Sun vs. OpenBSD? 279
An anonymous reader writes "CNet has an article up about OpenBSD trying to get documentation for Sun's UltraSparc-III processor. Basically Sun is giving them a bit of run around....There is some documentation available for the processor, but not enough to get things to boot."
Not surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
Because they claim to be open (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising (Score:2, Insightful)
Keeping a step ahead of opensource with Solaris isn't an issue.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
OpenBSD team approaches sun, Sun said "sign an NDA or no deal", OpenBSD says no, thats against the spirit of our project and the BSD license.
The interesting thing is that here the code is being used in an open source project (linux), but OpenBSD will not make use of it, because they respect the intent of the GPL.
Re:Not surprising (Score:5, Insightful)
Further nobody actually knows what the Linux guys got.
Re:Not surprising (Score:2)
Claiming to own something you don't isn't part of civil law its part of criminal law. In other words you are civil liability for redistributing copyright works but criminal liability for asserting copyright on something you didn't create or get the rights too. That status of dervived works however is subject to the license on the original work.
Re:Not surprising (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Interesting)
The interesting thing is that here the code is being used in an open source project (linux), but OpenBSD will not make use of it, because they respect the intent of the GPL.
It's right proper that the OpenBSD team doesn't want to run afoul of the GPL, but the GPL doesn't prohibit learning. The OpenBSD team should be able to derive a state machine from the Linux code, which would work like the UltraSparc, then program the OpenBSD code against the reverse-engineered state machine, without ever seeing UltraSparc specs, and certainly without ever copying GPL'ed code. It's likely to be sub-optimal, of course.
Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Informative)
This was discussed in some OpenBSD mailing lists. It's not only a matter of making the code 'work' on UltraSPARC III systems, but a matter of making it work _correctly_ and robustly. To do that, they need to read the specs.
Re:Not surprising (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
People who love OpenBSD won't be buying the new Sun hardware to run it on.
It's doesn't seem like a smart business move, or smart for public relations either.
Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Funny)
Problem: How to get bad publicity, for min $? (Score:2)
So what if BSD can't handle all the features of new Sun machines? Everyone who has the kind of technical background that they are buying UltraSparc III hardware will realize the limitations. It's not like grandma can accidentally get a multi-processor Sun computer at CompUSA or Buy.com.
It's as if the world came to the Sun marketing department and said, "How would you like to structure your $20,000,000 of free publicity?" And Sun marketing said, "We want to make Sun seem foolish so we can all retire."
Sun marketing: "We will make Java open, but, after many people have invested a lot in Java, we will reveal that we won't make it really open."
Sun marketing: "Wow!! Here's another great idea! We'll get our names on Slashdot. That's a great way to influence a lot of people who make computer purchasing decisions and will make them in the future. And here's how we'll do it: We will give the details of the UltraSparc III to a Linux company, but not all of the details. Then we will refuse to give the same information to the BSD people.
If that is what Sun marketing is thinking, I have to agree with them. It is a great way to get free bad publicity.
Re:Not surprising (Score:3, Insightful)
This is even more bizarre in light of Sun's recent open standards/Linux push.
Sun does not appear to have a coherent strategy.
The only possible reason I can think of why Sun would not want OpenBSD to be easily ported to the newer Sparc chips is because OpenBSD could offer people an easy migration strategy away from Sparc to other less expensive platforms.
Well no (Score:2)
As for the quality of OS/2. OS/2 Multitasked far better on 286 hardware than Windows did on 386 until the release of NT. Not only was OS/2 an excellent OS in terms of multitasking and protection but with full Windows and Dos compatability it offered a real possibility for migration. The issue with OS/2 was never the capability or the quality of the OS it was:
a) A real fear that OS/2 PC servers would cut into their very profitable AS/400 servers; and thus internal resistance to really pushing OS/2.
b) Back and forth issues about whether OS/2 would or wouldn't require Microchannel, i.e. should OS/2 be helping to sell hardware or "be open".
c) The problems of windows pricing which would have made IBM either take the plunge or not (i.e. they couldn't waffle).
d) Because OS/2's support for Windows was so strong a lack of applications support.
etc...
