[Info-vax] X86 first boot? - A Really Stupid Question

[David Turner]

Seeing as how incompatibilities exist even on 1 Alphaserver or Integrity 
server, how the hell is VSI going to maintain drivers/support for 
options and servers and workstations running VSI x86-64 VMS?

I mean, just buy a DELL server for example.
Even under the same part number,  1 server may have a Broadcom network 
chip on the board, while the other may have an intel chipset.
Same goes for SAS controllers, with ever changing firmware levels...

And the support for a multitude of different branded servers using ever 
changing chipsets and cpus?

Even Proliant servers, which are more parts-vendor stable, come from the 
manufacturer with different firmware levels. Everything seems to go out 
to the highest bidder on memory products, USB chips.....

This is going to be TRUE HELL unless there is a very small and finite 
date code, product code, firmware version etc.

Otherwise it is going to be a Sh*tstorm for VSI Support.....

Methinks 2 very specific servers - HPE only - with some seriously 
limited options and expansion capabilities, is the only way forward...

My opinion but experience does sometimes trump logic.






On 3/29/2019 9:37 AM, clair.grant at vmssoftware.com wrote:
> On Friday, March 29, 2019 at 6:26:02 AM UTC-4, clairg... at gmail.com wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 28, 2019 at 11:58:09 PM UTC-4, John Santos wrote:
>>> The VSI home page https://vmssoftware.com/index.html says
>>> that Proof Point 27 (Do a DIR on the console and get
>>> correct results) has been achieved.  This would constitute
>>> first boot, according to the rules of last year's contest.
>>>
>>> Howver, the porting status page
>>> https://vmssoftware.com/updates_port.html says Points 25,
>>> 26 and 27 are still pending, so maybe not.
>>>
>>> As of few days ago (the last time I checked), it had been
>>> stuck on Point 21 for a month or so.
>>>
>>> So good news, maybe really good news!
>>
>> To begin with, I have high praise for our new web operation. However, even with my very specific requests, someone in the pipe line made a couple assumptions that are not true. We are all human.
>>
>> First, #27 has not been achieved but we are closing in on it. Second, of slightly lesser importance, is that #23 Mounting the System Disk has not been achieved; that is one of things we are working on now. However, #24 is complete. Things are not completely serial at this point.
>>
>> I will try to get these corrected ASAP.
> 
> It has been updated. Rather than trying to make the out of order #24 achieved prior to #23, I decided to leave it as is. Mount is so close that it is not worth the effort to wordsmith it. OK, for a couple days we are telling a minor fib.
>