Re: using linux instead of osf

Scott Locklin (locklin@lonsdale.lbl.gov)
Tue, 26 Nov 1996 00:21:50 -0600 (CST)

On Tue, 26 Nov 1996, Maurice Hilarius wrote:

> At 12:28 AM 11-26-96 -0500, you wrote:
>
> That's a very clear point you just made Bob. The fact is that up to now
> nobody mentioned anything about paying for the libraries. Factually, there
> are many people who probably would be glad to do so. Many would rather run
> Linux for many reasons, even if cost were not the only issue. As long,
> howwever, as the optimized libraries can be only bought from one source many
> of these people will buy Penium PRo machines instead, knowing they can buy
> compilers with good libraries for a much lower cost, and from more than one
> vendor.
> I find it kind of ironic that Digital apparently ported these libraries for
> NT at no apparent license cost. Of course that is a platform with a lot more
> "clout" than Linux.

You're thinking of DPML; the Digital Portable Math Library, rather than
DXML, the extended library with BLAS and the like.

DPML essentially does the work of the hardware of an Intel Chip, as many
of the functions in DPML (sqrt(), for example)are implemented in hardware in
P5/6. As such, Digital seems to be treating DPML as part of the "AXP"
package rather than something extra; at least when it comes to providing
libraries for WinNT, as it is needed to make AXP competetive with P6.

Supposedly, we're going to get a DPML for Linux/GCC, but I have ceased to
hold my breath.

I doubt as we'll see a full DXML in the near future, as there was lots of
potentially machine and OS specific stuff in there. It would be nice to
have a set of BLAS though...

-Scott

--
To unsubscribe: send e-mail to axp-list-request@redhat.com with
'unsubscribe' as the subject.  Do not send it to axp-list@redhat.com



Feedback | Store | News | Support | Product Errata | About Us | Linux Info | Search | JumpWords
No Frames | Show Frames

Copyright © 1995-1997 Red Hat Software. Legal notices