I've never heard anyone argue that OS/2 as a product was not far and away the best OS for PCs during the 1.3-3.0 years.
Re:Well no (Score:2)
Re:Not surprising (Score:2)
Yes .... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes .... (Score:2)
What the Hell, I've got plenty of Karma to burn.
NDA?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:NDA?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:NDA?? (Score:2)
They are professional programmers, they made an attempt with *all* available docs and they couldn't do it. Sheriff just mentions that they are no amateurs citing OpenSSH as an example of why they are not. They have strict goals and policies regarding their OS and the project as a whole. Just because they don't bend over...
Re:NDA?? (Score:2)
I can hardly agree with you there. Granted, cleanly written code can be a great boon, but definitely not all code qualifies as such. Some people write things that come close to cryptography! Besides, I am guessing that what they're looking for here is machine dependent, and thus probably at least partially written in assembly, which is almost by nature hard to decipher. (I think the same is true of my comment - I've been reading a lot of philosophy today).
---
A large number of installed systems work by fiat. That is, they work by being declared to work.
-- Anatol Holt
The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:2, Troll)
Sun even go beyond Apple's level of control, since IBM/Motorola develop the CPUs there, so that documentation is somewhat easier to get.
Sun has the potential to be the biggest monopoly of all the big technology companies, yet their products are rapidly losing market share. Why? I think companies these days don't like buying into closed architectures. So I think open source supporters should stop calling for companies blood, and instead let the market decide who's best.
Remember, Microsoft were popular in the 80s exactly for their open architecture.
In 1991's "Challenges and Strategy" memo, Bill Gates said, Our applications have always succeeded based on their own merit rather than on some benefit of unfair knowledge of system software. We need to explain our hardware neutral approach and the benefits that has generated for end users. We need to have visible events on a regular basis where we solicit the input of anyone who wants to influence our future direction. If we can institutionalize a process that the world feels comfortable with, we will strengthen our position incredibly. This is going to require a lot more creativity than even the "Open Forums" we are discussing. UNIX has OSF and X/Open -- we also need clear ways for organizations of all types (hardware, ISV, IHV, corporation, universities) to feel like they have something invested in our approach and can affect our course.
Do you see Sun being open? No. So, again I say, let the market decide. It's no wonder that open source is becoming the next big thing in corporate land.
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:5, Informative)
Nice troll. From the SPARC International FAQ [sparc.org]:
And
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:2)
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:4, Informative)
This is why it can not be used by OpenBSD.
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:2)
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:2)
No executable pages.
Basically you can set chunks of memory to not be executable. Like data segments. Avoid buffer overruns.
OpenBSD does this on chips that allow it:
i386, sparc, sparc64 , alpha, macppc, (unreleased) hppa
-- -- -- --1 15.html
http://monkey.org/openbsd/archive/misc/0211/msg02
More specific is hard without docs :)
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:2, Insightful)
That's not true. Microsoft, along with intel, steers
most committees that come to agreements on how
many pieces of hardware work. It also has a lot
of de facto power. Look at your keyboard.
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:2)
More than that, though, don't forget that most video card manuacturers work closely with Microsoft to ensure that their new chipsets support the features being implemented in the latest/next release of Direct3D. Of course this is a two way thing - I've no doubt that both parties say "we've this really cool idea that we need you to help us with...", but that doesn't diminish the influence they have on each other.
At the end of the day, if a feature supported in hardware doesn't make it into Direct3d, it isn't going to be (widely) used. (The same is true, to a lesser extent, of OpenGL, of course)
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:2)
I'm looking at my keyboard -- or I was before I started typing.
It says IBM up at the top right. It make a delicious clickety-clack when I type and across the bottom I see Ctrl, Alt, Spacebar, Alt, Ctrl, Arrow keys, 0, ., Enter.
It is one of my most prized possessions...
