🚀 go-pugleaf

I am very pleased to see all this discussion, here are some comments:

ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii) writes:

    Yet another in my series of 'For The Record' articles...;')

    In article <2667@sultra.UUCP> dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan)
    writes:

	but slower to the PC-Bus.  I don't agree that a '532 is not
	needed.  The current migration of software (both applications,
	and OS), is toward Big Time.  Sure, the '332 may be just great
	today, but what about next year?  Will we have to start over
	again?

    I belive you have missed the whole boat here.  People are talking
    about building an *inexpensive* yet reasonably powered machine.
    Next year, my friend, the 32532 will be passe also, thechnology
    moves pretty damn fast these days.  The 532 cost big $$$, the
    memory to feed the 532 cost big $$$, and the IO capacity to feed
    the 532 costs, you guessed it, big $$$.  Like the National Semi
    guys have been saying, if you want a 532, talk to Heurikon, they
    did it right.

Exactly! that was my point. A 10-15 MIPS machine is way beyond what we
can currently afford (me, at least). Also, if you design your system
carefully, switching over to 532 may just entail swapping a
daughterboard...

	    In other words, the aim should be to develop a 386SX not a
	    386 type of system.

	Huh?  I think I missed something.  What is a 386SX?

    The 386SX is a 16-bit data bus version of the 386 (akin to the
    8088/8086 pair).  The idea is to reduce system cost by reducing the
    nessesary memory and IO bandwidth.

You get a lot of the benefit of a 386, and the total system cost is
much lower. The CPU internally is 32 bits, but externally 24/16 bits.
You can run a 332 like that, if you want.

	However, you're certainly welcome to your opinion.  But, don't
	expect AT&T to continue to support release 3, when 4.0 is in
	the wings, and don't expect 4.0 to run on your AT box.

    I beg to differ.  There is still an awful lot of active support for
    System V.2, perhaps not from AT&T, but certainly from vendors (when
    was the last time AT&T gave support on a System V based, say,
    Silicon Graphics...?) Vendors support Unix.  AT&T barely supports
    the 3b's, much less anyone else.

Actually, you probably will not be able to afford 5.4 very easily...
There are ominous rumours.

    System V.3.x support is NOT going to vapourise for a few years (and
    then we'll be running Mach or Unix System V.5 or OSF/OS or Clouds
    (nawwww) or whatever).

Well, as I said, just hold your breath until I send to the FSF the full
NONE kernel (so far mostly a paper design, unfortunately :-).

    And as far as Release 4, think yet again...i have been quote
    preliminary pricing on System V Release 4.0 for the 386.  And for
    the record, Release 4 looks pretty damn nice....

Please send me mail about it. There was another message that said that
it was going to cost A LOT.

    Another point of interest:  the 80386, along with the 3b2 and the
    SPARC are targets for the official AT&T reference ports of future
    AT&T Unixes, which means that other than device drivers, Unix will
    compile off the tape for these processors.  This is NOT the case
    for the NS chips, which (at least) will need the memory management
    code rewritten, along with tons of other kernal stuff.  Not
    slamming the NS chips, just stating the facts....

Sad truth, but truth. Moreover the 386 will be the second machine in
order of importance, and it is for AT class machines, not multibus
based ones, starting with 3.2.

	*WE* are trying to, but we need your support.  As for your
	first point about the price of the '532 chip (or chipset?),
	call me an optimist, but I believe NSC won't leave us "high and
	dry".

    Perhaps...perhaps a year from now...perhaps not...I'm pushing the
    '332...

OK, OK!

dlr@daver.UUCP (Dave Rand) writes:

    In article <17659@gatech.edu> ken@gatech.UUCP (Ken Seefried iii)
    writes:

	In article <8084@daver.UUCP> dlr@daver.UUCP (Dave Rand)
	writes:

	    Ok. Everyone WANTS BSD. I'm game to do the port. How do I
	    get it? I know how to get a Binary license for Sys V.3 (and
	    the binary is cheap). How can
		^^^^^^ I get one for BSD? Source is nice, but usually
	    too expensive.

	So your going to do a BSD port to the 32k?  And from the binary
	license, the source being to expensive...

	 [stuff deleted]

    Yes, I did say BINARY. Not source. There are several companies
    offering NS32K System V Binaries (ZAIAZ being one of them). There
    are at least two ports of BSD to the NS32K (one by the U of
    Toronto, I think, and the other by Symmetric (sp?)).

HCR and NatSemi.

    So - back to the question. I know how to get a NS32K Binary for
    System V. How do I get a NS32K Binary for BSD?

