linux-mips-fnet
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: SCSI & style of life

To: linux-mips@fnet.fr
Subject: Re: SCSI & style of life
From: "Paolo Bevilacqua" <pab@uni.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 1995 13:46:27 +0100
In-reply-to: Andreas Busse <andy@soft-n-hard.de> "Re: SCSI & style of life" (Nov 22, 9:39am)
References: <199511220839.JAA28506@newton.soft-n-hard.de>
Hi all,
On Nov 22,  9:39am, Andreas Busse wrote:
> Subject: Re: SCSI & style of life
> ...
>
> that was nice to read. Thanks, Paolo.
> However, I'd like to add a few words that might explain why I
> don't find it that funny as it perhaps should be.
> First, our points of view might differ more or less. Those of
> you who grabbed a Mips box, either by accident or by mistake (;-))
> don't need to care about if and when Linux/MIPS is working on
> it. You just have the box, and it's standing around in a dusty
> and dark corner if you stop working on it. That's fine, but is
> always has been different for me and since I left Waldorf it has
> become even more different.
> At Waldorf, I always needed someone to convince that Linux/MIPS
> can become a success. That wasn't always easy, but it worked.
> It worked that good that Waldorf bought machines, paid the internet
> traffic, even paid Ralf part time.
> At the time I left Waldorf I had to decide wether to take the
> Linux/MIPS project with me or to kill it. Nobody else at Waldorf
> was interested or able to continue it.
>
> So... Besides the fact that I needed to buy the equipment Ralf
> has at home, I spend a lot of time into this project that I
> otherwise could have spend into projects for which I get money.
> I'm not DEC, MIPS, SGI or SNI -- I can't afford vaporware. I
> guess this is the same for most of us, but the difference is
> that all of you are free to say "sorry, don't have time for the
> next three months." I can't -- or do you think so?
>
> Basically, I wish that we all can make money out of Linux/MIPS
> at a certain point, either directly or indirectly. That's my
> goal. If yours differs, no problem. But if your goals are contrary
> to mine, no matter why and how, we have a real problem.
>

I understand perfectly. Yes, our motivations are different, and yours are the
strongest or at least the most practical ones. Such a difference will not be a
problem as long people won't promise anything that they can't deliver, and i've
payed much attention to not commit this error myself.

> Now we have the chance to get real support from a big company.
> If we do it right, we can perhaps get more support. Eventually
> even money, although I can't promise that.
> But what happens? Instead that someone says: "Ok, I'll take
> care of this SNI baby -- that's my chance!" we're fighting about
> techno junk. Very, very disappointing.
>

I think that the SNI thing, expecially under your point of view, is very good.
It is a germany based company and it shows as collaborative. Marketing chances
for theyr machines are much higher than for hybrid MIPS/PC we are hacking just
now, that are ~4 years old.

> Now I have to make another decision: I can take care of the SNI
> box myself, but then you'll need to find another coordinator.
> I can't do both, and it has never been a good idea to try to
> coordinate a project on which you are working yourself.
>

You're probably right, and there is another problem: being the SNI a totally
different machine as i think is, the only common part among ARC compatibles and
SNI will be the (cross) developement env. and some higher level compatibility
layer, like libc, excutables and the ABI. This is very important stuff, we
can't really do anything without it. So my call is for:
'A freezed devel. env. that works'.
I will release my gcc 2.7.0 binaries and libc 4.something UNLESS some serious
known bug prevents to do so. Then we can schedule the next release to let's say
four months. This will give to the people that work on it all the time to add
new features, fix the bugs, and release a comprensive source/binaries package.
I want to say my opinion about binaries distributions here. They are GOOD. A
great point of force for Linux is they large availability. Basically they allow
a fresh hacker, let's somebody that isn't yet very skilled about gnuism, unix
code and stuff, to gradually approach the system and it's complexity. Not
everybody is fascinated by the 'tools to make tools' paradigm, at least not at
the very starting point of a project.

> A last word to the rules Paolo mentioned, even at the risk that
> I repeat myself: The rule should be to move Linux/MIPS to a
> usable state. Then it becomes fun anyway.

I think that everyone should agree on this.

>
> So, what do you want?
>

HOLYDAYS! .... apart jokes, if you feel you have to pass hand, it's ok. I'm
sure you will keep contributing to the whole. Let's find another working model
if not another coordinator, this is the place to talk about it, and this is the
time to do it. Comments, please.

        /pab

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>