  Ralf

---

From: "William J. Earl" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 14:06:20 -0800

> linus.linux.sgi.com? We really need that machine for development.  I think

      I apologize for SGI for the long delay.  I just clarified to the
support people that it is indeed a critical resource, and they say it
should be back within two hours.  Some failed hardware (not,
apparently, on that machine itself) is being replaced.  For the longer
term, I will work on assuring more stable service.

---

From: Miguel de Icaza <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 16:38:58 -0600

> 	     (Origin server) hardware donations to help it grow,

Wow.  Did the send one of those to the Samba team?

My god.  You impressed me.

Even if you did not send one, the Samba 2.0 announcement is extremely
interesting: Because there is no way other proprietary SMB file
serving protocol running on any sort of machine will be able to beat
the Origin-2000 serving files :-)

Miguel.

---

From: "David S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 19:21:36 -0800

From: [email-masked]
   Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:59:18 +0100

   Seconded.  SGI (and actually the whole industry) is _W_A_Y_ more
   OSS friendly than /. rumors say.

Although I am a supporter of SGI and I understand their friendlyness
to the community, I do have to state that the rumors and feelings are
unsurprising given that:

1) SGI has no UNIX story (yet) on their new hardware.
2) SGI has no binary compatability story on the new hardware for
   customers who have made an investment in their MIPS line.
   (Sun will be acquiring what SGI has (ability to execute x86
    binaries) in the very near future in their Sparc processors,
    without screwing their customers over the way SGI is at the
    moment... I can't say how they'll do it, but all I can say is
    that they are doing it the right way)

And todays announcement of how much of their MIPS investment stake
they are getting rid of, will only amplify how people feel about the
above.

So if SGI has some exciting news for us OSS people in the pipeline,
and they are just holding off for "the right time", I think this is a
miscalculated delay and will hurt them tremendously.  The sooner the
better, is anyone listening?

Later,
David S. Miller
[email-masked]

---

From: [email-masked] (Ariel Faigon)
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 02:40:52 -0800 (PST)

David,

I delayed a lot reponding to this email and I would have
much preferred to talk to you about all this over lunch
rather than starting a mostly off-topic flame war on this list.
But since you've made your concerns public I just have to clarify
some misunderstandings before this gets out of control.

Regarding Sun: Sun is clearly very worried about the recent
Visual Workstations from SGI.  Their web site speaks volumes
about how worried they are. In fact, for two years, I haven't
heard Sun so much preoccupied with SGI as I've seen it last
week.   The binary compatibility FUD is ironic considering
that they have broken binary compatibility as well as source
compatibility so many times in their history (m68k -> SPARC
SPARC - x86, SunOs -> Solaris) believe me I know since I've
been a Sun customer and an ISV.  Not to mention their 64-bit
story which has been "in the making" for about 4 years now since
we had it in IRIX (including full binary support of both
32-bit and 64-bit apps on the same machine).   Enough about
Sun, OK.   The Unix story of the new workstations will be out
soon.  All I would ask is a bit of patience :-).

The MIPS announcement seems to be widely misunderstood as well
As you know, SGI divested of the _embedded_ part of MIPS last
year.  It was an excellent decision considering the 15% of
the divested company (previously an internal, pretty "invisible"
SGI asset) now has a market cap or $1.2 billion (that's almost
_half_ of the SGI market cap!) while SGI is still holding 85%
of the MIPS shares (worth about 3 times SGI itself...)

The MIPS embedded market is very different than the computer
systems market and while SGI is still developing future MIPS
high-end processors (the R12K, and the R14K), the standalone
MIPS company is focusing on Windows-CE, consumer electronics,
set top boxes, and the Nintendos' Sony PlayStations of the world.
The decision to divest of the remaining 85% of MIPS is explained
in the proxy for those interested in the nitty gritty, but what it
means basically is that SGI can use the money for stuff that is
more aligned with its core businesses, while MIPS will be less
tied by alien interests, to better pursue its low-end markets.

Lastly, you express the opinion that holding off good announcements
for "the right time" is not a good idea, and here (surprise!)
I have to fully agree with you.  So to your question "is anyone
listening" - you betcha.  Just wait till I'm the CEO :-)

So, are we meeting for lunch this week ?