I only wish I had a keyboard for my Mac with the "Open Apple" and "Closed Apple" keys. Now those were sweet!
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:3, Funny)
What?! Microsoft doesn't control the OS for the Windows platform?
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:2)
Re:The market frowns on Sun's 'monopoly potential' (Score:3)
In the high-end market place, where Sun makes most of its money, Linux and OpenBSD have hardly any market share and UltraSPARC pretty much rules the roost in market share terms. In the mid-range there is some pressure from Linux, but mid-range Unix servers equate to highest-end Lintel boxes, and at those price points the cost of the OS is marginal to the overall cost. At the low end, yeah there is market pressure, but mostly because Linux is increasing the size of the low-end Unix marketplace and this is a "Good Thing"(tm).
So what happened in this case? OpenBSD got caught in the beaurocracy most likely. If the upper management had heard about it then something might have been done, but remember that like most Tech companies Sun is struggling in a tight marketplace and trying to make a little bit of money. They've just lost, what, 25% of their workforce in the last couple of years and we wonder why there is no slack to look after what was probly seen as a low-priority request from a project that contributes only a small amount to Sun's bottom line.
BTW - Sun generally don't make money on the OS - you have to have over 4(?) CPU's in the box before there is any charge at all, and even then it is free with all Sun hardware even with 72 processor boxes.
Sun makes money on the hardware, not the OS it runs on, so just why should they want to actively try and stop OpenBSD? The article itself even pointed out a case where Sun was LOOSING sales because OpenBSD didn't run on the better (more expensive) boxes the customer wanted to buy.
Related /. Article (Score:2, Informative)
http://bsd.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/11/26/1
All about the benji's (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All about the benji's (Score:5, Informative)
But Sun don't many any money from Solaris, it's just the stuff you need to run your apps on Sun hardware. Sun are a hardware company first and foremost.
Secondly, Sun don't even own the UltraSPARC, certainly not in the same way that Intel own the Xeon - see the SPARC International [sparc.org] web site. SPARC is about as close as you can get to an Open Source processor.
From reading the article, it seems that Sun simply didn't have anyone looking after the BSD community like they had looking after the Linux community, and when the matter was brought to their attention, they assigned someone to do the job.
Of course, anyone who pays $$$ for modern Sun kit is an idiot if they want to run anything other than Solaris on it, because Solaris, as well as being a solid and powerful Unix implementation in its own right, is designed from the ground up for SPARC hardware, it doesn't have to make any compromises for compatibility's sake. That's why NetBSD is generally slower than FreeBSD, it deliberately avoids anything too platform specific, and performance suffers as a result.
Re:All about the benji's (Score:5, Insightful)
In many of the older versions of the SPARC specification, the actual SME implementation was close enough to the published spec to get a workable system. At least one implementation, though, was different - the SPARCserver 470 and it's peers used a totally different MMU scheme, and thus there is (to my knowledge) no working BSD/Linux for these systems to this day.
What Theo's fighting for is the actual implementation information. And, for all the buggering that he gets, you have to admit - he is consistent and has an unwavering conception of open source software; I never thought I'd see the day when a Linux geek would say "just sign the NDA and shut the fuck up." Theo has a little more integrity than that.
Re:All about the benji's (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't speak for everyone, but it seems that things are usually the other way around: Sun hardware is a great platform on which to run OpenBSD. It's not as if "I have this SPARC machine, what OS should I run on it?" Rather, it's more like "I would like to run OpenBSD, what is a good hardware platform to run OpenBSD?" The 32-bit SPARC port of OpenBSD happens to be very mature and stable, and SPARC hardware (especially sun4m) is bulletproof. Now that the OpenBSD sparc64 port is moving further along, the developers really need official documentation to make progress. But to the OpenBSD developers it seems that Sun is ignoring them. IMO I would give it some time, as Sun is a large corporation, and things take time. Especially if Sun did not already have corporate policy/plans for relations with OpenBSD.
