PROPOSAL --- The Great 1992 UNIX Dream Machines Bake-Off
Eric S. Raymond
issues of a FAQ list and buyer's guide covering UNIX software for 386/486
machines and the appropriate clone-hardware vendors.
Having secured the willing cooperation of all the major UNIX vendors and
several of the leading clonemakers, I'm now ready to go to the next stage; a
full competitive benchmark of representative high-end clone systems running
UNIX.
All interesting behavior is overdetermined. There are lots of things I'm
hoping to accomplish with this competition; most of them depend on the test's
being genuinely representative of *USENET's* criteria for what makes a nifty
UNIX box. So I'm publishing the proposed draft rules for comment and revision.
Why call it a `UNIX dream machines' contest without SPARC machines and DEC
5100s and such? Because I think part of the UNIX dream is not just portable
software but cheap commodity *hardware* to run it on. If a 486 EISA box can
out-`workstation' the `workstation' vendors, who needs 'em?
(Yes, we'll bench against a SPARC or something so you can really compare.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Draft 1992 "UNIX Dream Machines Bake-Off" Rules.
as organized by
Eric S. Raymond <er...@snark.thyrsus.com>,
chief judge and victim
1) Who May Participate
A. The 1992 Bake-Off is open to any PC-clone vendor offering a system
representing current cutting-edge clone technology; that is, 486-50/DX EISA
SCSI boxes with SVGA-or-better color displays and an X-compatible mouse. The
system will also be required to support QIC-02/QIC-36 tapes for OS loading.
B. Other hardware goodies (such as 15" or larger monitors, graphics accelerator
cards, digitizer tablets, multiport boards) are optional, but may earn points
with the judging panel for usefulness and cuteness. Anything conducive to
superior X performance will weigh significantly in the results.
2) Purpose of the Contest
A. To see whether it's really true yet that commodity clone hardware can
blow the price-performance doors off all those fancy proprietary-technology
workstations.
B. To help the hacker networks understand what alternatives they have out
there, and give them some hard data on the technical merits of leading-edge
clone systems running UNIX, and their vendors.
C. To give clone *vendors* a way to measure themselves against their
competition in the UNIX market, including earning bragging rights if
they've done a particularly good job.
D. To give the judges in general some fun playing with really whizzy
hardware, and promote the Chief Judge a new hacking toy.
3) Award Categories
A. Awards will be given in, at minimum, the following three
categories:
i) The Warm Fuzzy Award for Best System Design (including physical
system engineering, features, hardware quality, fit and finish of
components, and ergonomics).
ii) The Screaming Banshee Award for Hottest Raw Performance (based on a
weighted composite of benchmark results).
iii) The Penny Saved Award for Most Bang Per Buck (based on the
ratio of other figures-of-merit to the total configuration price).
B. Other awards may be created in response to conspicuous excellence
in categories the judges didn't think of beforehand. But not many of
them.
C. Systems may win awards in more than one category.
D. One lucky system among the category winners will, after due
consideration of all factors, be designated "Best in Show" and
suitably honored by a niche in the Chief Judge's hacking den.
E. Contesting vendors agree to donate winning hardware in consideration of
the not-inconsiderable time and effort entailed by the Bake-Off, and in the
plausible hope that their demonstrated excellence and hipness in
participating will be reflected in future sales.
4) Format of the Tests
A. Systems will be assigned a rank of Unacceptable, Poor, Fair, Good,
Excellent, or Outstanding in at least the following categories:
* Compatibility With Major UNIX Ports
* Relative Benchmark Performance
* Featurefulness
* Quantity and Quality of Included Documentation
* Vendor Warranty Coverage
* Vendor Support Quality
* Functional System Engineering
* Display Quality
* Keyboard Quality
* Modularity and Upgradability
* Overall Fit, Finish and Appearance
B. Other categories may be added, at the discretion of the judges.
C. Benchmark tests will be conducted using the `bonnie' suite and
other standard UNIX benchmarking software.
D. Awards will be based on a weighted sum of merit scores, with the
categories above ranked in roughly decreasing order of significance. The
raw scores and final weighting formulas will be published with the results.
E. All decisions of the judges are final.
Note: In accordance with the finest traditions of hackerdom, these
rules have been written partly in a mode of high silliness --- but the
tests and results will be dead serious and conducted with all of the
considerable expertise the judges can bring to bear.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expert opinions are especially solicited on which benchmark suites would
be appropriate. I think many of the normal problems with benchmarks will
be less significant in this test because the machines will be so similar
in design. Nevertheless, designing a benchmark series and test loads that
will reflect J. Random Netter's needs is not a trivial project. I'll take
all the help I can get on this one.
Additional or different awards? Review categories for 4A? Flames?
Kudos? Serious methodological advice? Send me email. In this, as
with _The_New_Hacker's_Dictionary_ and the abovementioned FAQ, I'm
attempting to serve the net by pursuing my own fascinations, and
vice-versa. This contest is for you; consider me your instrument.
--
Eric S. Raymond = er...@snark.thyrsus.com (TNHD editor)
Eric S. Raymond
>Having secured the willing cooperation of all the major UNIX vendors and
>several of the leading clonemakers, I'm now ready to go to the next stage; a
>full competitive benchmark of representative high-end clone systems running
>UNIX.
This is a progress report on the Bake-Off preparations. It also answers a
number of questions raised by various people in email, and summarizes the
helpful advice I've received so far.
1) WHO'S IN, WHO'S OUT
I've just sent the formal proposal mailing to the following vendors: ALR,
Ares Microdevelopment, Basic Time, Blue Dolphin, Compaq, Dell, Everex, E.P.S.,
Gateway, Keydata, Naga, Northgate, Swan Technologies, TriStar, Zenon, and Zeos.
Decision-makers at all of these have indicated an interest in participating;
one (Swan) is already officially committed. AST Research is also on my list,
but I haven't been able to reach their UNIX honcho yet to verify that they
want in.
Microport, UHC and Esix have already volunteered to donate copies of their
UNIXes for the test (Esix's will be an advance 4.0.4).
MetroLink will be donating a copy of its X server product for ATI and S3-based
graphics accelerator cards. I'm in touch with SGCS too and will probably end
up benching the Metrolink and SGCS servers head-to-head against each other.
Note to other hardware and software vendors: if you want in, send me email.
I'll at least test-install everything I get. If the number of combinations
doesn't break into three digits I'll bench all the OS/machine combinations
separately. Move quickly on this, because if the number of combinations *does*
explode beyond what I can handle, the vendors who get left out will be the
ones who were slowest to get on board....
Intel is now officially supporting the Bake-Off and will supply the SPECmark
tape for the benching runs.
2) A BALANCE OF QUESTIONS
In <1992Apr7.1...@bilver.uucp> Bill Vermillion wrote:
> One BIG question. Why is this limited to EISA machines. Why not the
> MCA architecture. I remember reading specs on an ALR machine (One of
> the few (if not only) that makes both and EISA and MCA, and the MCA
> outperformed EISA in some respects. And what about the NCR machines,
> or any of the manfacturers of MCA bus based machines other than IBM.
Because MCA isn't commodity hardware. So it's got a whole two manufacturers.
And yes, it's technically nifty. But it's expensive, IBM effectively controls
it, and there's no reason to believe either of those things will ever change.
In email, hiday_...@lilly.com writes:
> I was really looking forward to your bake-off, but now that I've
> read your proposal I am somewhat disheartened. I agree that the
> focus should be on commodity hardware, but I am disappointed to see
> that you seem to be trying to challenge the big boys' latest toys.
> What I'd like to know is can a 486dx/33 ISA compete with the big
> boys' low to middle price range machines?
There's an un-obvious reason I'm doing it this way. It's because prices
are dropping so fast in the clone market. If I'd gone with vanilla 33s,
the info would be stale in three months as the 50s and clock-doubler 66s
and 100s come in. These expensive high-end machines, on the other hand,
should reach the price point of a vanilla 33 in six months or so. The
workstation market is moving much more slowly. Thus, by deliberately
testing *ahead* of the cheap hardware I'll get comparative results that are
useful for a longer time into the future.
He continued:
> I'm no PC expert (I don't do DOS or MSwindows), but I do keep
> up with the mags just for prices. I would estimate that the 486-50/DX
> EISA system you propose must cost at least $7000 from a reputable clone
> dealer, then you have to add the OS. I can get a personal DECstation
> 3100 or a NeXTstation for less than that and both include the OS. I
> imagine that people with good edu connections could do even better.
$5500 is closer to the mark --- and that's retail, not wholesale. Also, you
have to think about life-cycle costs. Parts and service for Intel-based
hardware is *always* going to be cheaper than traditional workstation stuff,
because the size of the market over which vendors can amortize costs is so much
bigger. Like it or not (and I don't, particularly; I haven't forgiven them for
the 8086 and 286) Intel has won the processor wars.
