[SunRescue] OT: FS: SGI Crimson RE

[David Michaud]

Dave Reader wrote:
> 
> Do you believe that NetBSD should not exist? must be really really bad in
> your book, running on all of those platforms!
>

*BSD is structured. There exists documentation. There exist standards on
which it is based. There exist centralized sources from which it is
released. Linux is none of this. To argue this is futile. I run Net and
FreeBSD on some boxes here, in fact. I do not, however, run Linux.

> oh sorry, Irix is perfect! I see the error of my ways now. why do i ever
> bother to use anything else? I'll scrap the whole lot and use Irix for
> everything.. it has no flaws!!

Do you have a point?
Two errors in your wandering argument: First, this is a topic based on
IRIX versus Linux, and no other OSs were involved before you chimed in.
To extrapolate a nonexistant argument from any of the aforementioned
statements is inappropriate. Second, IRIX doesn't run on "everything,"
it runs on Silicon Graphics hardware. heh.

> > (ie, beowulf clusters--that's a joke, right?) crap, like Linux, running
> 
> no. if you'd taken the time to read about it, you'd understand that it was
> built to solve a particular type of problem .. and that t does that very
> well - in fact, it's continuing use and adoption is because it does well
> what it was built to do.
> 

I don't know why you are making assertions. I am aware of what the
intent of such clusters is, or was. But like Linux in general, it is
being implemented--or attempting to be implemented in areas which it
does not belong. A Beowulf cluster is a not a substitute for a Cray.

> 
> IRIX is developed commercially. Linux isnt. IRIX developers have access to
> every conceivable aid to get it right on that hardware. Linux developers
> have to guess a lot.
> 
> Linux is known not to scale well on SMP systems - this might come as a
> suprise to you, but not many Linux developers have 32way machines at their
> disposal to test with! .. 2.4 is better, and improvements will continue to
> be made. Why does that upset you so much?
> 

Thank you for making my point.
Additionally, why "fix" what's not broken? 

> You don't expect much do you?
> 
> All that someone did was express an interest in 'playing' with Linux on a
> platform (SGI,MIPS) which he cannot do at present. What's he hurting in
> doing that? We all learn by trying new things.

There exists no need to do such thing. IRIX works just fine on Silicon
Graphics hardware, in fact, it is the only thing that works on Silicon
Graphics hardware. There is no need for anything else for it.

> 
> Everywhere people are using hardware for purposes which it was not
> explicitly designed for originally. Thousands of embedded industrial
> applications make use of commodity hardware .. i know this well, my
> father's work involves doing just that.

Mmm, so does mine. Again, what's your point? Does that make it right? 

...Excuse me while I simulate some thermonuclear explosions on my PC
running Linux.

> 
> > don't tell you much anyway... I'm sure Quake was one of them though...
> > SGI has always, at least until recently, been way ahead of its time...
> > in its graphics subsystems, and in its system architecture. Linux has no
> > place shoving its way into places where it doesn't belong.
> 
> Really? why not let people use what works best for them? Who are you to
> say where Linux 'belongs'?
> 
> I personally wouldn't put Irix anywhere near the Internet.

To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or
nothing about it. If you believe only what you have heard, then you know
nothing. It is true that IRIX is known to lack security out of box. The
fact that it earns that reputation is based on the propaghanda of
incompetent system administrators lacking the understanding of how to
secure it. IRIX can be just as secure as any other Unix.

> 
> Now, especially with old SGI hardware hitting the market - much of which
> will be unsupported by SGI now, what on earth is wrong with people trying
> to make use of this? maybe you'd prefer to see it all in land-fill?

I still don't see your point. How useful is an OS that doesn't work on a
given piece of hardware? Am I missing something? Because IRIX seems to
work just fine, even on "old" hardware... considering that is what it
ran to begin with.

> 
> What are you doing on a rescue list if you are so blatantly anti-rescue?

Considering the collection of mid-80's to late-80's to early 90's to
mid-90's hardware I have, I would have to beg to differ. But I don't see
how that's relevent, though.

> 
> I can do some things better in Linux than I can on any other platform,
> similarly I can do some things better on other platforms than I can with
> Linux. yes, I have Solaris here as well (got to keep it OT:)
> 

Good for you.

> Some of my sparcs run Linux. Go crawl back into your hole and Live with
> it.
> 
> Holy OS wars get you nowhere. If you can put forward a well reasoned
> argument for a specific situation thats fine, but no answer is the one
> universal answer for everything - not Irix, not linux, not Solaris, and
> not flipping bits directly on the harddisk platters with tiny magnets.
> 
> dave.

Um, ok.


Regards,
Dave