Re:All about the benji's (Score:4, Interesting)
University of Alberta's Bob Beck said he is forced to buy out-of-date UltraSparc II-based E450 servers instead of newer UltraSparc III-based V880 machines for the university's SunSITE software exchange.
This seems odd to me: 1) OpenBSD doesn't support SMP yet, right? 2) v880's must have multiples of 2 CPU's (up to 8).
Sunsite might be better off grabing some of those 1U v120's, throwing a dual channal diff scsi card in there, and using an a1000 array (or maybe a t3 array... with only 1 cpu you probably need the hardware raid these offer rather than the d1000's or a5200's). More disk, less rack space, less power.
Now, the v880's rock. Great price point, 8 cpu's, 2 FC-AL planes for a total of 12x73 gig disks, 10 PCI slots (2 x 64bit/66MHz), onboard gigabit fiber... the list goes on. It's a great box (for more details, hit up store.sun.com, select servers, find 'low end servers', and select the v880. And note that that's 'list price'. You can get up to a third off of it from most resellers)
For reference:
4x itanium 800MHz dell 7150: 8x73 gig disks is $61,113.00.
4x usIII 900 MHz sun v880, 6x 73 gig fcal disks is $59,995.00
(That's the closest 'apples to apples' match I could make. I chose itanium vs usIII because they're both true 64 bit chips. Though the expansion of the Dell isn't as nice... the sun can add 4 more proc's and 6 more disks. The dell can add more memory... 32gig tops the sun v880, and 64 gig the dell)
Re:All about the benji's (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All about the benji's (Score:2)
Sun is a hardware company, not a software company. The student version of the Solaris OS used to be $10 and they don't really check whether you're a student or not. On the other hand, I had to pay $40 for a set of CDs for my free OS.
Not the whole story (Score:5, Informative)
But Sun didn't put its open-source community liaison officer, Danese Cooper, in touch with de Raadt until after CNET News.com informed the company of his dissatisfaction. Cooper is "already well-known in the open-source software community," Sun representatives said. But the company acknowledged it needs to improve its work with open-source groups, saying the task would be addressed "within the next few weeks. Cooper has been responsive and is pressing the OpenBSD case within Sun, said de Raadt, but he's reserving judgment until he gets what he needs. "
It seems they are now working very actively to solve the problem.
Re:Not the whole story (Score:2)
So? A week in terms of changing things and getting in contact with every involved person person in a megasized company is more like a second. In the article the sun representative said it takes "a few weeks", maybe there's a reason why he said so.
Re:Theo's just being an asshole - once more (Score:5, Interesting)
As for the specifics. If Sun made it policy that it required an NDA to get Sparc 3 Theo would go away. That makes Sparc 3 a closed architecture. But Sun claims Sparc 3 is open. All Theo is doing is either:
a) forcing the reality to match their rhetoric (i.e. open the spec)
b) forcing them change the rhetoric
Sun has been all over the map in terms of open source and open standards. I think these public battles are forcing Sun as an institution to confont the contradictions in their idealogy and corporate culture.
Re:Theo's just being an asshole - once more (Score:5, Informative)
Aaaaargh! Stop it!
Re:Theo's just being an asshole - once more (Score:2)
Re:Theo's just being an asshole - once more (Score:2)
Actually Microsoft has exactly the same policy which they call "shared source". Microsoft has been attacked for this, and rightfully so. NDAs absolutely signify a closed architecture. The fact that they are standard is merely the fact that closed not open is standard.
As for wanting to run OpenBSD on a new Sun system this strikes me as stupid. But open is the right to do stupid stuff with your property.
Re:Theo's just being an asshole - once more (Score:2)
NDA (Score:5, Informative)
1:If the OpenBSD crowd want the docs, sign the NDA. Linux developers did this. It's not that big a deal.
2: Look at the Linux source for hints. This surely isn't too difficult.