3) BENCHMARK WARS
I've snarfed the entire comp.benchmarks archive from wustl and read it all.
I'm under no delusions that this makes me an expert on benchmarking, but at
least my ignorance has been somewhat lessened. :-)
In jona...@hoffmann.ph.utexas.edu (Jonathan Thornburg) wrote:
>I strongly suggest using the SPEC92 suite. This will make it much
>easier to compare the results to those of "real" workstations.
This is only the most succinct of many, many notes I received urging that
SPEC be the Bake-off's primary benchmark. Their will be done.
Nhuan Doduc <ndo...@framentec.fr> wrote urging me to also use SSBA, largely on
the grounds that it's popular in Europe. I may do this as well, but the
consensus for SPEC as number-one number was very strong.
In email, m...@rotary.East.Sun.COM (Mike Fischbein)
>MUSBUS would probably be the best frame work for measuring multiuser
>or just multitasking performance.
There's a modified (and allegedly improved) MUSBUS included in SPEC's SDM
suite. Those results will be quoted.
In email, exu.ericsson.se!exudnw (Dave Williams) wrote:
>Make sure you also measure network performance in a TCP/IP environment.
>NFS (where suplied) is of particular interest to me. Try LADDIS or
>nhfsstone.
I have no experience at setting up or administering networks. Also, there are
nontrivial logistics involved in pulling together physical hardware like
cabling and terminators that the vendors won't automatically supply. However,
one of my co-judges is a TCP/IP wizard. We'll see what we can do.
In email, hiday_...@lilly.com writes:
> No matter what kind of machines you decide to test on, please include
> X performance as one judging criteria. Slow X performance is one
> common complaint I have seen on the net.
I intend to weigh X performance heavily, as promised in the rules.
In email, jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov!dave (Dave Hayes) wrote:
>I think you definately want some PERL benchmarks. Perhaps the perl
>test suite is a benchmark of compatability itself...but lots of netters
>use perl for lots of stuff.
Gack. I guess this means I have to learn perl...
My present plan is to use SPEC, bonnie, iozone, and some
yet-to-be-determined X benchmark. And no Dhrystone!
Also, I will report the time required to TeX the 433-page master of
_The_New_Hacker's_Dictionary_.
4) OTHER WORDS FROM THE WISE
In email, m...@rotary.East.Sun.COM (Mike Fischbein)
>I'd also suggest some portion of the hardware cuteness award (forgot
>your name for it) include the ease/difficulty of adding hardware --
>stuff like extra RAM, an additional disk, etc, can be VERY difficult
>to figure out on some systems. Maybe that's a documentation test,
>but it is very real.
I do plan to weigh upgradability heavily in the scores for the Warm Fuzzy award
for Best System Design.
In email morton.rain.com!joe (Joe Moss) wrote:
>I'm not sure if it deserves it's own award or not, but I think it might
>be good to make a decision as to which hardware/software incantation
>would be best for a business environment (where support/compatibilty
>issues would have a heavier weighting than they would for a hacker's
>system).
I'm frankly not sure I'm qualified to do this. I know too much --- my slant
on "quality of support" is never going to be the same as J. Random Luser's.
Also, if by "compatibility" you mean the ability to run old binaries from
shrink-wrapped UNIX software, I'm the wrong person to do that; I've never used
any such software! I will, however, work hard to provide enough information
for commercial users to apply their own criteria.
He also said:
>Cute. While you're at it could you maybe send one of the left over
>not-quite-the-wizbangiest-but-still-a-good-Unix-box machines my way?
You and about 1,723 other people. Sorry; leftover hardware, if any, will
go to compensate the other judges for their time.
In email, jato.Jpl.Nasa.Gov!dave (Dave Hayes) wrote:
>How about the "Gee! It compiled!" award to those systems that can compile
>the most GNU/X11/perl/etc public domain software with the least amount
>of difficulty?
This is not a function of hardware but of OS. I don't expect there will be
any differences at all in this among the SVr4 ports, and probably none worth
noting even with the BSD ones (as all are advertised POSIX-compatible).
5) ON THE HOME FRONT
I have recruited three other technical-expert judges. At a netter's
suggestion, these gentlemen will remain anonymous until *after* the test.
The spacious third-floor loft of the Eric Conspiracy Secret Labs here
in sunny Malvern, PA is being readied for the expected flood of
incoming hardware. Translation: I'm getting rid of that ratty old couch,
stacking the overflow from my SF collection's bookshelves in one corner,
and buying a new power bar. It's gonna be wall-to-wall machines up here
soon...
--
Eric S. Raymond = er...@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
Kent Dalton
<"Bake off" details deleted.>
Eric> He also said:
>Cute. While you're at it could you maybe send one of the left over
>not-quite-the-wizbangiest-but-still-a-good-Unix-box machines my way?
Eric> You and about 1,723 other people. Sorry; leftover hardware, if any, will
Eric> go to compensate the other judges for their time.
Ah-hah! so it becomes painfully clear that this is all an elaborate
scheme to get free hardware and software for Eric and his cronies! Get
computers and software, run a couple of benchmarks, post results, keep
all the neato toys. Must be nice.
Wish I'd thought of it. :^)
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton * EMail: Kent....@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
/* NCR Microelectronics * */
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A * */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 * (303) 223-5100 X-319 */
/**************************************************************************/
Loni Anderson's hair should be LEGALIZED!!
william E Davidsen
| My present plan is to use SPEC, bonnie, iozone, and some
| yet-to-be-determined X benchmark. And no Dhrystone!
| Also, I will report the time required to TeX the 433-page master of
| _The_New_Hacker's_Dictionary_.
Please do some troff, too! I'm sure Elan would donate a copy for those
systems which lack it, and there are still lots of us who use it.
--
- bill davidsen (davi...@crd.ge.com)
GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
By analysis of usenet source, the hardest part of C to use is the comment
Paul Harsha
>In <KENTD.92A...@zappa.FtCollins.NCR.com> Kent Dalton wrote:
>> Ah-hah! so it becomes painfully clear that this is all an elaborate
>> scheme to get free hardware and software for Eric and his cronies! Get
>> computers and software, run a couple of benchmarks, post results, keep
>> all the neato toys. Must be nice.
>Sheesh...we're going to put in hundreds of hours of work, compile valuable
>information that no one else has ever assembled and publish it for free,
>and bootstrap the major clone vendors up to a new level of awareness of the
>UNIX market. And all *you* can think is that this is some kind of *con*?
>That says more about *your* mindset than it does about *mine*, boyo...
Or maybe just that he's dealt with you before. "free" is a relative term
here. If you rephrase it as "put in hundreds of hours of work and acquire a
hundreds thousand dollars worth of free hardware and software" it seems much
less of a noble undertaking. You are clearly profiting by this event. It's
not even clear that you're really bootstrapping people up to an awareness of
the Unix market or that no one else has ever assembled such information.
Why does this remind me of your explaining that you were publishing the
Hacker's Dictionary in order to benefit programmers? At least Brad Templeton
never claims that his sole motivation is helping mankind...
-Paul
--
Paul Harsha (har...@ksr.com) Kendall Square Research Corp.
Eric S. Raymond
In <11...@ksr.com> Paul Harsha wrote:
> Or maybe just that he's dealt with you before. "free" is a relative term
> here. If you rephrase it as "put in hundreds of hours of work and acquire a
> hundreds thousand dollars worth of free hardware and software" it seems much
> less of a noble undertaking. You are clearly profiting by this event.
I have news for you, dimwit. On my last contract, I charged $110 an hour. The
system I expect to net out of this would cost somewhere between 10 and 12 K$
Because I suspect you haven't got the brains the Gods gave bastard geese in
Ireland, I'll do the long division for you; 12K$ is 109 hours of my time. Now,
given that I expect to have to plow at least 400 hours into this project, even
you should be able to calculate the potential income I'm forgoing by committing
my time to the Bake-Off.
> It's not even clear that you're really bootstrapping people up to an awareness
> of the Unix market or that no one else has ever assembled such information.
Fine, asshole. You go *find* that information. *Then* flame me.
> Why does this remind me of your explaining that you were publishing the
> Hacker's Dictionary in order to benefit programmers? At least Brad Templeton
> never claims that his sole motivation is helping mankind...
Nor have I ever done so, idiot. I have a healthy self-interest involved in
*all* my projects. I'm surrendering that $80 an hour because I *like* being
a paladin of the net --- because I groove on doing good stuff for other
hackers like me, and on the prospect of having thousands of the brightest
people in the world think "Eric Raymond, yeah, he does crazy useful things no
one else would quite have both the smarts and the chutzpah to try".
