> Ken Mays wrote: > >> Ok. I was vouching for Shawn's idea of using the PS3 as it is a modern product that is being used for various project today. We can get modern PC >> desktops >> for about <=$299-399 so I don't think getting an modernly affordable PowerPC desktop/ workstation/ console should be that much more (if developers/engineers have to pay for it "out-of-pocket"). > > I think the central issue with the PS3, other than the fact that I don't believe > Sony fully documents the hardware, is the fact that it uses the highly distributed Cell processor, which is likely to exacerbate the problem that Solaris currently requires a CPU using a strongly ordered memory model.
I don't mean to snip with wreckless abandon here. I agree whole heartedly with what you are saying. However, this project will only be able to succeed with a business relationship that supports the server centric focus of Solaris. Please see the big InfoWorld "2008 InfoWorld Technology of the Year Awards" banner[1]. That is for a server software technology and not a desktop. The entire software world knows that Solaris and OpenSolaris are UNIX(tm) technologies and primarily a server solution. Attempting to exclusively port to a 32-bit PowerPC processor on a very small machine does not do justice to the vast hours of work already invested. Many lessons have been learned over the past three years and we have a platform upon which to stand. This is not just hot air with a slide show on a projector. If we are to go forwards then I think we need to engage IBM people and look at the POWER6. If we are to simply continue discussions about a 32-bit port to a very small PowerPC based solution then we may as well revive sun4m also. That may seem a bit harsh but a reality check is needed here. On Monday I will reach out to a director at IBM that handles UNIX Hardware Development and see if I can open up discussions. Dennis Clarke [1] http://www.infoworld.com/slideshow/2008/01/148-2008_technology-3.html