Why are Sun not willing to make the relevant docs fully-disclosed to anyone who wants them, sans NDA? In part, the answer is simple: The USIII / III* proc is still pretty new. Solaris doesn't yet fully implement all the chipset features, but will do in future releases. Is it a good idea for Sun to open the proc docs to any Tom, Dick or Harry, including other chip manufacturers, at this stage? Probably not.
There's been a lot of negative talk propagated by the OBSD community regarding this issue. Classic "blame the faceless multinational" diatribe that most of us grew out of in our teenage years.
Access to the information the OBSD developers have requested is a privilege, not a right. They want to build a kernel around the USIII, which is great, but the rules have been set by Sun, and are quite clear. Deal.
(Yes, I do work for Sun btw)
Re:NDA (Score:5, Informative)
And again, the reason that this is a story is because Sun claims they are the open alternative to MS.
ostiguy
Re:NDA (Score:2)
and who would buy OVERPRICED PRODUCT v1.0 when it is based on the free OpenBSD? And would Sun be upset when someone buys their Sparc hardware to run someone else's OVERPRICED PRODUCT v1.0? Solaris is a cost center for Sun.
Re:NDA (Score:3, Informative)
I believe that Sun has not offered OpenBSD the NDA to sign.
2: Look at the Linux source for hints. This surely isn't too difficult.
Theo wants to take advantage of some special features in these chips that Linux is not currently using, therefore, the specs are required.
Access to the information the OBSD developers have requested is a privilege, not a right. They want to build a kernel around the USIII, which is great, but the rules have been set by Sun, and are quite clear. Deal.
Sun gave the specs to Linux under an NDA. OpenBSD wants to play by the same rules.
I am mostly in the FreeBSD world, so my answers may or may not be accurate.
I don't quite get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't quite get it (Score:2)
Good oh-penBSD (Score:3, Insightful)
I've already seen a couple of financial institutions use OpenBSD. Would be interesting to see figures for real world present usage by industry.
Rock on OpenBSD.
Re:Good oh-penBSD (Score:2)
almost no point running it on "enterprise" h/w if it can't take real advantage of the scads of processors most places put in a single box.
Other OSs (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Other OSs (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Other OSs (Score:2)
Re:Other OSs (Score:2)
Re:Other OSs (Score:2)
Re:Other OSs (Score:2)
Re:Other OSs (Score:2)
However, if you have a G3 or G4 daughterboard in one of those PowerMacs, BeOS will utilize them, with lots of speedy delight
Re:Other OSs (Score:2)
BeOS on Sparc? (Score:2)
SPARC is supposedly open? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is it not the actual processor - but support hardware/boot rom issues that they are having a hard time getting information about?
OpenBSD Journal (Score:3, Informative)
It's not as bad as it seems... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun has now promised to give OpenBSD the same information it provided to higher-profile, open-source projects such as Linux. "Sun has committed to working with OpenBSD to...ensure they are extended the same information as other open-source communities," the company said in a statement. (boldface added)
So really, Sun wasn't hindering the Open Source movement. They already gave the information to the "Linux project" (presumably that means Linus or one of the other kernel hackers) Really it's just that OpenBSD didn't have the documentaton. Big fucking deal. Yes, it sucks that they were overlooked, but really, you can't claim Sun is trying to stifle the Open Source movement by giving stuff to Linux and not OpenBSD.
I understand that this guy's hardball tactics have worked in the past, and seemed to work here, but really, that's not the right way to go about things.
Most activists screaming for every corporation to release all code and programming guides don't understand history. In the beginning, personal computers were mainly for hobbyists. They all came with programming documentation, and some even came with full schematics. Then they became commercial, but still the companies were fine about providing technical information to thos who wanted it. I recall one of my earlier video cards came with programming docs, as did an early Adaptec SCSI card. Then competition began to get more cut-throat. The next big feature in your sound card was what could make or break your company. Damned if you're going to give it away to some pimply-faced kid who may or may not be working for the competition.