The fact is, I *am* "helping mankind" --- for good selfish reasons of ego
satisfaction and a hell of a lot more effectively than your snotty comments
will *ever* do. I've put literally *years* of my life into free software; if
you use any UNIX EMACS or play nethack or use kermit the odds are damn good
that you've run your bleeding program counter through code I wrote and gave
away. When you can claim as much *and* show me a book you did that's delighted
as many netters as TNHD, *and* utter in two weeks from a cold standing start a
1200-line FAQ that experienced netters are willing to call "the most useful
posting I've seen in years" in public --- when you can do these things, *then*
I will listen respectfully while you poor-mouth my motives and methods.
In the meantime, I will thank Goddess my chosen role doesn't *always* require
me to suffer fools gladly, and cordially invite you to bugger off.
david.e.wexelblat
> It's late, I'm tired, and I'm fed up with being polite to utter pinheads.
>
[stuff deleted]
>
>>It's not even clear that you're really bootstrapping people up to an awareness
>>of the Unix market or that no one else has ever assembled such information.
>
> Fine, asshole. You go *find* that information. *Then* flame me.
>
Personally, I would have given a lot to have this information. As it turns
out, I got relatively lucky with my purchase. Whether you realize it or
not, the results of this study, informal as it is, are going to be
incredibly useful to a lot of people.
>>Why does this remind me of your explaining that you were publishing the
>>Hacker's Dictionary in order to benefit programmers? At least Brad Templeton
>>never claims that his sole motivation is helping mankind...
Because you are a programmer/user, not a hacker.
>
> Nor have I ever done so, idiot. I have a healthy self-interest involved in
> *all* my projects. I'm surrendering that $80 an hour because I *like* being
> a paladin of the net --- because I groove on doing good stuff for other
> hackers like me, and on the prospect of having thousands of the brightest
> people in the world think "Eric Raymond, yeah, he does crazy useful things no
> one else would quite have both the smarts and the chutzpah to try".
>
Now, calm down, Eric. You of all people should recognize the signature
of a luser (a jealous one, at that). Personally, with my hacker mentality,
my first thought was "What a jerk. He didn't ask for volunteers, so I can't
get in on it!", immediately followed by "What a stud! I wish I'd thought
to do that!".
> The fact is, I *am* "helping mankind" --- for good selfish reasons of ego
> satisfaction and a hell of a lot more effectively than your snotty comments
> will *ever* do. I've put literally *years* of my life into free software; if
> you use any UNIX EMACS or play nethack or use kermit the odds are damn good
> that you've run your bleeding program counter through code I wrote and gave
> away. When you can claim as much *and* show me a book you did that's delighted
> as many netters as TNHD, *and* utter in two weeks from a cold standing start a
> 1200-line FAQ that experienced netters are willing to call "the most useful
> posting I've seen in years" in public --- when you can do these things, *then*
> I will listen respectfully while you poor-mouth my motives and methods.
Also - I have never seen an FAQ before that invited both user and vendor
contribution (not to say that there isn't one - just that I haven't seen it).
I'm also not sure that I would really call it an FAQ. It's more like the
kind of objective comparison with subjective review that I would expect to
see in trade journals, but rarely do.
If anything, Eric's FAQ should convince people of his honest and fair dealing.
>
> In the meantime, I will thank Goddess my chosen role doesn't *always* require
> me to suffer fools gladly, and cordially invite you to bugger off.
> --
> Eric S. Raymond = er...@snark.thyrsus.com (mad mastermind of TMN-Netnews)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Wexelblat | dw...@mtgzfs3.att.com | I asked her her name.
AT&T Bell Laboratories | ...!att!mtgzfs3!dwex | She said her name was
200 Laurel Ave - 4B-421 | | 'Maybe'
Middletown, NJ 07748 | (908) 957-5871 | --Damn Yankees
Peter da Silva
> Why does this remind me of your explaining that you were publishing the
> Hacker's Dictionary in order to benefit programmers?
It benefits me. I get a nicely bound, professionally published, book for
a modest price that I can hand to someone and say "HERE, READ THIS". I sure
can't do that with a pile of printout. I've also got the jargon browser
(a spinoff of this effort) up on my BBS.
That Eric profits from this bothers me not at all.
That Eric refuses to include SCO in his test, for political reasons, that
bothers me. But I have no complaint about his motivation for running the test
at all.
--
/F{findfont exch scalefont setfont}def /S{moveto show}def /T{/Times-Roman F}def
8 T(Ferranti International Controls Corporation)24 28 S(+1 713 274 5180)24 12 S
(Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012)24 20 S 12 /Courier F(`-_-')320 32 S( 'U` )320 16 S
12 T(Peter da Silva)24 36 S 16 T(Have you hugged your wolf today?)358 24 S
PS (a postscript to the Postscript): where do you get the "hundreds of
thousands of dollars worth of free hardware"?
--
/F{findfont exch scalefont setfont}def /S{moveto show}def /T{/Times-Roman F}def
8 T(Ferranti International Controls Corporation)24 28 S(+1 713 274 5180)24 12 S
(Sugar Land, TX 77487-5012)24 20 S 12 /Courier F(`-_-')320 32 S( 'U` )320 16 S
12 T(Peter da Silva)24 36 S 16 T(Have you hugged your wolf today?)358 24 S
Larry Snyder
>reason for not including them is more technical --- the Buyer's Guide
>started out as my product research for my next purchase, and I'm only
>interested in the leading edge.
well now that makes sense..
--
Larry Snyder internet: la...@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator uucp: uunet!trauma!larry
Tom Neff
>A lot of people have "public service" confused with "wearing a hair-shirt and
>taking a vow of poverty".
Not to be confused with "conspicuous puffery"...
Peter da Silva
> Possibly we have a misunderstanding here; I guess my denunciamento should
> have been clearer. I'm *pissed off* at SCO for political reasons, but my
> reason for not including them is more technical --- the Buyer's Guide
> started out as my product research for my next purchase, and I'm only
> interested in the leading edge.
Personally, I don't consider Solaris *or* System V release 4 any more
"leading edge" than SCO version 4. If you want "leading edge" then your
choices are pretty much limited to Mt Xinu or stuff that's not commercially
available. SVR4 is a whitebread 4-cylinder sedan with dual overhead-cam
chrome plated foxtails. Solaris is about the same thing with a V6 and no air
conditioning. Unfortunately, you couldn't have a V8, and Plan 9 is still in
outer space.
For a hacker system, 386BSD is your best bet. If you're looking for stability,
you could do worse than SCO. If you include them, they'll be a good benchmark.
If they actually come out well, then you'll have expanded your options.
Bill Wisner
r...@buster.stafford.tx.us (Buster Irby) writes:
>Are you starting to get my drift, or do I have to explain it in
>more detail for you? You should calm down and start using the
>same language in your posts that you would use in a face to face
>confrontation with these people. Everyone is entitled to the
>same courtesy, even you!
Knowing Eric as minimally as I do, I think it's probably safe to say
that Eric *is* using the same language in his posts that he would use
in a face to face confrontation with these people.
Bill Wisner <wis...@ims.alaska.edu> Gryphon Gang Fairbanks AK 99708
Robert Cain
more in return for her efforts than she invests. If she didn't, she wouldn't.
Basic psychological microeconomics. I find it neat that some folks get their
kicks by having other folks find their work useful. Flames to /dev/null
--
Bob Cain rc...@netcom.com 408-358-2007
"There are some strings. They're just not attached."
Victoria Roberts
Geoff Lane
>When you can claim as much *and* show me a book you did that's delighted
>as many netters as TNHD, *and* utter in two weeks from a cold standing start a
>1200-line FAQ that experienced netters are willing to call "the most useful
>posting I've seen in years" in public --- when you can do these things, *then*
>I will listen respectfully while you poor-mouth my motives and methods.
Don't give a toss about what anyone thinks about Eric's motives - however, we
keep hearing about this comparative review of systems. When and where has
it/will it appear? Is it available via ftp from anywhere? As someone once
almost said in a POW film "I can put up with an awful lot of usefulness,
Sir!"
(You can tell when you've been on Netnews too long when you start
quoting/misquoting very obscure films :-)
--
Geoff. Lane. Janet: zza...@uk.ac.mcc.uts
UTS Sys Admin, Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL
Paul Harsha
>1) If Eric, fully disclosing what he is doing (as seems to be the
>case), gets hardware vendors to give him megabucks of hardware, he is
>not hurting anyone on this net in the slightest. We can envy his good
>fortune, as we must his talent for invective, if not his taste in
>employing the latter.
>Full disclosure is important here, and the flippant tone about the
>nature of the judge's compensation in the announcement, was, if I may
>be forgiven, not the best choice of phrasing. This is a detail.
I think you've hit on my point exactly. I've said this several times in
email. If Eric hadn't flamed someone for hinting that his motives might go
beyond helping his fellow netters, I wouldn't have said anything. You'll note
that he didn't mention getting to keep the hardware until someone asked him
about it point blank. He had made many posts about the contest before that
without mentioning any compensation except satisfaction from helping the net.
