> 1) when do you expect to have a Linux/AXP ready to use?

That depends on your definition of "ready to use" 8-)  I'll try to release
a developer's kit sometime in the next couple of weeks.  This will have a
barely-usable kernel and maybe a half-dozen utilities, plus a bunch of
support tools.  As for *really* ready-to-use, we'd be talking more like
the end of the year.

> 2) will the Linux/AXP kernel development be a one-night-stand or will it
>    continue to be upgraded as with the Intel based Linux kernel. As you
>    mention there has been several new kernel releases since V1.0. Will we see
>    the same rapid kernel development for AXP after the first release?

Basically, I hope to leapfrog to the most current kernel after 1.0 is stable.
If I'm the only one working on upgrades, then they'll probably be further
apart than the Intel Linux releases (e.g. if there are five releases in a 
month I may skip the interim releases and release one version for that month).
If I get help from the Linux user community, though, things will be different!

> 3) Is there a market for the Linux/AXP? What I mean is that have Digital sold
>  that many AXP's? Why is Digital interested in the Linux/AXP port, when they
>  have OSF/1 - is something wrong with it? This question is also related to 
>  the above question; what I fear is that the demand for Linux/AXP is/will be 
>  so little that the kernel development will slow down and die. Do you aggree
>  or what do you think?

Just the opposite: there's lots of interest in Linux/AXP.  At the same time,
there's room in our product line for both operating systems.  The basic idea
is that Linux/AXP is *SMALL*.  It will run on the most bare-bones 
configurations of *any* of the Alpha systems.  This should boost Alpha sales
by allowing users to buy the cheapest possible Alpha systems and *use* them
(as opposed to being told, "That box is US$4995, but a *usable* configuration
will cost you US$6500...").

In other words, it's not so much that DEC *has* sold that many AXP's (although
our AXP volume broke US$1e9 last year), but that Linux will open up some *new*
markets that we haven't been able to penetrate yet.

> 4) will the applications binaries for Linux/Intel run for Linux/AXP?

We're working on that one.  The group I'm working in is currently working
on ways of running Intel Windows-NT apps on Alpha Windows-NT.  Porting this
code to have it work on Linux/AXP and modifying it to support Linux/Intel
apps should be fairly straightforward.

> 5) I believe that the AXP 150 comes with a Diamond based graphics device, 
>    correct? As I have read it in comp.os.linux.help no drivers for this
>    device have been made due to the fact that Diamond will not release its
>    codes. Am I wrong or do I have to buy another graphics device?

Well... tell you the truth I haven't started working on graphics drivers
yet 8-)  On the other hand, DEC obviously has the inside scoop on the Diamond
graphics device since we write drivers for it (e.g. for OSF).  Therefore,
we should be able to come up with a Linux driver for it as well.  We may
not be able to release *source* for this driver, but we can certainly produce
*something* usable.

> 6) How do you expect the Linux/AXP to perform compared to the Intel/Pentium
>    machines?

I have *absolutely* no idea, since (a) we haven't gotten Linux/AXP up to
the point where we can benchmark it, and (b) right now Linux/AXP has a lot
of slow, ugly debug code in it that drags down its performance.  However, my
*gut* feel is that Linux/AXP will blow the doors off Intel/Pentium 8-)
(What *else* did you expect me to say, working for DEC? 8-) )

-- 
Jim Paradis (paradis@tallis.enet.dec.com)

      The purpose of time is to keep everything from happening at once.  
                               It's not working.