The big corporations have been in this mindset for almost ten years now. It's going to take them a while to get out of it. The current economics models these companies have crash and burn when confronted with Open Source. This does not imply that Open Source is bad, rather that it's unexpected. It's going to take some time for public sentiment to overcome the marketing and accounting drones, who suddenly see nothing but a bunch of red numbers in their "total" columns. Most companies have already made gestures of goodwill by opening up a lot of programs. Think how much you had to pay for an Office Suite before OpenOffice/StarOffice. Any idea how much Transarc AFS cost before IBM bought them and released OpenAFS? I could go on and on, but I need to go to work.
The point is, as I've said before, and will continue to say, you can't say "You must do foo" to a corporation, because they'll laugh at you. Most people don't like being ordered around, let alone corporations. The right thing to do (which was eventually done here) is get press coverage and let the people know that ACME Corp has not responded to your (polite, not bitchy) requests for documentation. Chances are they probably lost the request anyway. (Do you know how much bureaucracy exists in large corporations? It's amazing they get anything done to begin with.) The point is, leaders of Open Source projects may have done wonderful things and contributed tons of ideas and programs to the community, and benefited the world as a whole, but still proprietary source code is not a God-given right. Maybe it should be, and maybe in the future it will be, but not right now. Once that is realized, relations with corporations will get much, much easier.
Re:It's not as bad as it seems... (Score:3, Informative)
ostiguy
Re:It's not as bad as it seems... (Score:2)
Sparc, BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
He's not exactly the easiest person to get along with, but to be honest, this is on par for Sun's dealings with the Open Source commnuity. Sun at times deals with the community like Digital did back in the day. And like Digital, I can honestly see Sun fading into the sunset, from an operating system perspective.
AIX / HP provide the enterprise level OS's, with several features that are not found in the core of Solaris. AIX with 5.2 has attempted to bridge the gap with Linux, in providing a common environment shared with Open Source applications, including having RPM's integrated with their own package management (as a side note, AIX's LPP package management is more sound then RPM's, IMHO).
Linux has been edging into the low-to-mid end market, even stealing Sun's thunder with Oracle buy-in. Sun is being squeezed in the middle, and must decide whether they want to focus on the high-end enterprise, or the middle tier web/app/database servers.
AIX has it's association with Websphere and DB2. Sun has to decide whether it's operating system is worth the cost, or whether they are a hardware company. Unfortunately as long as companies feel they must only run specific OS'es on their Hardware (Apple), they will continue to relegate themselves to a niche market that is ultimately self-limiting.
IBM still has the monopoly on Z-series Mainframes (Amdahl pulled out of that market). Their philosophy has always been expensive hardware, cheap to free software, and hefty support and services contracts. They make their continued money through licenses and services.
Re:Sparc, BSD (Score:2, Interesting)
yes and no. Oracle and Solaris/sparc still make for very large database servers - and you get support for it - at a cost of course. Sun has also made inroads into Linux, releasing it's own distribution (I know it's a rebadged redhat, but it's a start - and Sun's tech support will support both their linux distribution and Solaris directly).
AIX has it's association with Websphere and DB2.
Sun has it's association with iPlanet.
Similar problem with Adaptec (Score:4, Insightful)
On their Linux page [adaptec.com] they claim to support open source:
We have launched a dedicated Web site to provide a repository of
information for our open source solutions, including:
* Our latest Open Source drivers
* Technical documentation
* White papers
* FAQs
But in fact there is no technical documentation available beyond lightweight lists lists of features and general hardware type. Directly contacting Adaptec, I get nowhere without a product serial number, which of course I don't have because the chips are embedded in an OEM motherboard.
So maybe I'm just not talking to the right person, but it does look like the company is saying one thing and doing another.
To be fair, the driver support for Linux is good. Drivers are developed by an Adaptec-sponsored group [freebsd.org] and provided in source form. These drivers are in the mainline 2.4 and 2.5 source trees. This is a far better performance than, for example, NVidia, whose drivers are well-known for breaking every few kernel releases because of their binary-only nature. Still, it's not enough. It seems to me Adaptec is just shooting themselves in the foot by keeping the low level interface specs closed. If they continue to do that, they will certainly be knocked out of the market by other hardware that's better understood by kernel hackers, for which both low and high level optimization can be done by lots of developers. That's exactly what I'm trying to do with their chips, and to be frank, I'm doing it only because I happen to have one available to play with at the moment. But I'll move on without hesitation as soon as something shows up that gives me more scope for interesting optimizations. I'm just not one of those people who enjoys reverse-engineering, though I have immense respect for those who do.