I don't fault him for acquiring equipment in this endeavor. I fault him for
carrying on at great length about his honesty and virtue, after behaving in a
rather disingenuous fashion.
The reason I brought up the New Hacker's Dictionary is that he behaved quite
similarly after he published it. Eric took a public domain text (The Jargon
File), edited it, published it, then placed a long add on the net explaining
that we should all buy the book because the book becoming a success would
increase acceptance of hackers and programmers. He was then quite irate when
people who had contributed to the jargon file accused him of being less than
above board. I brought up Brad Templeton because he publishes compilations of
the jokes he receives for rec.humor.funny, but he never claims to be doing
anything but making a buck. I was accusing Eric of protesting a bit too
loudly. I think the vehemence of his follow up bears out my point.
Eric S. Raymond
> Knowing Eric as minimally as I do, I think it's probably safe to say
> that Eric *is* using the same language in his posts that he would use
> in a face to face confrontation with these people.
Correct. I like to think I fulfill Heinlein's definition of a gentleman;
that is, I try hard to never offend anyone unintentionally. Thus, I am normally
(as numerous TNHD correspondents can confirm) a polite and friendly sort,
but anyone who pushes me past my elastic limit is going to get both
barrels whether it's via email or in person.
I have redirected followups to comp.unix.sysv386 because that is the
Bake-Off's home group. However, I would prefer that anyone who wants to
discuss a topic as far removed from Bake-Off technicalia as my communication
style do it by email.
Eric S. Raymond
> email. If Eric hadn't flamed someone for hinting that his motives might go
> beyond helping his fellow netters, I wouldn't have said anything.
I have never done this. I *have* flamed people for alleging that I was
engaged in a a "con" and that I am not really serious about wanting to
do something useful for the net.
> You'll note
> that he didn't mention getting to keep the hardware until someone asked him
> about it point blank. He had made many posts about the contest before that
> without mentioning any compensation except satisfaction from helping the net.
This is untrue. My intention to keep the winning hardware was spelled out quite
clearly in the draft rules which were included in the announcement, and I have
not subsequently made any secret of that intention.
> He was then quite irate when
> people who had contributed to the jargon file accused him of being less than
> above board.
*One* person made this accusation, and that person had an agenda of his own
which the other major contributors rejected. How many K of refutation from
sources independent of me would you like?
I am vehement because I get very tired of working to benefit *everyone*
(including me) and being attacked as though I'm trying to benefit only
myself. Fortunately (and no thanks to you) I don't intend to stop.
Pay attention, here comes the tough part. *I am not an altruist*. I have
never claimed to be an altruist. I *always* have good selfish reasons for
what I do, and I am always quite up front about admitting them. This is
because I don't trust self-proclaimed altruists, and don't expect other
people to, either.
That is *why* my intent to keep the winning hardware was announced loudly and
up front. Aside from considerations of simple honesty, I knew that many
people (including, apparently, you) would not understand nor believe that I am
primarily seeking less tangible rewards.
Or, to put it another way, the prospect of a hot new machine for free was
economically necessary but not spiritually sufficient. Without that level
of compensation I cannot afford to run the Bake-Off, but most of my motivation
for actually *doing* it is to feed my self-image (by doing the net a huge
service) and increase my influence with the vendors.
If that's too self-interested for you, tough. That's how human nature works.
We're *all* selfish goal-seekers; what differs is our hierarchy of goals
and how we trade off tangible rewards like money against intangible goals
like ego-satisfaction or the feeling of virtuousness. I'm different not by
being "more selfish" but by being more honest with myself and you.
Edward Lee
The comp.arch newsgroup is one of the few newsgroups on Usenet that
has a high signal to noise ratio, because of the subject matter and
the nominal level of skill of the participants necessary to discuss
the subject matter, and if what has been forecast there for the future
of hardware in the way of the DEC Alpha chip and other "killer micro"
chips and other hardware technology is true, then the "bake-off"
information being compiled for [345]86 Unix systems will become
obsolete, mind-blowingly soon, within three (3) years.
-Ed L
Kent Dalton
Corwin> I think everyone in this topic should lighten up a little. I
Corwin> think the original posting was a little tongue-in-cheek.
You're darned right it was. I'm the one who jokingly made the comment
about the "bake off" being "an elaborate scheme for Eric and his
cronies to get free hardware" which touched off this flame war.
I was really disappointed that anyone even bothered to respond to it.
Much less flame about it and IMHO, the heavy flamage here has made
everyone involved look really immature.
Was I the only one who saw the smiley at the end of the message? Next
time I decide to make a joke or kid someone, I promise to make it more
clear (and funnier :^)! Sorry to all for the wasted bandwidth, I wasn't
*trying* to start a flame war.
--
/**************************************************************************/
/* Kent Dalton * EMail: Kent....@FtCollinsCO.NCR.COM */
/* NCR Microelectronics * */
/* 2001 Danfield Ct. MS470A * */
/* Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 * (303) 223-5100 X-319 */
/**************************************************************************/
If Robert Di Niro assassinates Walter Slezak, will
Jodie Foster marry Bonzo??
u...@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Can we move this thread to alt.flame. If people want to talk about the
technical issues of running UNIX on commodity clones, great. But I (and most of
the net) are frankly embarrassed to see grown men shouting at each other about
hwho has the longer dick.
Maynard Handley
Eric S. Raymond
> In article <1g828J#5xD0yh3j5tXG1zD0SF0C74v2=er...@snark.thyrsus.com> er...@snark.thyrsus.com (Eric S. Raymond) writes:
> Don't give a toss about what anyone thinks about Eric's motives - however, we
> keep hearing about this comparative review of systems. When and where has
> it/will it appear?
Issue 3 will appear shortly.
--
Mats Wichmann
>2) The question remains as to the usefulness of the "Bake-Off". Note that
>at worst it is harmless. We have been told the circumstances, and if we
>choose to believe the "Bake-Off" worthless on that basis, we are free to do
>so.
By now everyone's probably tired of this topic. But I can't help
myself from sticking my oar in again. Jeffrey's comments put me in
mind of one of the problems that enterprises performing benchmarks
face. And that's that the vendors have little incentive to
participate. A magazine review is one thing - that's low-cost
publicity, even if the ratings aren't top-notch. But a privately run
effort is different. There can only be a few "winners", and the
readers of the results are likely to place quite a bit of importance on
the "raw numbers". Most companies serious about the UNIX business know
internally how their machines stack up, and have nothing to gain from
showing up near the bottom of a list - or in fact, not showing up in
the top three or so. And those that aren't serious about it, well they
have no particular interest in the results anyway, since they aren't
serious...
The place where it begins to work is when a certain benchmark gets
written into specifications, so that your number for that benchmark has
to be available before certain classes of purchasers can even look at
you. I'm not sure that Eric's aspiring to such heights (it means,
among other things, continuing the bake-off in near perpetuity as new
machines come out).
So I've got some concerns about the validity of these tests for
general consumption. Nonetheless, I wish Eric well is is efforts,
and look forward to seeing the results, mostly out of curiosity.
--
Mats Wichmann
Systems Software Consultant
alruna!ma...@ossi.com (or ma...@netcom.com)
Jeffrey Kegler
>The comp.arch newsgroup is one of the few newsgroups on Usenet that
>has a high signal to noise ratio [ ... ] if what has been forecast
>there for the future of hardware in the way of the DEC Alpha chip and
>other "killer micro" chips and other hardware technology is true,
>then the "bake-off" information being compiled for [345]86 Unix
>systems will become obsolete, mind-blowingly soon, within three (3)
>years.
The reason the 386 survives despite being the ugliest technology alive
is not due to the lack of faster, better, even more MIPS/$$ chips.
Suppose the XYZ chip comes out at double the MIPS/$$ ratio of the 386
(it almost cannot help but have a nicer architecture, as well). OK.
Now I gotta buy the rest of the machine. Are there hard disks for
less than $10,000? Is there someone I can talk into selling me the
box if I do not want to buy 24 or so at once? Will the new machine
take my old cards, software, etc. Are there 2 or 3 UNIXes available
free with source, and another half dozen competing commercial entries?
A few months after a new technology comes out, will there be a price
war in it at Fry's?
The secret of the 386 is the size of the market. You can make a
fortune with a new product in 1% of the 386 market. 1% of the VAX
market leaves you bankrupt (unless your price is in six figures.)
So the Intel 386 have to compete with other chips, but not on anything
like equal terms. As long as its MIPS/$$ is half as good as any other
entry, the hardware based on the 386 will remain a much better deal.
Whether you call the decision that made the 386 the basis of the ISA
architecture a historical necessity, or just plain bad thinking,
[345]86 based machines are going to dominate in terms of
cost-effectiveness, and therefore volume, for at least another decade.
This, unless Intel decides to triple their price.
