In article ,
Rick wrote:
:I Wanted to ask how often is the freeware collection for IRIX updated ?

Usually 4 times a year -- February, May, August, and November.


:THere are a few package marked as dangerous because of vulnerabilities.
:There are also packages which depends on the dangerous one so that
:to have a decent freeware install I had to remove
: fw_common.sw.security_fixes

There are internal delays of some sort; the usual November
release is late. We have not been told of the nature of the delays.
--
'ignorandus (Latin): "deserving not to be known"'
-- Journal of Self-Referentialism

hello,
mike wrote:
> I think we can all assume it might have to do with less man-power,
> unfortunately

when is IRIX version VII coming out, is there even a roadmap for future
IRIX releases after 6.X ?

g.

In article ,
wrote:
:when is IRIX version VII coming out, is there even a roadmap for future
:IRIX releases after 6.X ?

The only technical reason to go for IRIX 6.6 or 7.0 would be if it
were important to break the forwards-and-backwards compatability
promises of 6.5 .

Going to IRIX 6.6 or 7.0 could be important from a marketting hype
perspective, if it were felt necessary to convince buyers that there
was something substantially new and exciting in IRIX.

Software application vendors, though, made it very clear to SGI that
every time SGI does a major release upgrade (e.g., 6.5 to 6.6) then
that they have to requalify all their applications for IRIX, and that
that's an expensive process that a number of them are not willing to
undertake. These vendors -are- willing to keep up with the subrelease
6.5.X strategy because of the compatability guarantees. Break that
guarantee, upset the vendors. Even if it's just a name change for sales
hype reasons, the vendors have to treat it as if it is a big technical
change, and that makes them unhappy.


What is it that you see that could be accomplished in 6.6 or 7.0 that
could not be accomplished in 6.5.X ? There -are- road maps for
IRIX development within 6.5: why do you see 6.6 or 7.0 as important?
Are you perhaps just looking for a marketing signal that IRIX isn't
dead, that SGI is still putting a lot of faith and effort into IRIX?
--
"The human genome is powerless in the face of chocolate."
-- Dr. Adam Drewnowski

gereon@geekmail.de wrote:
>
> when is IRIX version VII coming out, is there even a roadmap for future
> IRIX releases after 6.X ?

This has been discussed several times in the past. You should check
google.

But to save you a little effort, here are the main points from SGI's
point of view:

- features, hardware support and improvements are being added to IRIX
at every quartlery release. You're not missing out on stuff.

- renumbering IRIX from 6.5 to 7 buys us little and will in fact cost
SGI a whole lot to have it requalified with various standards and
applications.

- SGI has decided that the IRIX 6.5 compatibility guarantee is a good
thing for its customers, and renumbering it to 7 would imply breaking
that guarantee.

- and certainly there is a roadmap for IRIX which covers things like
future features, other major work and hardware support.

- releasing a new "version" of an OS is a marketing decision for all
vendors, not a technical one. There are very few actual new OSes
that actually deserve being labelled as a new version. OS X is
probably as close to a new OS as we've seen for some time, at least
from the customer's point of view. XP is as relatively close to NT
as IRIX 6.5.23 is to 6.5 base.

- and finally, not changing the OS willy-nilly is a good thing.
Software stability and performance comes over time, as it matures.
XP is much better than NT, not because it is a new version, but
because it is mostly the same version with a bucket-load of bugs and
performance issues fixed.


Ivan
--
Ivan Rayner
ivanr@sgi.com

Ivan Rayner wrote:

> gereon@geekmail.de wrote:
> >
> > when is IRIX version VII coming out, is there even a roadmap for future
> > IRIX releases after 6.X ?
>
> This has been discussed several times in the past. You should check
> google.
>
> But to save you a little effort, here are the main points from SGI's
> point of view:
>
> - features, hardware support and improvements are being added to IRIX
> at every quartlery release. You're not missing out on stuff.

like IP22 support

>
>
> - renumbering IRIX from 6.5 to 7 buys us little and will in fact cost
> SGI a whole lot to have it requalified with various standards and
> applications.
>

but coming out with several lines of failed peecee platforms cost nothing,
i guess.

>
> - SGI has decided that the IRIX 6.5 compatibility guarantee is a good
> thing for its customers, and renumbering it to 7 would imply breaking
> that guarantee.

yes, lets save 7 for eol of IRIX, so after years of 6.5.25... 6.5.75 it
looks like
the linux development cycle, and customers are used to that.

>
>
> - and certainly there is a roadmap for IRIX which covers things like
> future features, other major work and hardware support.

like uh... fixing mediarecord? or ah... upgrading opengl past 1.1?
nah.....