-- 
Peace, Ariel

:
:   From: [email-masked]
:   Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 22:59:18 +0100
:
:   Seconded.  SGI (and actually the whole industry) is _W_A_Y_ more
:   OSS friendly than /. rumors say.
:
:Although I am a supporter of SGI and I understand their friendlyness
:to the community, I do have to state that the rumors and feelings are
:unsurprising given that:
:
:1) SGI has no UNIX story (yet) on their new hardware.
:2) SGI has no binary compatability story on the new hardware for
:   customers who have made an investment in their MIPS line.
:   (Sun will be acquiring what SGI has (ability to execute x86
:    binaries) in the very near future in their Sparc processors,
:    without screwing their customers over the way SGI is at the
:    moment... I can't say how they'll do it, but all I can say is
:    that they are doing it the right way)
:
:And todays announcement of how much of their MIPS investment stake
:they are getting rid of, will only amplify how people feel about the
:above.
:
:So if SGI has some exciting news for us OSS people in the pipeline,
:and they are just holding off for "the right time", I think this is a
:miscalculated delay and will hurt them tremendously.  The sooner the
:better, is anyone listening?
:
:Later,
:David S. Miller
:[email-masked]
:

---

From: Miguel de Icaza <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 11:25:00 -0600

> The binary compatibility FUD is ironic considering
> been a Sun customer and an ISV.  

You forgot the breakage in the various Solaris 2.n->2.n+1

At least the 2.4->2.5 was painful for me

Miguel.

---

From: Eric Kimminau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:40:30 -0500

Im not an official spokes person by any stretch of anyones's imagination, but
the dream of IRIX binary compatability on an NT X86 architecture system is a
pipe dream. Sun gets away with it by running Solaris on X86. I seriously doubt
IRIX be ported to x86 any time in the near future, if ever.

Again, I'm not the guy who makes the decision. I don't work for the group that
makes the decision or has anything to do with helping make the decision.

As for "screwing their customers", ask Sun when they are going to support NT
on any of their systems. At least SGI is making it possible to start thinking
about doing UNIX environment kinds of tasks in the NT world rather than
snubbing their nose at the people who have made the business decision to
migrate to that environment.

As for "no UNIX story" on the 320 or 540 hardware, all I can say is that there
have been a lot of Linux rumors. Nothing substantiated.

HP uses Intel CPU's. Compaq now owns DEC. Who says SGI has to own the company
that makes the CPU's we put in our systems? 

For being an SGI supporter, this sure sounds like Sun FUD, IMHO.

EAK.

---

From: "David S. Miller" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 21:19:05 -0800

Date: Mon, 18 Jan 1999 23:40:30 -0500
   From: Eric Kimminau <[email-masked]>

   As for "screwing their customers", ask Sun when they are going to
   support NT on any of their systems.

Never, whats so wrong with that?  To quote their VP of desktops "One
more Linux user is one less NT user."  I think this makes their stance
on NT pretty obvious.  Also look at their position in the M$ trial.
They have things like WABI, which runs on Sparc right now, so if you
just need the M$ applications, you can run them.

   At least SGI is making it possible to start thinking about doing
   UNIX environment kinds of tasks in the NT world rather than
   snubbing their nose at the people who have made the business
   decision to migrate to that environment.

If everyone jumps off a bridge, should we follow right after them?

I think the problem is the direction of the thinking here.  Why do we
need to bring Unix to NT, if all users want is both environments and
the applications, then bring NT to Unix since we know Unix is better
(sic) and has fewer fallacies than NT does.

   As for "no UNIX story" on the 320 or 540 hardware, all I can say is
   that there have been a lot of Linux rumors. Nothing substantiated.

And here is the point I was trying to make, rumors aren't going to get
anywhere.  SGI is taking too long to commit if they do have something
in the pipeline, everything is up in the air, and the best this does
is either:

1) Give the rumors (right or wrong) more weight than an official
   statement, until such a statement is made.
2) Put question marks above the heads of everyone else.

   HP uses Intel CPU's. Compaq now owns DEC. Who says SGI has to own
   the company that makes the CPU's we put in our systems? 

I never said that.  All I said was that it would have been wiser to
give users a one SGI platform family migration scheme, ie. have a
family of MIPS machine that ran what the next generation machine would
(even if only at such a level to assure successful ports)...  It's
like the difference between:

1) A bomb is about to drop, assume the position.

and

2) A bomb is dropping in a month, here are the tools and resources to
   build a shelter for yourselves so you are prepared.