--
Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
jef...@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087
Karl Bunch
> ed...@chinet.chi.il.us (Edward Lee) writes:
>>
>>The comp.arch newsgroup is one of the few newsgroups on Usenet that
>>has a high signal to noise ratio [ ... ] if what has been forecast
>>there for the future of hardware in the way of the DEC Alpha chip and
>>other "killer micro" chips and other hardware technology is true,
>>then the "bake-off" information being compiled for [345]86 Unix
>>systems will become obsolete, mind-blowingly soon, within three (3)
>>years.
>The reason the 386 survives despite being the ugliest technology alive
>is not due to the lack of faster, better, even more MIPS/$$ chips.
>Suppose the XYZ chip comes out at double the MIPS/$$ ratio of the 386
>(it almost cannot help but have a nicer architecture, as well). OK.
>Now I gotta buy the rest of the machine. Are there hard disks for
>less than $10,000?
[...]
>The secret of the 386 is the size of the market. You can make a
>fortune with a new product in 1% of the 386 market. 1% of the VAX
>market leaves you bankrupt (unless your price is in six figures.)
>So the Intel 386 have to compete with other chips, but not on anything
>like equal terms. As long as its MIPS/$$ is half as good as any other
>entry, the hardware based on the 386 will remain a much better deal.
>Whether you call the decision that made the 386 the basis of the ISA
>architecture a historical necessity, or just plain bad thinking,
>[345]86 based machines are going to dominate in terms of
>cost-effectiveness, and therefore volume, for at least another decade.
>This, unless Intel decides to triple their price.
Or somebody comes out with a "killer micro" that can consume the current
market's equipment. I would JUMP almost without looking (Just kidding)
at a CPU with say 5 to 10 times the power of a 486 if I knew 90% of my
current H/W would work on it. And so would many others. Even if I
had to toss the Memory. If I could still use my SCSI disks and Tapes,
and Laser Printers.. Terminals... In the PC market this wouldn't mean
as much but, I think in the Unix market this could be a heavy factor.
Think about a new hot RISC CPU that has "386 virtual machines" that would
run everything from x.out to ELF executables and dos merge!
Intel beware.. For big slow moving targets are easy to outrun and often
crash with a big thud. IBM can give you hints about that! :-)
Thanks for reading,
Karl
--
% ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Karl Bunch ||| UUCP: ..!uunet!cerritos.edu!ttank!karl
% Think Tank Software ||| INTERNET: ka...@ttank.com
% 42.5% of all quoted statistics are made up, of those 23.185% are right. :-)
Andy Glew
>The comp.arch newsgroup is one of the few newsgroups on Usenet that
>has a high signal to noise ratio [ ... ] if what has been forecast
>there for the future of hardware in the way of the DEC Alpha chip and
>other "killer micro" chips and other hardware technology is true,
>then the "bake-off" information being compiled for [345]86 Unix
>systems will become obsolete, mind-blowingly soon, within three (3)
>years.
Besides, what makes you think that Intel has given up developing
killer micros? The i486DX2 box on my desk is significantly faster
than the RS6000 box on my desk [*], and the show is only just
beginning, folks.
[*] I know, I know, what benchmarks? If you must know, running the
simulator for next generation chips. And, of course, the comparison
may be apples and oranges - dissimilar configurations, etc.
As usual, if you really want to make comparisons, get the SPEC
Newsletter and/or your favorite companies' performance briefs.
--
Andy Glew, gl...@ichips.intel.com
Intel Corp., M/S JF1-19, 5200 NE Elam Young Pkwy,
Hillsboro, Oregon 97124-6497
This is a private posting; it does not indicate opinions or positions
of Intel Corp.
Intel Inside (tm)
Raul Izahi Lopez Hernandez
>Besides, what makes you think that Intel has given up developing
>killer micros? The i486DX2 box on my desk is significantly faster
>than the RS6000 box on my desk [*], and the show is only just
>beginning, folks.
What RS/6000 are you talking about? The 220?
--
-----> All opinions expressed here are my own, not IBM's <-----
Raul Izahi Lopez IBM Bergen Environmental Sciences and Solutions Centre
iz...@bsc.no Izahi Engineering is here !!!
Don Gillies
cache does 20-21 Specmarks for under $3000 (including color monitor,
mouse, keyboard, modem, 4Mb DRAM, 120Mb hard disk, DOS, Windows 3.1).
Sun beware!
Who says Intel and the PC Marketplace don't deliver good price -
performance? Name another color workstation with with a ratio of
$140/spec. Quite to the contrary, nobody beats a decent PC for
price/performance (too bad the I/O architecture sux).
Don Gillies - gil...@cs.uiuc.edu - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
--
Evan Leibovitch
Gee, and I thought *my* sentences were long!
It is very nice that comp.arch is very high s/n. That says absolutely
*nothing* about future directions of the marketplace. At best, the
above conclusion is merely wishful thinking; at worst, it's a
potentially dangerous illusion, at least if you have clients depending
on your opinions.
From the day the PC architecture was born, there have always been
superior ways to do what it did. The Motorola 6809, I recall, was the
first to be referred to as the "PC killer", except for the fact that no
major manufacturer would use in it their boxes.
The list of chips, chipsets, bus designs and system software that was
supposed to do in the IBM PC design and its MS-DOS parasite is long
indeed. Only a small few (notably the Mac and the Amiga) have made any
inroads at all. Some of us have found that it's easier to take on just
one part of the equation, using the same architecture but different
systems software (ie, UNIX).
RISC is just the latest in the list of proclaimed "PC killer"
technology. Like the Mac, RISC-based systems have done very well in
certain parts of the marketplace. But there's absolutely no indication
that PC architectures will be obsolete simply because RISC exists, and
is the current darling of the elite discussing architectures.
The most recent attempt to take on the Microsoft/Intel hold on the PC
marketplace has been the ACE consortium. Based on what I saw at the ACE
press conference at the last UniForum, I consider that effort a
non-starter. And I don't see anything on the horizon to take its place.
Changes to the PC architecture (dumping the segmentation problem; EISA;
extended memory support) have been slow and evolutionary rather than
revolutionary. You may not like the pace, but the change is happening.
I certainly hope that the people in comp.arch continue to discuss state
of the art, and if that means constant bashing on the weaknesses of the
PC architecture, so be it. Discussions like this will continue to
pressure the PC into constant (but slow) improvement. It will never be
the first, the fastest, or the most elegant. But don't count it out
merely because of this.
As for suitability as a UNIX engine: As long as the PC and its
accessories are reasonably robust, commodity priced, and usable speed,
people will put UNIX on it. Having a box that can run five gazillion
MhoistStones means very little to five people in an office who want
nothing more than to run word processing and accounting as inexpensively
as possible.
It ain't the leading edge, but it's a big chunk of the marketplace.
--
Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
ev...@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
If it's tourist season, why can't we shoot them?
Ajay Shah
>Hey, I was under the impression that a 50Mhz i486 DX machine w/256K
>cache does 20-21 Specmarks for under $3000 (including color monitor,
>mouse, keyboard, modem, 4Mb DRAM, 120Mb hard disk, DOS, Windows 3.1).
"Lies, white lies, and benchmarks" comes through again. Don't believe
benchmark numbers.
A 486 @ 50 delivers 20 Specs when put into a workstation class
coimputer (good bus, cache, a real OS, etc.).
$3k buys you a AT bus which runs at 8 MHz. For most part, the result
is like a Sparcstation 1 in textmode, worse if you want graphics. I'd
like to see someone show SPEC results obtained with (say) Linux and 8
Meg (not 4) e.g.
- ans
(Someone who recently got pissed off at coming face to face
with a good CPU (386@40) put into a terrible computer.)
--
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajay...@usc.edu
Doug Mohney
>Besides, what makes you think that Intel has given up developing
>killer micros? The i486DX2 box on my desk is significantly faster
>than the RS6000 box on my desk [*], and the show is only just
>beginning, folks.
I suspect the software you're running MIGHT be optimized for Intel hardware.
Kinda doubt you'd spend extra time fine-tuning chip development on the
competition's hardware :-)
>[*] I know, I know, what benchmarks? If you must know, running the
> simulator for next generation chips. And, of course, the comparison
> may be apples and oranges - dissimilar configurations, etc.
>Intel Inside (tm)
For a country which has exported more comedians to the States than any
other place on earth, the Canadians have very humorless grad students.
-- > SYS...@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU < --
Douglas Rogers
the calibre this net can obviously attract. The traffic on this net is killing me
though. Perhaps we need a moderated group to remove the BLISS v C type
argument that has no place here or any more worth than comparing apples with pairs,
and limit the fun of flame wars to a single exchange.
And don't tell me to use kill, it still takes time to decide which streams are junk or
sort the information out of the excreta.
