> I think that it would be best to use aboot since it's
> closer to the PAL code that is used for Tru64 and VMS.
> MILO requires the ARC console, which has it's issues
> and will soon go away. The other plus for aboot is
> that the SRM console is faster than the ARC console.
> For systems that don't have the SRM console, they can
> install it from the firmware site at Compaq/Dec.
Well if that's the case, I would love to say that we'll only go with
aboot. At least here in the beginning, we can just support aboot. I
don't think it's too much to ask that people upgrade their firmware...it
might solve some other problems too. And if MILO is going away sometime
soon, I don't particularly want to get involved with it.
Does anyone see this as a problem? My vote for now (assuming we have
votes) is to only support aboot. MILO could get supported later on,
assuming there is sufficient need.
--
Chris Lumens - chris@slackware.com - KG6CIH
@n=(-42,-85,-83,-19,65,2,-10,-10,-15,-3,2,-10,73,-4,8,-4,2,79,8,17,15,7,14,2);
print map{chr(-$n[$i++]+ord)} sort(split(//,'place random string here')),"\n";
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri May 09 2003 - 10:00:01 PDT