The way things are, the Adaptec guys who develop the Linux drivers can do plenty of low level optimization based on things that only they know about the hardware, but who will listen to them if they want changes in the core kernel for better support? Plus, who wants to invest in hardware that is certain to become unsupportable as soon as the company EOLs the product? With Linux basically taking over the server market, I see that policy as the most efficient way to become part of the sedimentary fossil record as soon as possible.
Re:Similar problem with Adaptec (Score:2)
>>>>>>>>>
Bullshit. The binary nature has nothing to do with it. They don't touch the kernel at all. The only thing that could be breaking is the kernel glue code, which is provided in source form with the drivers. I've never had the drivers break on me in a stable kernel release (in their default form) and (once patched) I've been able to track kernel 2.5 since about 2.5.38 (now up to 2.5.50) without them breaking a single time.
Re:Similar problem with Adaptec (Score:2)
Also, the ahc/ahd drivers are still the amoung the best supported drivers in FreeBSD. They deal with all the various quirks of the chips very well, and kick ass in terms of performance. Justin Gibbs has been writing these drivers for years and years and years, even before going to work for adaptec.
The driver is full source, even source for the sequencer on the chip. Most other vendors don't go to that level of source code availaibilty. Most vendors give a binary blob to load onto the card for the on-board sequencer.
In short, I don't think that you have the first clue what you are talking about here.
As to Theo and Adaptec, well, he's a total pain to deal with and seems to be telling a radically different story about his experiences with Adaptec than the folks that work for Adaptec tell. I suspect that a similar thing is going on with Sun. I have friends that are doing the FreeBSD sparc64 work and they have indicated that Sun has been forthcoming with documetnation and hardware for their efforts. Maybe Theo isn't getting what he wants because he's a total jerk to people and they react to that.
Re:Similar problem with Adaptec (Score:2)
Yes. As I mentioned in my post, they just asked for a product serial number and it went no further.
In the past I've found no register level docs on the web site, but was able to get paper copies w/o much hassle by calling them and ordering it.
Sorry, that's just not good enough, especially considering the above brick wall. If they want their chip properly supported, they should just post the the docs on their web site.
The driver is full source, even source for the sequencer on the chip. Most other vendors don't go to that level of source code availaibilty.
Most vendors give a binary blob to load onto the card for the on-board sequencer.
Many other vendors have similar or worse mental deficiencies, it's true, however there's no safety in numbers here. There used to be lots of dodos as well.
In short, I don't think that you have the first clue what you are talking about here.
Give me a break. Go look [adaptec.com] for yourself. [adaptec.com]
Re:Similar problem with Adaptec (Score:2)
Stop spreading your FUD here. This claim is totally unsubstantiated. I've been using the nVidia driver with the latest stable kernels for a long time now with no problems.
Substantiation. [google.com]
Re:Similar problem with Adaptec (Score:2)
"nvidia tainted [bug]" also gets reports of "not tainted" kernels with lspci output containing nVidia. Not to mention leaving out other bug-inducing items like patched kernels.
Right:
If I try to use NVIDIA's modules (the latest available are 1.0-2960), I get a [sgi.com]
kernel BUG at filemap.c:236 in...
Look, this is well known. NVidia's driver does memory managment, takes various locks and such. It is sensitive to changes in the core kernel. If NVidia provided the driver in source form, Linux developers would keep the thing maintained, but they don't, so it keeps breaking.
Try real research next time buddy.
Trying pulling hard, and that foot may suddenly pop out of your mouth.