Douglas
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Rogers MAIL: d...@uk.ac.ed.dcs
Department of Computer Science Tel: 031-650 5172 (direct line)
University of Edinburgh
Edinburgh EH9 3JZ, UK.
Patrick Haggood
>Hey, I was under the impression that a 50Mhz i486 DX machine w/256K
>cache does 20-21 Specmarks for under $3000 (including color monitor,
>mouse, keyboard, modem, 4Mb DRAM, 120Mb hard disk, DOS, Windows 3.1).
>
than an EISA bus. Thus, this machine may have the heart of a
workstation, but it's got the guts of a Pee Cee.
>Sun beware!
>
>Who says Intel and the PC Marketplace don't deliver good price -
>performance? Name another color workstation with with a ratio of
>$140/spec. Quite to the contrary, nobody beats a decent PC for
>price/performance (too bad the I/O architecture sux).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Don Gillies - gil...@cs.uiuc.edu - University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
>
Again, therein lies the problem. I've been looking into 486EISA
machines of late and from research and testimonials I find that I'm
going to spend about the same for the Intel box as I would for a Sun
with University discount, but that's just for the hardware. Unix is
going to cost more than $1500 on top of the hardware (ISC for me; I need
to run Khoros and ISC is the only Intel Unix it's been ported to).
I've been told that the only advantage you get with the Intel box is
cheap peripherals; otherwise startup costs are the same.
--
"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net," | DoD #1966
Matthew 13:47 | 81 Honda CB400T Hawk
Lemuel L. Davis
>In article <1992Apr24.1...@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gil...@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes:
>>
>Unfortunately, the machine you are describing has an ISA bus rather
>than an EISA bus. Thus, this machine may have the heart of a
>workstation, but it's got the guts of a Pee Cee.
>machines of late and from research and testimonials I find that I'm
>going to spend about the same for the Intel box as I would for a Sun
>with University discount, but that's just for the hardware. Unix is
>going to cost more than $1500 on top of the hardware (ISC for me; I need
>to run Khoros and ISC is the only Intel Unix it's been ported to).
>
>I've been told that the only advantage you get with the Intel box is
>cheap peripherals; otherwise startup costs are the same.
Perhaps some comparisons in what people have actually paid for systems
would clarify this issue. The following lists the 486/33 EISA
system that I bought last October in San Diego. The 486/50 was
not available at that time. I bought from a local clone builder shop.
AMI 486/33 EISA motherboard
120 Mbyte IDE hard drive with controller
Sony 14" 1304 monitor(1024x768 non-interlaced)
Orchid Fahrenheit 1280 video board
3.5" and 5.25" floppy drives
4 Mbyte DRAM
Cost $3400
I estimate that I would have to spend another $2000-$2500 to purchase
UNIX and upgrade the disk and memory. So, that would put me at about
$6000. Note that this board can hold up to 96 Mbytes of memory and
has 8 expansion slots. I have a number of options for upgrading,
such as EISA boards, replacing the processor, replacing the whole
board, replacing the video boards, etc. An additional nicety is
the inexpensive software.
You will need a Sun that has a color monitor in order to run Khorus.
What model are you looking at, how much memory, are there any expansion
slots, is there an upgrade path, etc.?
I bought this for use at home. If I was doing this for work I might
have chosen a Sun, if I had the funds. Actually, I would probably go
for an SGI Indigo over a Sun, especially since I would get Explorer for
free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lem Davis, Naval Ocean Systems Center, Code 731, San Diego, CA 92152-5000, USA
Internet: l...@nosc.mil Uucp: {akgua,decvax,dcdwest,ucbvax}!sdcsvax!nosc!lem
Angelos Karageorgiou
Hey Eric what you say you cut me in man ?
Now that I got your attention listen. The marketroids are dying for
LINPACKs SPECMARKs etc.. I don't even know what the fu.. initials mean;
Eric will get hardware from marketroids and you of all the people are
complaining . My jaw stands aghast
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelos kar...@insci.com My opinions are mine alone and
Karageorgiou uu3.psi.net!insci.com!karage not anyone else's
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chin Fang
|> Besides, what makes you think that Intel has given up developing
|> killer micros? The i486DX2 box on my desk is significantly faster
^^^^^^^^
Here you are very specific about chip implementation.
|> than the RS6000 box on my desk [*], and the show is only just
^^^^^^^^^^^
But now you are very ambigious. Which implementation? The integrated and
weak one used in RISC 6000 220 at 33 Mhz? or the 4-8 chip implementations
used in 320, 330, 340, 520, 530, 540? Clock speed? Cache sizes?
|> beginning, folks.
Ummmm.... :> :>
Chin Fang
fangchin@leland.$tanford.edu B-(
#include <sys/personal.h :->
Joshua Goodman
>RISC is just the latest in the list of proclaimed "PC killer"
>technology. Like the Mac, RISC-based systems have done very well in
>certain parts of the marketplace. But there's absolutely no indication
>that PC architectures will be obsolete simply because RISC exists, and
>is the current darling of the elite discussing architectures.
>
>The most recent attempt to take on the Microsoft/Intel hold on the PC
>marketplace has been the ACE consortium. Based on what I saw at the ACE
>press conference at the last UniForum, I consider that effort a
>non-starter. And I don't see anything on the horizon to take its place.
You are missing one potentially crucial thing. The ACE consortium is
_not_ an attempt to take on the Microsoft/Intel hold on the PC
marketplace. Microsoft is a founding member of ACE. It's more
Microsoft/Compaq/SGI etc.'s attempt to take on IBM and Intel.
Furthermore, Microsoft's participation is the first hint that PC
architectures might become obsolete. If Microsoft remains committed
to ACE, it has a good chance of being successful. Of the 4
"architectures" that Microsoft committed itself to (the original PC,
the Macintosh, Windows, and OS/2 (I'm lumping architecture and OS
together)) 3 have been very successful. I'm not saying that ACE will
be successful, just that it's the best threat to the PC to date.
--Joshua Goodman
____________________________________________________________________
Bias alert: I've worked for Microsoft for 2 out of the last 3 summers
and I own 5 Microsoft t-shirts.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Out of date information alert: I haven't paid attention to ACE for
about 9 months. Perhaps things have changed.
Jack Churchill
> Hey lads! I love a good flame war occasionally. Especially between dickheads of
> the calibre this net can obviously attract. The traffic on this net is killing me
> though. Perhaps we need a moderated group to remove the BLISS v C type
> argument that has no place here or any more worth than comparing apples with pairs,
> and limit the fun of flame wars to a single exchange.
>
> And don't tell me to use kill, it still takes time to decide which streams are junk or
> sort the information out of the excreta.
When we see excreta coming out of the fire hose we should stop drinking it.
--
Jack N. Churchill | ja...@syd.deg.csiro.au
Eugene N. Miya
"Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386,comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.benchmarks"
This is called a Newsgroups: line. It's like your brain on drugs.
Learn to edit it. This is ridiculously long. This is a Followup-To: line
Followup-To:
This is a useful line as well. Learn to use this as well. Many of us have
no interest in 386s. I'm not even interesting in arguing the point.
If you want to reduce flaming and other junk postings learn to change these
lines.
"Cross-posting is the mother of all evils."
--The Ay...yetollah of the Net
--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eug...@orville.nas.nasa.gov
Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
{uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Why do people perceive 'a flame,' even when you place "Not a flame" in a note?
Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya
Patrick Haggood
>In article <1992Apr24.1...@cs.wayne.edu> p...@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Patrick Haggood) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr24.1...@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gil...@m.cs.uiuc.edu (Don Gillies) writes:
>>>
>>Unfortunately, the machine you are describing has an ISA bus rather
>>than an EISA bus. Thus, this machine may have the heart of a
>>workstation, but it's got the guts of a Pee Cee.
>
>would clarify this issue. The following lists the 486/33 EISA
>system that I bought last October in San Diego.
>
> Cost $3400
>
>I estimate that I would have to spend another $2000-$2500 to purchase
>UNIX and upgrade the disk and memory. So, that would put me at about
>$6000. Note that this board can hold up to 96 Mbytes of memory and
>
>What model are you looking at, how much memory, are there any expansion
>slots, is there an upgrade path, etc.?
>Lem Davis, Naval Ocean Systems Center, Code 731, San Diego, CA 92152-5000, USA
Right now, I can get a Mobius S1 with 16M RAM, 17in color, 350M disk and
3-5 slots (I forget) for about $6,300. Sun has a 1GB ELC for about $5K.
Their lowest cost Color machine would hit me about $8,500 for the same
disk, but it's slower than the ELC. Rumor has it they'll be comeing out
with a color machine that lists at $5K, putting the educational price
for a 1GB machine in my range. I didn't know I needed color to run
Khoros; oh well, I can forget the ELC. It seems $6.5K is still the
magic number when you're talking capable workstation level machines.
Too bad my budget is $1.5K less than that....
