🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <438@peyote.cactus.org> woan@peyote.cactus.org (Ronald S. Woan) writes:
>In article <32344@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, frazier@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (Greg Frazier) writes:
>> 
>> [ lots of stuff about IBM's ALU architecture]
>
> [lots of confusion from IBM-type]
>
>						Ron
>-- 
>+-----All Views Expressed Are My Own And Are Not Necessarily Shared By------+
>+------------------------------My Employer----------------------------------+
>+ Ronald S. Woan         @cs.utexas.edu:romp!auschs!woan.austin.ibm.com!ron +
>+ second choice:                                     woan@peyote.cactus.org +

Question: 

	Why doesn't IBM just make all the information about the machine's
architecture available to the world, so that engineers and scientists can
make their own decisions about how good it is or isn't and this group can
have a decent discussion based on published fact and not based on rumor?
It might certainly help get rid of all the postings which seem to have no
foundation whatsoever (such as this one)...

(and to the author of that article: The blame here is on IBM for not making
the information easily available, not on you for not knowing.)

Or:  Is such information already available?  If so, how can I obtain it?
Learning about a neat machine by saving hundreds of comp.arch articles doesn't
seem to me to be the best way to get a clear view of the design, which is
what I have been doing up to now...

					antony


--
*******************************************************************************
Antony A. Courtney				antony@lbl.gov
Advanced Development Group			ucbvax!lbl-csam.arpa!antony
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory			AACourtney@lbl.gov