>
>
> - releasing a new "version" of an OS is a marketing decision for all
> vendors, not a technical one. There are very few actual new OSes
> that actually deserve being labelled as a new version. OS X is
> probably as close to a new OS as we've seen for some time, at least
> from the customer's point of view. XP is as relatively close to NT
> as IRIX 6.5.23 is to 6.5 base.
>

i don't know. some vendors roll out new OS version when they make
major upgrades to it either to bring new software or hardware products
to market, and that's generally a technical reason.
staying at 6.5.x sounds more like stagnation....

>
> - and finally, not changing the OS willy-nilly is a good thing.
> Software stability and performance comes over time, as it matures.
> XP is much better than NT, not because it is a new version, but
> because it is mostly the same version with a bucket-load of bugs and
> performance issues fixed.

well, i DO admit there isn't one damn reason i would run anything other
than irix. because frankly, it IS the most stable and easy to use unix OS
I've used, as well as most others... except poor TOPS-20... (boohoo).

anyway all opinions are rhetorical unless specifically implied.

>
>
> Ivan
> --
> Ivan Rayner
> ivanr@sgi.com

In article ,
Ivan Rayner wrote:

: We bring plenty of new hardware to market under the 6.5 name. We add
: plenty of new features under the 6.5 name. Renumbering 6.5.24 to IRIX
: 7 wont automatically get you a fancy new desktop...

Why not renumber 6.5.24 as "IRIX 24". Just slowly phase the "6.5" out of the
marketing speak - since it will never change it's pointless to keep those digits
around.

That way you satisfy both camps. For people who say "IRIX must always be 6.5",
simply point to the uname which says "6.5.24". For the people who say "IRIX is
only on life support and nothing new is added" point to the fancy big "IRIX 24"
version number - increases by a whole integer every quarter, and it's a whopping
14 better than Solaris 10.

Of course, I'm still wondering what you're gonna name the CPU after you get past
R18k, since R20k is already taken.


Cheers - Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler

--
Tony 'Nicoya' Mantler -- Master of Code-fu -- nicoya@ubb.ca
-- http://nicoya.feline.pp.se/ -- http://www.ubb.ca/ --

Ivan Rayner wrote:

> Ah, now that is an entirely different topic... All companies try
> things and fail. The PC experience did lead to the Altix which is an
> impressive machine.

Hmm...I see no reason why the experience SGI had in the x86 market should
lead to a machine that is based on IA64 and Origin technology.

Benjamin

Walter Roberson wrote:

> The only technical reason to go for IRIX 6.6 or 7.0 would be if it
> were important to break the forwards-and-backwards compatability
> promises of 6.5 .
>
> Going to IRIX 6.6 or 7.0 could be important from a marketting hype
> perspective, if it were felt necessary to convince buyers that there
> was something substantially new and exciting in IRIX.
>
> Software application vendors, though, made it very clear to SGI that
> every time SGI does a major release upgrade (e.g., 6.5 to 6.6) then
> that they have to requalify all their applications for IRIX, and that
> that's an expensive process that a number of them are not willing to
> undertake. These vendors -are- willing to keep up with the subrelease
> 6.5.X strategy because of the compatability guarantees. Break that
> guarantee, upset the vendors.

IMHO that's a really sad excuse for stagnation. The point is that most other
platform vendors _do_ major release upgrades with the software vendors
following them. I understand SGI is afraid of loosing the few remaining
companies developing for IRIX but besides the technical side it's very bad
marketing since it makes people think SGI isn't interested in IRIX any more.

> Even if it's just a name change for
> sales hype reasons, the vendors have to treat it as if it is a big
> technical change, and that makes them unhappy.

It depends. I have the feeling it makes _SGI_ unhappy as every new release
of a vendors software product might be the one that doesn't support IRIX any
more. If software vendors are running away from Your platform of course You
are afraid of changes that might cause these vendors to think about their
IRIX efforts twice.

> What is it that you see that could be accomplished in 6.6 or 7.0 that
> could not be accomplished in 6.5.X ? There -are- road maps for
> IRIX development within 6.5: why do you see 6.6 or 7.0 as important?
> Are you perhaps just looking for a marketing signal that IRIX isn't
> dead, that SGI is still putting a lot of faith and effort into IRIX?

With the current situation SGI could really use some "marketing signal" that
shows that there is still done something. Maybe IRIX is still up to date,
but the outside world gets the impression that it is not. Usually the last
numbers are used to show the patch level, and a numbering like 6.5.22 says
that it's mainly a bug fix for an operating system that hasn't seen a major
update since 1998! Maybe there is any progress inside IRIX, but that is
definitely not shown by SGI. And while the competition is producing a new OS
Release every 1-3 years SGI will still be at 6.5 when offering the 'IRIX
6.55.485m' update.

