[Info-vax] Linux support

[glen herrmannsfeldt]

Bill Gunshannon <bill at server2.cs.scranton.edu> wrote:

(snip)

> But that falls back, once again, on the idea that a technically
> superior chip could have won that battle.  It was never about
> technical superiority.  People here have often said "it's the 
> applications" and that is the crux of the matter.  Probably the
> biggest factor in the demise of Alpha was Microsoft dropping
> support for it.  Isn't it curious that after talk of "burning
> boats" and "there will be no future ports, Itanium is it"
> speeches Itanium's demise and with it all the systems that
> relied on it came so soon after Microsoft dropped support?
> Another interesting point is the claim by Microsoft that they
> were not going to support another 64bit architecture when they
> did that and yet they now support Arm as well as x86.  See
> where this is going?

As well as I remember it, they wouldn't support another intel 64
bit architecture.  Or is Arm now intel, too? I haven't followed
it that closely.  But even if it is now, it wasn't developed
by intel, so it doesn't count.

-- glen