first, which ppc/cell based blade computers was HPUX ported to? please reference this as this would be a real bold move by HP (Ive seen they do cracy stuff before, but still)
second, why should IBM license hpux, when its just as easy to strip a monolitic kernel than a microkernel, especially one that all services are written for large systems, with schedulers built for alot of cpu cores (8 spu is not that much), highly optimised for pa-risc, and later slow ported to itanium. filesystem service built for being posix compatable and if my memory is right, log based for accountability. Userspace libs never built for embedded, and hackish implementation of GNU world of tools. Yeah that makes sense?
third, microkernel is based on a tiny kernel with userspace services doing as much as possible, while monolothic kernel is based on a large binary, with often a hackish implemention of runtime modules which just replaces reference adresses with usefull code in runtime (kernel modules)(hackish is a little mean, since its pretty clean when you use it ) Ubuntu = linux = monolitic (this is usually the first lesson in any OS class you take (linus torvalds being called a moron for using monolitic design))
spp-ux is a predecessor for HPUX 11 (10 years + old system, hot in 2000) by a company that HP bought. pa-risc is dead and burrowed by HP (we as customers was told to migrate to itanium or try that cracy linux thing, allmost everyone dropped HP for that cracy linux thing )
saying that since pa-risc is a risc arch then everything related to using risc is the same as talking about HPUX is as near as saying that if it has four wheels it has to be a pontiac, CISC and RISC are to ways of designing cpus (actually itanium is none of them but that another discussion), all high end computer plattform was based on RISC in the past. since Complex Intruction Set Computer would always be slower and less predictable than Reduced Instruction Set Computers, Well see how slow X86 (CISC) got MIPS/PPC/PA-RISC/SPARC is all RISC, and PA-RISC was probably the least successfull of them
But as always, If anyone gets to dump gameos, please _PLEASE_ leak a dump, I have a little too much time 6 weeks from next week
The only Cell based blade systems (QS20 / QS21 / QS22) are manufactured by IBM - not HP. And I can tell you for sure that these blades don't run HP-UX. I know since I've worked with them for a few years now.
The only blade systems supported by HP-UX are the Intel Itanium based HP Integrity blades - no Cell processor in there:
Originally Posted by DemonHades
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/PA-RISC<----PA-RISC is based from RISC
I don't have to read the first link because like I wrote above I've worked with Cell based servers since the QS20 came out.
Now for the second link:
RISC is a way of designing processors - not an actual architecture. According to your logic HP-UX would also run perfectly fine on an iPhone.
It doesn't help to cobble together internet pages without actually reading and understanding them. What you're doing is more of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey" than serious research.
Again - I really don't want to sound condescending but I think it's not in your best interest writing about stuff you don't have a thorough understanding of. The newbies will believe you because they don't know better but not in front of the people who actually know their stuff.
If you're only in this for your 15 minutes of e-fame on the other hand - go on.
(actually itanium is none of them but that another discussion)
Off Topic: that one is easy EPIC which uses a similar principle to RISC, the difference is the Explicitly Parallel nature, although irrelevant to this discussion.
On Topic: I find it highly unlikely that sony would not go for an entirely custom system on their games consoles, Reasoning behind this is that no unix has been proven to be totally bullet proof, and its more sane to say work with a base and strip and customise as needed (Note: the most common base used is BSD 4.4 kernel) most are based from a single kernel and customised, seeing traces of say the BSD4.4 kernel you could just as easily say that sony used AIX, or even *cough*Darwin*cough* in reality this system is highly customised, and any hope of seeing where its based from would be long gone.
Best bets for seeing what sony used as a base would be to see where Sony paid licence fees too, or who has the most generous licensing that would allow for such heavy customisations.