As to breaking up things, I know SGI is afraid of the software vendor
dropping them, but maybe one of the reason for the decreasing number of IRIX
applications is the stagnation that SGI shows the outside world. Besides
this, a new Release number doesn't necessarily mean to break with everything
from 6.5. SGI could have taken some of the improvements and the current drop
of the old hardware and package this in a optically reworked IRIX 6.6 that
eventually comes with a improved installation routine.

For most platform manufacturers a new OS Release usually is a positive
thing, providing some marketing hype and showing the customers that their
platform is still alive and being improved. IMHO SGI shouldn't be too afraid
of changes...

Benjamin

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Ivan Rayner wrote:
>
>> Ah, now that is an entirely different topic... All companies try
>> things and fail. The PC experience did lead to the Altix which is an
>> impressive machine.
>
> Hmm...I see no reason why the experience SGI had in the x86 market should
> lead to a machine that is based on IA64 and Origin technology.

The drive to support Linux started well before Altix was released.
Lots of work went into Linux for IA32 and low end IA64 machines -- XFS
being the best example.

I don't mean to imply that the Altix was only thought of after the
technical success of porting IRIX features to Linux -- a Intel/Linux
version of the Origin was a goal for some time. However, early success
with Linux on PCs and IA64 workstations certainly helped.

From a hardware perspective, it was driven by a desire to start taking
greater advantage of commodity parts. I expect our early use of PCs
and IA64 workstations helped cement our relationship with Intel.

Of course there is little relationship between a PC or IA64 workstation
and an Altix wrt. hardware, but from a software point of view, there
are clear ties.

In addition to the technical aspects, many admin and engineering
processes had to evolve to incorporate open source development.

Ivan
--
Ivan Rayner
ivanr@sgi.com

Dans article ,
bgawert@gmx.de disait...
> I understand SGI is afraid of loosing the few remaining
> companies developing for IRIX but besides the technical side it's very bad
> marketing since it makes people think SGI isn't interested in IRIX any more.
>

IRIX is only a matter of compatibility now. When the Altix 300 and Altix
graphics will be available ( soon) it will really ring the beginning of
the end for IRIX/MIPS. I think there aren't any new IRIX/MIPS machine to
come in the future... Wait 5 years and IRIX will be phased out.

--
Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando?

Dans article ,
ivanr@sgi.com disait...
>
> Well, the desktop was only an example. Renumbering to 7 wont get you
> any feature that couldn't already be put into 6.5.x. I used the desktop
> example because most people equate a new version with something flashy
> and obvious on their screen.
>

Most people here seems to forget that Solaris 7,8,9 are really Solaris
2.7, 2.8 and 2.9... So the marketing bullsh*t does work sometimes!

--
Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando?

Dans article ,
gereon@geekmail.de disait...
>
> when is IRIX version VII coming out, is there even a roadmap for future
> IRIX releases after 6.X ?
>

Never, ever. There won't be anything higher than IRIX 6.5.xx.

--
Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando?

Ivan Rayner wrote:

> SkyWriter wrote:
> > Ivan Rayner wrote:

> 'Course I'm just a lowly engineer, so I know nothing
> about sales.

hmmm.. it's usually a 'food chain' thing. the information (in one form or another)

gets filtered down in any organization. why not just ask (with some engineering
pretense).
you might just get it ;-)

>
> >> Admittedly there are a bunch of little fixes we could do if we were
> >> prepared to break compatibility, but they simply aren't worth it.
> >
> > acceptable, albiet i'll take your word for what they are.
>
> The compatibility guarantee bites engineering all the time, and working
> around it can become half the problem. It doesn't just mean binary and
> API compatibility. One example is that we wanted to improve xfsdump's
> error reporting, to give a more detailed indication of what caused an
> error. The obvious way to fix this was change the exit status
> numbering, but we couldn't do that because customers might have scripts
> which rely on the existing exit status numbers. So we had to change
> xfsdump to print out its status at the end, which is why xfsdump will
> print SUCCESS nowadays.
>
> If we went to IRIX 7 would we bother to change xfsdump's exit status
> reporting? Of course not.
>
> There are many less trivial examples, and many that would be changed,
> but all in all, it probably isn't worth the effort, especially given
> our current resources...

ain't customer the b*tch? ;-) they want you to maintain compatibility AND come
out with new features.... ;-) believe me, i know where you're coming from, it's
not an easy battle. I think the Altix strategy is a good one in the long run as
you stated above (hrm.. cut it, sorry). however, i hate to trade the 'it just
works'
of mips/irix to the 'poke and prod, at the behest of one of a million self
proclaimed
experts' of linux (who never manage to fix anything).

i believe it's always easier to develop and QA a hardware software system you
own entirely, rather than manage outsourced design, standards based hardware
integration, and someone elses OS given a reasonable number of productive people.
ok, i'm proselytizing now... ;-) time to shut up.

although I WOULD like to see base opengl upgraded past 1.1 on the older mips line,

it's going to kill me someday (maybe soon).

thanks for the insights Ivan, it's not as bad as I thought.

