Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site ucbvax.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!ucbvax!info-vax
From: info-vax@ucbvax.ARPA
Newsgroups: fa.info-vax
Subject: Re: uVAX busses
Message-ID: <8438@ucbvax.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 15:41:34 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8438
Posted: Mon Jun 24 15:41:34 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 25-Jun-85 03:41:56 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.ARPA
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 21

From: hadron!jsdy@seismo (Joseph S. D. Yao)

In article <7774@ucbvax.ARPA> you write:
>From: Art Berggreen 
>
>I am under non-disclosure so I can't say much, but look for a 
>future uVAX whose primary bus in not a QBUS or UNIBUS or CIbus.

BOO!  Why am I going to have to invest in hardware for yet another
bus which will remain proprietary to yet another single vendor for
a while to come?  I objected to the Q-Bus for this reason when it
came out (although, by now, there are enough technically good
reasons for it to stay, and enough second sources).  I will be
annoyed at this one, unless it significantly pushes forward the
state of the art.  Or, perhaps they will use some "industry
standard"?

Sorry about the flame ... it's like sneezing; you have to do it
every once in a while.		;-)

	Joe Yao		hadron!jsdy@seismo.{ARPA,UUCP}