Phone to NatSemi. Well, not really. They have ported BOTH BSD and Sys5
to their development machines, and are prepared to supply you (for a
price...) the sources, if you are already a UNIX source licensee. By
the way, the paper they had at some old USENIX on their BSD port was
really interesting. Great guys. Neat job.

meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:

    In article <7648@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> heppell@sim.berkeley.edu
    (Kevin G. Heppell) writes:

	(some VERY sensible suggestions)

    Obviously, I concur with Kevin.  I don't care whether it's Nu-Bus
    or not, but it seems as good a suggestion as any, and a LOT better
    than the PC buses, altho the new standard from Compaq et al may be
    worthwhile.  But since the ONLY reasons I will be on a
    PC-derivative are for developing PC software (and I VERY seldom do
    this!), or for using existing business products while I wait for
    someone to do them in UNIX (or I do them), I really have no use for
    anything else to be PC-compatible.  That's what RS-232, Ethernet,
    and the like are for!

and bga@raspail.UUCP (Bruce Albrecht) writes:

    In article <7648@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>, heppell@sim.berkeley.edu
    (Kevin G. Heppell) writes:

	 3)  The PC bus architecture is just as slow and awkward as the
	 rest of the system.  NuBus, at least, is an IEEE standard,
	 supports 32 bits, and has a connector which can perform at
	 reasonable speeds.  From what I've seen of the inside of a Mac
	 II, the AT-chassis form factor can be met with NuBus cards.

    I don't have any problems with using NuBus.  Whose version would we
    use, since I believe Apple and NeXT have both modified it.

I have a problem. Tipically AT bus components cost a fraction of the
same things for other standards. Just look at the price differential
with components for the MCA, the MacIntosh, the MacII, not to speak of
the VMEBUS. Thanks Taiwan! Of course the AT bus is almost hopeless for
memory access, but a private ememory bus is ok; I would have no
objection to using the AT bus only for I/O (as 386 machine do,
essentially, and just like the QBUS is used today).

An alternative would be a machine with ONLY a memory bus, and all
peripherals accessed via SCSI. Neat solution, but we are starting to
see non disk, non tape SCSI peripherals (serial and ethernet
interfaces) only now, in the MacIntosh market, and compare the prices
with AT bus components, and width of choice. The MacIntosh Plus after
all is just a machine like that, and that is not encouraging.

	     Since the 32k series is supposed to be upwardly
	     compatible, it should not matter whether or not the
	 on-board 032 or an added 332 or 532 is doing the work.  An
	 add-in card will keep initial costs down, allow for easy
	 up-grade, and provide for an I/O processor with the high-perf
	 one.  For those who _really_ want a 532 based motherboard,
	 consider this: you will get a much larger user base through
	 the method I have suggested, which makes software and hardware
	 support much cheaper.  And by designing in the upgrade, the
	 initial $1000 outlay doesn't disappear when you go up a
	 class.  See below for software considerations.

    I don't think we should base it on an 016 or 032.  That's like
    building a 68k system on a 010.  Sure it's cheaper, but it's also
    going to be slower and need an upgrade all that much sooner.  Also,
    if you use the 082 MMU, you'll probably want to get a '382 for an
    upgrade to the 332/532, but you may not need to get a new 382 for
    an upgrade of the 332 to 532.  Also, the 082 and 382 are programmed
    differently, so I think it would be better if we only used one.

    I think there may be a number of people who would not be interested
    in this design if it uses the 032.  If I had a choice between a
    home-brew 032, and a commercial 68030 (i.e., Atari or Commodore)
    for $3-4k, I'd probably go for the commercial system, but a
    $1500-2500 32332 or 32532 system would be my first choice.

Agreed. 032 and 016 are backwards. Too slow; on the other hand we can
afford a 386 level machine, probably not a R2000 level one. If
upgrading were possible, so much the better. I'd pay more than $2000
for a full 32332 system. I would pay about the same that I'd pay for a
386 system.

woods@gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU (Greg Woods) writes:

    In article <2667@sultra.UUCP> dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan)
    writes:

	 In article <256@aber-cs.UUCP>, pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo
	 Grandi) writes:

	     I am going to buy a 386 box with S5.3.2.  Remeber, the
	     only real superiority of BSD over 5.3.2 is the Fast file
	     system, and Interactive's version of 386 5.3.2 has it...
	     in BSD you do not get mapped files, streams etc...  I am
	     going to

	 I beg to differ.  Granted, I've never used Release 3, but I
	 have definitely used S5.2.1, and found it nasty (I'm fighting
	 to avoid using stronger words).  BSD also has sockets.  Not to
	 mention 'csh', and many more features.  However, you're
	 certainly welcome to your opinion.  But, don't expect AT&T to
	 continue to support release 3, when 4.0 is in the wings, and
	 don't expect 4.0 to run on your AT box.

    Ok, here comes another blast furnace....

    I'm a SysVr3 fan.  Let's get that out in the open...

I am not a Sys5 fan. I am not a BSD fan. I find all Unixes except the
PDP ones distasteful. Long life V7! Long life 2BSD! Also I find UNIX a
dead horse, born dead.

But this is not the point. Please do not comment on the above
paragraph; the point I want to make, as I have said, is that BOTH Sys5
and BSd have their pluses, compared to the alternatives (OS/9, Minix
?). Until we get GNU (nee Mach, nee Accent) from FSF, the best we get
is UNIX, rare, medium or well done. We are lucky enough that NatSemi
can give us either version, even if I'd rather have Sys5, because it is
not too bad, and is the same I get on a 386, and NatSemi probably
prefers to expend effort on Sys5 than BSD now.

The real challenge is to get a machine off the air and make NatSemi or
somebody else supply a cheap binary UNIX for it. This will be the
trickiest part.
-- 
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi			INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
Sw.Eng. Group, Dept. of Computer Science	UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
UCW, Penglais, Aberystwyth, WALES SY23 3BZ (UK)