>
>
> Ivan
> --
> Ivan Rayner
> ivanr@sgi.com

Ivan Rayner wrote:

>> Hmm...I see no reason why the experience SGI had in the x86 market
>> should lead to a machine that is based on IA64 and Origin technology.
>
> The drive to support Linux started well before Altix was released.

When I remember right the x86 lesson for SGI started with Windows, not
Linux...

> From a hardware perspective, it was driven by a desire to start taking
> greater advantage of commodity parts. I expect our early use of PCs
> and IA64 workstations helped cement our relationship with Intel.

Well, IA64 is definitely not what one would understand as "comodity parts".
The only comodity parts in IA64 was the SGI 750 which was just a rebaged
intel OEM machine that SGI tried to sell with lousy gfx and for a higher
price than the competitors. Well, at least CPU-wise it certainly is still
the fastest workstation SGI made ;-)

> Of course there is little relationship between a PC or IA64
> workstation and an Altix wrt. hardware, but from a software point of
> view, there
> are clear ties.

Maybe, but with the same argument one could say that x86 and MIPS are the
same, because both platforms run Linux...

Benjamin

Emmanuel Florac wrote:

> IRIX is only a matter of compatibility now. When the Altix 300 and
> Altix graphics will be available ( soon) it will really ring the
> beginning of
> the end for IRIX/MIPS. I think there aren't any new IRIX/MIPS machine
> to
> come in the future... Wait 5 years and IRIX will be phased out.

That certainly will be the case. However, IMHO it is overdue for SGI to give
up the slow MIPS platform. The Itanium machines are great, they offer
competitive performance, and IMHO for a lot of tasks Linux does the job well
enough.

Benjamin

In message , Walter Roberson wrote:
> What is it that you see that could be accomplished in 6.6 or 7.0 that
> could not be accomplished in 6.5.X ? There -are- road maps for
> IRIX development within 6.5: why do you see 6.6 or 7.0 as important?
> Are you perhaps just looking for a marketing signal that IRIX isn't
> dead, that SGI is still putting a lot of faith and effort into IRIX?

It would actually be quite nice to know what Sgi is planning to do. Is Mips/Irix
still alive ? Or is it as some others here have said only alive until Itanium
machines become available ?
Does it still make sense to develop commercial applications for Irix ?

As for things that can't be accomplished in 6.5 because of compatibility: The
main thing for me are the media libraries. There still is no way to add your
own encoders/decoders for audio/video codecs and adding that will probably
break compatibility.

Mark

In article <3fca4914$0$1503$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl>,
Mark Hellegers wrote:
:As for things that can't be accomplished in 6.5 because of compatibility: The
:main thing for me are the media libraries. There still is no way to add your
wn encoders/decoders for audio/video codecs and adding that will probably
:break compatibility.

Isn't patents/licensing still *the* major limitation in adding additional
codecs ?
--
IMT made the sky
Fall.

Benjamin Gawert wrote:
> Ivan Rayner wrote:
>
>>> Hmm...I see no reason why the experience SGI had in the x86 market
>>> should lead to a machine that is based on IA64 and Origin technology.
>>
>> The drive to support Linux started well before Altix was released.
>
> When I remember right the x86 lesson for SGI started with Windows, not
> Linux...

Yes. So? This doesn't affect my argument. A while back I said
something along the lines of the less said about the Windows experience
the better.

>> From a hardware perspective, it was driven by a desire to start taking
>> greater advantage of commodity parts. I expect our early use of PCs
>> and IA64 workstations helped cement our relationship with Intel.
>
> Well, IA64 is definitely not what one would understand as "comodity parts".

That depends on your point of view. A commodity part for SGI, is
something that is developed by someone else that is either cheap and
does its job well, or has other specific advantages over SGI developing
the part internally.

In this case, I think the idea was to leverage Intel's market
dominance and probable performance dominance.

>> Of course there is little relationship between a PC or IA64
>> workstation and an Altix wrt. hardware, but from a software point of
>> view, there are clear ties.
>
> Maybe, but with the same argument one could say that x86 and MIPS are the
> same, because both platforms run Linux...

If SGI sold and supported Linux on both platforms, then the *software*
engineering for both *would* be very much the same.

Ivan
--
Ivan Rayner
ivanr@sgi.com

Benjamin Gawert wrote:

> and IMHO for a lot of tasks Linux does the job well
> enough.
>
> Benjamin

thus the death knell of disruptive technology doth ring...