How can we have a conversation about efficency etc etce then in the next email 
have it all put in an FPGA?

      From: Tony Tebby <>
 Sent: Tuesday, 21 March 2017, 10:40
 Subject: Re: [Ql-Users] Stella
Dave Park thinks that

"So, fair to assume it's a dead project that will never see the light of 

That seems quite reasonable!

The problem can be viewed in two ways


1) You need a system development environment that
    a) will support different processors - ruling out assembler
    b) does not impose UNIX type structures - ruling out C, C++, etc

2) You need to develop interface modules (drivers?) for a wide range of 
"peripheral" devices - the device manufacturers will not develop them 
for you.

3) You need to develop an applications base for a new market

4) You need to develop entirely different hardware architectures - this 
century, architectures have become ever more tightly dedicated to UNIX 
(Linux, Windows NT, ...)

Therefore you need $$$$$.


1) A first version of the Stella core was coded in MC68000 assembler and 
benchmarked against Solaris 2 (UNIX SVR4) showing orders of magnitude 
(under unrealistic, best case, benchmark conditions) lower system 
overheads. Sun Microsystems rejected the idea of developing the system 
saying that it would not work on either SPARC systems or symmetric 
multiprocessor systems (false) and that benchmarks were not reliable 
indicators (true). Instead they bought Chorus, a UNIX variant, which 
disappeared without trace. Not everybody will always be so stupid

2) There are signs that the "you can always use a more powerful 
computer" is becoming less acceptable as an excuse for chronically 
inefficient software.

3) There is still no end in sight to the discovery of new "exploits" in 
all sorts of Unix based devices. Unix is fundamentally unsound as well 
as chronically inefficient.

4) Unix type systems will inevitably be wiped out by other systems. We 
could hope that, unlike Unix, these will be theoretically sound and fit 
for purpose. This may not happen in our lifetime.

5) The only real barrier is ignorance. The story of Android is 
illustrative. If, in 2005, Google had known that they could have 
developed an entirely new operating system and had it up and running 
sooner than trying to kludge something out of Linux, would they have 
bought Android Inc. for $50M? Of course not, but they did not know.


On 18/03/2017 12:49, Ralf Reköndt wrote:
> I think, TT reads here, so he makes his own thougths about people, who 
> still remember his projects and are still interested in these.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Park"
>> So, fair to assume it's a dead project that will never see the light 
>> of day.
>> Thanks all!
>> Dave
>> On Thu, Mar 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, Norman Dunbar
>> wrote:
>>> Sorry Dave,  I seem to have an inability to use a tablet! The url was
>>> supposed to be:
>>> but I suspect it's Arnauld's page on Thierry's site which you 
>>> mentioned.
>>> Cheers,
>>> Norm.
>>> -- 
>>> Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. 
> _______________________________________________
> QL-Users Mailing List

QL-Users Mailing List

QL-Users Mailing List

Reply via email to