[Info-vax] vtAlpha and marketing bullshit

[Marc Van Dyck]

Who Else presented the following explanation :
> On Dec 18, 4:06 am, Pinocchio <pinoc... at gmx.com> wrote:
>> Hi all!
>> "Bare metal approach" of vtAlpha is nothing but a f*ing marketing. vtAlpha 
>> is a modified Linux SuSe distribution with a simulator binaries running on 
>> top. So all their "no OS overhead" claims are false. Think, instead posting 
>> some real benchmarks they are pumping us with a bullshit. Definitely ground 
>> to double think before selecting this simluator. Besides are they violating 
>> GNU license? I didn't see any links to sources on their web site.
>> 
>> P.S. I am not affiliated with any commercial Alpha simulator supplier. I 
>> only hate marketing bullshit.
>> 
>> --
>> pinoccio # gmx.com
>> 
>> --
>> --------------------------------- --- -- -
>> Posted with NewsLeecher v5.0 Beta 3
>> Web @http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet
>> ------------------- ----- ---- -- -
>
> Doesn't BS appear in the definition of marketing?  Multiple times?
>
> When I first read the vtAlpha product description, my immediate
> assumption was that the application was providing an embedded OS
> kernel.  That's the only feasible way to do what they are doing.  I
> interpreted the "bare metal" concept to be that all the user provides
> is the hardware: no need to purchase, install, or maintain an
> operating system. I see some benefit to this.
>
> If you can set your indignation aside for just a moment, does it
> really matter whether the functionality comes from an embedded OS or
> is built into the application?  Other than that the former is likely
> to be far more stable.
>
> Keep in mind AVTware is apparently a new company with a new product.
> And I'd venture to guess probably a fairly small company whose
> principals are quite likely not natie English speakers.  Yes, the
> marketing documentation is a bit sparse and rough around the edges.
> But no worse than SRI's (now Stromasys) documentation for Charon was
> 6-7 years ago.
>
> If you have concerns about the marketing doc, I recommend documenting
> them in less inflammatory language and submitting them as a suggestion
> to the vendor. That way there's at least a chance everyone will win.

I was also going to say something along this. For me, the fact that
there is indeed a linux kernel as bottom layer seemed obvious, and
I don't care the least bit, be it SuSe or whatever else. The fact is,
it's embedded, tested as one product, does not need to be feed with
patches every few weeks, and is supported as one product, so no
ping-pong between two suppliers who will both pretend that the fault
is at the other side. After all, if they have re-used a Linux kernel,
that means they have been able to dedicate more effort on the emulator
side, and that's what is important.

-- 
Marc Van Dyck