[SPARCbook] re: linux on GX

[Rich Lafferty]

Quoting Len Rose (len at NETSYS.COM) from Wed, Nov 03, 1999 at 07:23:44PM -0500:
> 
> Not being sarcastic or anything, genuinely curious.
> 
> If I wanted a portable that could run Linux( OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc) , I'd rush
> out and buy a modern, incredibly fast X86 laptop.
> 
> If I wanted a portable that could run Solaris SPARC applications I'd
> use (I do) a very slow Tadpole.
> 
> Can someone help me understand why people take these very slow Tadpoles and
> install Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc. when they could be using faster X86
> laptops?

I can't speak for anyone else, but...

I have a G3 running Linux at work that I use for things that require
fast computing.

But I also have, or use, a VAXstation 4000/60, a Macintosh SE/30, a
DECstation 5000, a Toshiba 386 laptop (with a gas-plasma display!)
that would survive being run over, an Apple IIe, and soon a NeXT
slab. And a Sparcbook 3GX, which is faster than all of the
preceding. I've also got two 486s running Linux that I've been using
for "work". I haven't put the small army of compact Macs into service
yet, but I'll soon have a Classic, a Classic II, another SE/30, an SE,
and a Plus up and running. The first SE/30 acted as a webserver for a
while.

I don't just work with computers. That'd get boring. I play with them too.

"Fast" doesn't do much for me anymore. If I need to do something in a
hurry, I'll put it on one of the big Alphas at work. For personal
machines -- especially ones that aren't a "primary machine", which the
sparcbook certainly isn't for me -- I want interesting. The
sparcbook's an engineering masterpiece. It's fun to use. It attracts
comments from wizards and newbies alike. It's small and rugged. It's a
Unix workstation through and through -- not as much an
intel-laptop-but-with-a-sparc as it is sparcstation-shrunk-into-a-little-box.

Having said *that*, I take exception to a couple of things in your
question.

Firstly, I don't think I'd call the 3GX 'very slow', and certainly not
the 3XTs and such -- they're not gaming machines, and I doubt people
are doing quantum mathematics on them, so a 110 or 170MHz sparc is
more processor than many people need. On mine, the load seldom hits 1,
unless I'm using netscape :-).

Second, I'm not sure what sort of faster x86 you'd get for $US 450;
looking on eBay I'd get a P133 or P166 with similar RAM, disk and
display. The 166 is probably competitive with the 110MHz sparc (with
usual cross-architecture caveats), but I don't get sbus, I don't get
built-in ethernet, I don't get built-in ISDN, I get a cheap plastic
case and probably a cheap flimsy keyboard. I *certainly* don't get a
three-button 'mouse'. And I have the same computer as a lot of other
people.

Oh, and watch how you measure performance -- your "faster" x86 laptops
will often have an IO bottleneck. (There's more to it than the
processor, after all.)

(I wonder if, back when it was barely a kernel that would boot, people
said "I wonder why people take this hardly functional Linux kernel
when they could be running Xenix, SCO or Minix on their x86?" :-)

Oh, and from the Jargon File:

   hack value n.
     
   Often adduced as the reason or motivation for expending effort toward
   a seemingly useless goal, the point being that the accomplished goal
   is a hack. For example, MacLISP had features for reading and printing
   Roman numerals, which were installed purely for hack value. See
   _display hack_ (q.v.) for one method of computing hack value, but this
   cannot really be explained, only experienced. As Louis Armstrong once
   said when asked to explain jazz: "Man, if you gotta ask you'll never
   know."

The last sentence is particularly apropos.

Cheers,

  -Rich

-- 
------------------------------ Rich Lafferty ---------------------------
 Sysadmin/Programmer, Information and Instructional Technology Services
   Concordia University, Montreal, QC                 (514) 848-7625
------------------------- rich at alcor.concordia.ca ----------------------