I am a supporter, but this does not mean I need to close my eyes when
I believe very bad decisions are being made.  That would make me a
sheep.  I think SGI's stalling is a mistake, so I'm going to talk
about it.

When I was an intern at SGI, I told people things like this.  I'm very
outspoken, and I'll tell people when they make mistakes, and I'll also
make suggestions about future decisions when I am listened to about
such matters.

The "everyone else's shit stinks except mine" mentality has been the
source of failure behind a few engineering teams and companies out
there.  I think SGI is doing some cool stuff, the hardware looks
impressive.  I also think Sun is doing a lot of nice stuff too.  I
choose to learn from what both of them are doing, instead of being a
blind pundit for one or the other.

Later,
David S. Miller
[email-masked]

---

From: dmanddmer <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 05:21:18 -0600

Personally, since SGI made the questionable decision to port to NT, I
wish they would commit to AMD's processors instead of Intels.  The K7 is
going to be a real screamer and at significantly lower prices than
Intel, always at least 25% less by company dictate.  Their floating
point has nearly caught up with Intel, too.
I also wish that SGI would put Irix or Linux with all the Irix tools on
the PC-based box.
Porting to NT alone is probably not enough to save the company.  It
didn't work for Intergraph.

BTW, how does the graphic performance on the VPC compare to, say,
Reality Engine or Infinite Reality?

David M.

---

From: [email-masked] (David Watters)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:05:27 -0500 (EST)

On Jan 18,  9:19pm, David S. Miller wrote:
> Subject: Re: linus.linux.sgi.com
...
> (sic) and has fewer fallacies than NT does.

Everyone has to evaluate a situation from their own perspective.

Here is mine as an Engineer on the sales side of SGI:

1) SGI used to get 50%+ of its revenue from CAD/CAM.

2) All CAD/CAM apps have either gone NT as their primary platform or are
   finishing moving to NT as their primary platform.

3) I have been involved in losses that were soley because we didn't have
   an NT box, regardless of being nearly 60% faster than a 500MHz Alpha/NT
   box on a customer benchmark.

4) WABI is neat and we have a pretty good, custom tweaked version of
   SoftWindows95 but you can't run ProE, SDRC, CATIA, etc. under
   WABI.

So, for a $3-4B company to protect and win back a significant part of
its past business and to resume growth, SGI _HAD_ to build an NT box.
We all have to cope with that fact.

It sure would be nice for that _VERY SMALL_ group of users that want to
run UNIX on the 320/540 if there was a Linux port available soon.

The question I ask you is would SGI have been wiser and gained back
its share of what was once a $1B+ business in CAD/CAM if the 320/540 had
run Linux or IRIX out of the gate?

Would'n it be cool if all CAD/CAM apps went to Linux as their primary
platform and not NT?  The problem is that SGI can't spend billions of
dollars and put its market focus into a market (CAD on linux) that
doesn't exist.

Best regards,

David

(IRIX fan, MIPS fan, but above all SGI graphics fan)

-- 
David Watters         |                 Silicon*Graphics 
Systems Engineer      |                http://www.sgi.com/ 
Silicon Graphics, Inc.|    http://reality.sgi.com/davester/  (6/13/97) 
[email-masked] |  1.800.800.SGI1 (Sales) 1.800.800.4SGI (Support) 
DID 1.614.844.3820    |   http://www.nintendo.com/ (N64, the $130 SGI!)

---

From: [email-masked] (David Watters)
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 10:30:47 -0500 (EST)

On Jan 19,  5:21am, dmanddmer wrote:
> wish they would commit to AMD's processors instead of Intels.

SGI couldn't.  SGI had to replace so much of the IA/440xx chipset that there
had to be a prettty big agreement with Intel covering a lot of issues,
machines, processors, and markets to allow SGI to, for example, implement
the frontside bus in their own chipset.  Don't forget all those Co'op
marketing dollars too. -dong ^dong -dong ^^dong

> didn't work for Intergraph.

Yeah, but Intergraph is lame so they had that working against them too. :)

---

From: Alex deVries <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 11:46:21 -0500 (EST)

Do you think we could go back to talking about Linux on SGI instead of
having arguments comparing Sun and SGIs business strategies?

- Alex