Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!ames!killer!linimon From: linimon@killer.UUCP (Mark Linimon) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Standard Un*x H/W architecture Summary: standard architecture considered not necessarily good per se Keywords: 88000 SPARC Sun Apple Mac Macintosh UNIX Message-ID: <4801@killer.UUCP> Date: 15 Jul 88 00:01:54 GMT References: <261@hodge.UUCP> <370STORKEL@RICE> <607@riddle.UUCP> <11783@ames.arc.nasa.gov> Organization: The Unix(R) Connection, Dallas, Texas Lines: 32 In article <11783@ames.arc.nasa.gov>, lamaster@ames.arc.nasa.gov (Hugh LaMaster) writes: > The ABI standards are supposed to at least standardize Un*x > within H/W families. Personally, I would be satisfied if all vendors > agreed on a standard data representation - specifically, IEEE floating > point 32 bit and 64 bit, ASCII, and two's comp. integers, so that DATA > files could be moved between machines, a requirement in our environment. I agree with your statements that a standard data format is a Good Thing, and that binary compatibility between machines with the same architecture is a Good Thing. Everyone of course agrees that source-code compatibility between machines of disparate architectures is a Good Thing. > Standard executables on all machines may have to wait another 20 years > at least. My disagreement is with your (implict - I realize that I'm running a danger by putting words in your mouth) assumption that a standard architecture would ever necessarily be a Good Thing per se. One, I think that this would tend to stifle architectural experimentation - e.g. the advent of RISC, perhaps even more so the "exotic" things like Multiflow. Two, I think that different architectures may well perform better for different applications: even Un*x systems are used for such disparate things as general software development, heavy number crunching, and database applications. I doubt that there is one "best" underlying architecture that serves equally well for all of these, even given that they are running the same operating system. Consider in support of this point the number of systems that Convex, Teradata, et. al., sell. Mark Linimon Mizar Digital Systems uucp: sun!texsun!mizarvme!linimon