Leo
>> He was then quite
>> irate when people who had contributed to the jargon file accused
>> him of being less than above board.
>*One* person made this accusation, and that person had an agenda of
>his own which the other major contributors rejected. How many K of
>refutation from sources independent of me would you like?
I have no hidden agenda. The criticism I heard was that when you were
soliciting input for TNHD (The New Hacker's Dictionary) you announced
that any proceeds derived from the book would be donated to an
appropriate hacker-oriented cause to be chosen after a discussion on
the net. The story is that you then "changed your mind", after people
had contributed under the previous terms, and decided to keep the
money which turned out to be a substantial amount ($15,000+?). This
upset a number of people who had been willing to make additional
contributions because that thought any profits would go to a good
cause.
>Pay attention, here comes the tough part. *I am not an altruist*. I
>have never claimed to be an altruist. I *always* have good selfish
>reasons for what I do, and I am always quite up front about admitting
>them. This is because I don't trust self-proclaimed altruists, and
>don't expect other people to, either.
Were you upfront about the profits of TNHD, or do you mean you're
always upfront SINCE then? Do you deny posting that the profits from
TNHD would be donated to a worthy cause? Do you deny that you have
changed your mind about doing so?
>Or, to put it another way, the prospect of a hot new machine for free
>was economically necessary but not spiritually sufficient.
Oh? The profits from TNHD are insufficient to buy a new machine?
Didn't you post that this is what you were planning on spending the
profits on?
>If that's too self-interested for you, tough. That's how human
>nature works. We're *all* selfish goal-seekers; what differs is our
>hierarchy of goals and how we trade off tangible rewards like money
>against intangible goals like ego-satisfaction or the feeling of
>virtuousness. I'm different not by being "more selfish" but by being
>more honest with myself and you.
Like saying the money from TNHD would be donated to a worthy cause and
then changing your mind?
The above is drawn from discussions I had with a few people and a few
postings I've seen. I don't claim to have the complete picture.
Would you care to tell us your version?
mj...@minster.york.ac.uk
>You are missing one potentially crucial thing. The ACE consortium is
>_not_ an attempt to take on the Microsoft/Intel hold on the PC
>marketplace. Microsoft is a founding member of ACE. It's more
>Microsoft/Compaq/SGI etc.'s attempt to take on IBM and Intel.
>
>Furthermore, Microsoft's participation is the first hint that PC
>architectures might become obsolete. If Microsoft remains committed
>to ACE, it has a good chance of being successful. Of the 4
>"architectures" that Microsoft committed itself to (the original PC,
>the Macintosh, Windows, and OS/2 (I'm lumping architecture and OS
>together)) 3 have been very successful. I'm not saying that ACE will
>be successful, just that it's the best threat to the PC to date.
Unfortunately, I think that the acquisition of MIPS by Silicon Graphics is
what will kill of ACE. MIPS big advantage was that it was an independent
RISC supplier, and that in turn was an attraction for ACE. Now it's not,
and at the same time, three of ACE's major backers have decided to use DEC
Alpha.
Another company that originally said it was behind ACE is SCO. Now they say
that "when ACE becomes an established platform, SCO will be there". Not quite
the same thing...
>--Joshua Goodman
>
>____________________________________________________________________
>Bias alert: I've worked for Microsoft for 2 out of the last 3 summers
>and I own 5 Microsoft t-shirts.
Noooo! Not T shirts! Aaaaaaagh!:-)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Out of date information alert: I haven't paid attention to ACE for
>about 9 months. Perhaps things have changed.
Check out SGI's share price before and after it acquired MIPS...
Mat
| Mathew Lodge | "You twist and turn like a ... twisty turny |
| mj...@minster.york.ac.uk | thing. You're a weedy pigeon, Blackadder, and |
| Summer: lodge%alsys@uknet | you can call me Susan if it isn't so" |
Mark Flynn
Hey, I was under the impression that a 50Mhz i486 DX machine w/256K
cache does 20-21 Specmarks for under $3000 (including color monitor,
mouse, keyboard, modem, 4Mb DRAM, 120Mb hard disk, DOS, Windows 3.1).
Sun beware!
================
Ha! As far as performace, Sun isn't even in the game any more!
Eric S. Raymond
> I have no hidden agenda. The criticism I heard was that when you were
> soliciting input for TNHD (The New Hacker's Dictionary) you announced
> that any proceeds derived from the book would be donated to an
> appropriate hacker-oriented cause to be chosen after a discussion on
> the net. The story is that you then "changed your mind", after people
> had contributed under the previous terms, and decided to keep the
> money which turned out to be a substantial amount ($15,000+?). This
> upset a number of people who had been willing to make additional
> contributions because that thought any profits would go to a good
> cause.
This story is false in a number of respects. First, and most fundamentally,
I never promised to donate the TNHD proceeds. In fact, on several occasions
when this point came up in email and on netnews, I explicitly *refused* to
make such a binding commitment.
There were two reasons for this. One is that not all the proceeds were mine
to dispose of --- the six (Old) Hacker's Dictionary coauthors had a stake,
too. More importantly, though, I have *always* rejected on principle the
implied quid pro quo that "we'll let you do a good deed if you agree that we
own all the time you put into it".
Good works are their own justification; I think it is *right* that the doer
should profit by them, and that our culture's insistence on a bloody decoration
of self-sacrifice is *sick*. And self-destructive; when you define virtue as
self-sacrifice, sacrifice is what you *get* --- not the good works you really
wanted. I am not an Objectivist, but all of Ayn Rand's arguments against
`altruism' apply here.
I didn't go into all this ethical argument at the time, but I was very
consistent about my refusal to commit the profits in advance. The most I
ever did was *speculate* that I might tithe to a hackish charity, always
making clear that I reserved the right not to do so. For a representative
and very public statement of my views (one of several), see my post of 20
Mar 1991 with id <1ZqtOM#7G36xC1zwxNt1bgBq2B9pGVp=er...@snark.thyrsus.com>;
copies available on request.
The only binding offer I ever made in this connection was to match from
my royalties any portion of royalties the Hacker's Dictionary coauthors
elected to direct to hackish charity. After a good deal of internal
politicking on the jargon-friends list, nothing came of this.
After the fact --- once the book was out and selling well --- I became *more*
willing to discuss charitable uses for the profits, not less. I felt that I
I had carried the point of principle and could afford to be generous --- but
generous on my *own* hook, not because in some fallacious sense it was "owed".
The question then became one of pragmatics; would the net be best served by
money donation, or if I kept the "charity" portion of the proceeds to pay bills
while I worked on free software.
I raised this question publicly in my posting titled "TNHD wins big --- now
what do I do with the money?", dated 17 Feb 92 14:57:05 GMT, message-id
<1fThY5#7yv2Vt405wNk7Mz3tp52zTZj=er...@snark.thyrsus.com>. Debate and
voluminous email followed, which I summarized in a posting of 12 Feb 92 with
id <1fQprn#1RHq4d6QPpBq95YM391Ts0QJ=er...@snark.thyrsus.com>. The response
was 5 to 1 in favor of "keep the money and do net.friendly things with your
life" which is what I'm doing.
These are the facts; copies of these postings are available from me on
request. They will demonstrate that I have maintained a single, consistent
ethical position about the disposition of the profits throughout the TNHD
project, and that I have repeatedly discussed and defended it in public.
You are free to disagree with my ethical-egoist philosophy, but before you do
so, ask yourself one practical question; when was the last time any one
person carried through a net.project with as many willing contributors, as
much significance to the net, and as great a real-world impact as TNHD has
had, and is *still* having?
I am willing that my convictions and behavior be judged by their results.
Keith Smith
>>In article <GLEW.92Ap...@pdx007.intel.com>, gl...@pdx007.intel.com (Andy Glew) writes:
>
>got a long way to go before it beats the high end work stations.
>
Yea, shoot, at LEAST a year! (<G>)
And how many different flavors of unix run on the SUN, How about the
6000? The cost of hardware, though significant is not the #1 issue.
I'd pay 20% more for hardware that would run my application, and or had
the most SOFTWARE FLEXIBILITY. I could care less that the RS/6000 runs
like a bat out of hell. Will it boot DOS? Can it run ISC Unix? SCO?
DELL? VP/ix? Can I run Word Perfect or 1-2-3 on it?
Those are the questions that when answered sell to the majority of
users. Heck, when I outgrow my 386/40 I'll give it to my dad for a word
processor!
Now if you want too fool around with serious graphics and design apps
you need to look at SGI and SUN, cause that's where the software is
right now, This MAY change.
--
Keith Smith uunet!ksmith!keith 5719 Archer Rd.
Digital Designs BBS 1-919-423-4216 Hope Mills, NC 28348-2201
Somewhere in the Styx of North Carolina ...
Evan Leibovitch
>>The most recent attempt to take on the Microsoft/Intel hold on the PC
>>marketplace has been the ACE consortium. Based on what I saw at the ACE
>>press conference at the last UniForum, I consider that effort a
>>non-starter. And I don't see anything on the horizon to take its place.
>You are missing one potentially crucial thing. The ACE consortium is
>_not_ an attempt to take on the Microsoft/Intel hold on the PC
>marketplace. Microsoft is a founding member of ACE. It's more
>Microsoft/Compaq/SGI etc.'s attempt to take on IBM and Intel.
Microsoft is just playing it smart, by being part of anything that could
be a threat. It doesn't mean they're committed long-term. They're
looking to see how the wind blows before deciding how deep to get
involved.
Same with UNIX. Gates bashes UNIX at every opportunity, yet makes sure
his company has a significant financial stake in SCO -- just in case...
>Furthermore, Microsoft's participation is the first hint that PC
>architectures might become obsolete. If Microsoft remains committed
>to ACE, it has a good chance of being successful. Of the 4
>"architectures" that Microsoft committed itself to (the original PC,
>the Macintosh, Windows, and OS/2 (I'm lumping architecture and OS
>together)) 3 have been very successful.
Quibble: Microsoft cannot take much credit for the success of the Mac.
It has done successful applications, but has had little to do with its
hardware or software architecture per se.
I would also add LAN Manager to the list of Microsoft (software)
architectures which have not caught on. That and OS/2, the most recent
efforts by Microsoft to extend its reach into the faster and more
capable systems, have been the failures.
Microsoft has been losing significant influence in the field of what I'd
call software architecture for PCs. Well known companies like Novell and
(relative) upstarts like Corollory, Quarterdeck and Locus have been extending
Microsoft's basic product in ways better than Microsoft was able to do.
Sort of like what Nantucket and Fox Software have been doing to Ashton Tate.
>I'm not saying that ACE will
>be successful, just that it's the best threat to the PC to date.
That's absolutely true, and helps prove my point. If ACE, pathetic as it
is, constitutes the best marketing shot to date against the PC
architecture, then Intel has nothing to worry about.
Benny the Bump
*
*Unfortunately, I think that the acquisition of MIPS by Silicon Graphics is
*what will kill of ACE. MIPS big advantage was that it was an independent
*RISC supplier, and that in turn was an attraction for ACE. Now it's not,
*and at the same time, three of ACE's major backers have decided to use DEC
*Alpha.
*
*Another company that originally said it was behind ACE is SCO. Now they say
*that "when ACE becomes an established platform, SCO will be there". Not quite
*the same thing...
*
*>--Joshua Goodman
Wrong. The "merger" (please don't use the "a" word ;-) was the only thing
that might have saved MIPS. Of course, with everyone dropping both MIPS
and SGI stock like super-heated potatoes, and Compaq sending flowers to
the ACE funeral, and Microsoft running off with that handsome character from
Massachusetts (DEC), it really doesn't seem to matter, does it?
Clearly, these opinions are my own.
Archer Sully <arc...@sgi.com> "Remember, we can't have utopia
until we've destroyed all poodles!"
-- Vigilante Rocker
Tim W Smith
> architectures which have not caught on. That and OS/2, the most recent
> efforts by Microsoft to extend its reach into the faster and more
> capable systems, have been the failures.
Actually, I believe OS/2 2.0 is doing quite well. On the other hand, it
is no longer a Microsoft product. I believe that IBM practically rewrote
it from the ground up.
Tim Smith
Ruth Milner
>
>I raised this question publicly in my posting titled "TNHD wins big --- now
>what do I do with the money?", dated 17 Feb 92 14:57:05 GMT, message-id
><1fThY5#7yv2Vt405wNk7Mz3tp52zTZj=er...@snark.thyrsus.com>. Debate and
>voluminous email followed, which I summarized in a posting of 12 Feb 92 with
>id <1fQprn#1RHq4d6QPpBq95YM391Ts0QJ=er...@snark.thyrsus.com>.
I'm not arguing with anything you claim, since I paid no attention at the time.
But I just had to wonder: how could you summarize on Feb 12 responses to
something that was posted on Feb 17?
Looks like one or the other of these dates is wrong ...
--
Ruth Milner NRAO/VLA Socorro NM
Computing Division Head rmi...@zia.aoc.nrao.edu
Don Buchholz
>
>When we see excreta coming out of the fire hose we should stop drinking it.
>--
> Jack N. Churchill | ja...@syd.deg.csiro.au
Yes, but if you're drinking when the first slug comes through
it DOES leave a bad taste in your mouth :-)
I commend the responsible actions of the Bake-Off poster who suggested began
the follow-up movement to comp.unix.sysv386(sp?).
Don Buchholz
buch...@ese.ogi.edu
The Polymath
}The only binding offer I ever made in this connection was to match from
}my royalties any portion of royalties the Hacker's Dictionary coauthors
}elected to direct to hackish charity. After a good deal of internal
}politicking on the jargon-friends list, nothing came of this.
My understanding was this was to include all the royalties of the minor
contributors. Certainly, that's where I expected my share to go. I'm
sorry to hear it didn't work out.
The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, M.A., CDP, aka: holl...@polymath.tti.com)
Head Robot Wrangler at Citicorp Turn the rascals out!
3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (310) 450-9111, x2483 No incumbents in '92!
Santa Monica, CA 90405 {rutgers|pyramid|philabs|psivax}!ttidca!hollombe
Erich Boleyn
>In article <1992Apr24.1...@cs.wayne.edu> p...@jake.cc.wayne.edu (Patrick Haggood) writes:
>>machines of late and from research and testimonials I find that I'm
>>going to spend about the same for the Intel box as I would for a Sun
>>with University discount, but that's just for the hardware. Unix is
>>going to cost more than $1500 on top of the hardware (ISC for me; I need
>>to run Khoros and ISC is the only Intel Unix it's been ported to).
...[deleted]...
>I estimate that I would have to spend another $2000-$2500 to purchase
>UNIX and upgrade the disk and memory. So, that would put me at about
>$6000. Note that this board can hold up to 96 Mbytes of memory and
>has 8 expansion slots. I have a number of options for upgrading,
>such as EISA boards, replacing the processor, replacing the whole
>board, replacing the video boards, etc. An additional nicety is
>the inexpensive software.
There are several versions of UNIX/MACH that are in the works and will
be free with source code when finished. I assume many have heard of the
GNU project? It is coming right along... and BSD is also "nearly ready"
to release a free kernel from what I have heard, although I'd have to
check in to be sure.
In addition to those are smaller variants which are either free
or cheap, and are out now (LINUX, MINIX, etc). Many of these, however,
are not complete implementations of the *IX that we'd be used to.
There are also several variants that can run a.out or mach-o format
executables that are multitasking and *look* like UNIX to a certain
point. One example is PC-Choices, which is FTP'able as we speak, runs
DOS subshells, is true multitasking, and supports a.out (GNU) executable
formats.
Many of these, however, are currently/will be first available for the
i[34]86 chip series. The Mach 3.0 kernel that GNU is using was first
written for an i386 CPU (or at least, that is the most robust one I
have heard of by far).
Erich
--
"I haven't lost my mind; I know exactly where it is."
/ -- Erich Stefan Boleyn -- \ --=> *Mad Genius wanna-be* <=--
{ Honorary Grad. Student (Math) } Internet E-mail: <er...@dehn.mth.pdx.edu>
\ Portland State University / WARNING: INTERESTED AND EXCITABLE
Shankar Unni
> There are several versions of UNIX/MACH that are in the works and will
> be free with source code when finished. I assume many have heard of the
> GNU project? It is coming right along... and BSD is also "nearly ready"
> to release a free kernel from what I have heard, although I'd have to
> check in to be sure.
Unless, of course, AT&T (sorry, USL) decided to sue UCB on the basis of
"look and feel". 1/2 :-).
Of course, if they stick strictly to POSIX or XSH4 and only add things
that are *not* in SysV, they may be OK. 1/4 :-).
-----
Shankar Unni Internet: sha...@iag.hp.com
HP International Contract Programming HPDESK: Shankar UNNI / HP4700
Phone : +1-408-447-4007 UUCP: ...!hplabs!hpda!shankar
DISCLAIMER:
This response does not represent the official position of, or statement by,
the Hewlett-Packard Company. The above data is provided for informational
purposes only. It is supplied without warranty of any kind. :-)
Blair P. Houghton
>should profit by them, and that our culture's insistence on a bloody decoration
>of self-sacrifice is *sick*.
In other words, all disgruntled contributors to The New
Hacker's Dictionary now have before them Eric's challenge
to bring a class-action suit against him for having mislead
them with his insistences that he was honorable.
To fail to bring this suit would be to abrogate one's
responsibility to insist upon profiting from one's
contribution, since such sacrifice would be "*sick*."
--Blair
"Anyone have Melvin Belli's fax number?"