Re:Similar problem with Adaptec (Score:2)
Since you asked so nicely... [theaimsgroup.com]
WTF? no Micro$soft? (Score:2)
The open source community needs to show a united front against Micro$soft in order to provide an alternative choice. With this crap, Micro$oft just points to this incident and says "see... Finger pointing and dissention. and by the way... We have taken this into account into our 500th commissioned er... unbiased TCO study which now shows that windows costs $658.67 less than open source"
Theo's Conversation (Score:5, Funny)
OK, I'm karma capped, lets some good ol' flaming start...
Theo de Raadt: (calls up Sun) Hello, I demand some documentation.
Sun Guy: Who the f*** are you?
TdR: I'm Theo de Raadt.
SG: Which Theo de Raadt?
TdR: The one that is incredibly smart and productive and gets real pissy when I don't get my way; the one that forked OpenBSD because the NetBSD folks didn't like how pissy I got and drove users away.
SG: Oh that one. What documentation do you demand because you somehow infer a right to having?
TdR: On the UltraSparc III processor.
SG: Oh, the one that you spent no R & D money on, that you spent no manufacturing money on, but you feel you have an absolute right to have it and if you don't get it you get pissy?
TdR: Yeah, thats the one.
SG: OK, here is our link.
TdR: This isn't enough. I want more.
SG: What other documentation are you demanding?
TdR: I don't know. It is your job to figure out what documentation I don't have and to get it to me when I demand it.
SG: If you don't even know what to ask for, how are you demanding more?
TdR: Those other guys get more.
SG: Which guys?
TdR: The Linux guys.
SG: You mean the ones that we kind of work with because we have an Intel distro and we should really appease the guys that kind of put it together? The OS that we might try to sell some software on?
TdR: Yeah, I want what they have. I deserve it.
SG: Why?
TdR: Because I want it to make a server.
SG: Using what OS?
TdR: A free one, that will put no money in your pocket for OS licenses, no money for support, that will most likely not sell any Sun software because it usually runs as a fairly stripped down firewall box, and won't even sell any of your real expensive hardware where you make the real money from since we don't support SMP. Since you lost a lot of money when the dot-com bubble burst, and your stock is now close to historic lows and have had a couple rounds of layoffs, you must be real enthused about doing some work which probably won't get your company any money at all?
SG: Ahh, so you demand we get some internal engineers for you who luckily will be really eager to stop their real work fending off fierce competition from IBM Windows HP and Linux, gather all our UltraSparc-III stuff for you, run it through our lawyers who luckily enough will drop all work involving our lawsuits about Microsoft and Java (and possible shareholder and wrongful termination lawsuits) sanitize it for you because from your reputation for getting pissy over things (witness ipf) you won't take kindly to an NDA and rush it to you on your schedule not ours.
TdR: If you don't, I'll get pissy. Yes, and make sure you get that NDA stuff out. We're opensource, and we don't like NDAs, and since we're always right your NDAs should go away because we say so.
I know why Theo would want this, but I can't see the Sun guys dropping everything and making this their number one priority. Though childish, if I was a Sun person, I'd release this stuff first to FreeBSD and NetBSD, knowing it would eventually trickle down to OpenBSD, just to piss off Theo.
Re:Theo's Conversation (Score:2)
providing the doc would be some sort of measurable expense for Sun.
If Sun doesn't have the documentation already
printed and bound, then they're a bunch of wankers,
not engineers. All they'd have to do is drop a
photocopy in the mail.
Sun is trying to sell their stuff to customers. As a
customer, I don't buy stuff that isn't documented,
because I've got better things to do than spend my
time reverse engineering the hardware platform.
Computers are not toasters. They are programmable
general-purpose devices. If you don't have
documentation, you can't program it. That makes
the computer in question less than utile.
Don't buy undocumented hardware.
Re:Theo's Conversation (Score:2)
Theo is a genius, has done more for computing than I ever hope to. But he is arrogant. Sometimes that might help - he was so mad at NetBSD he went off and formed OpenBSD, and the world's a better place. Didn't like the old firewall license, and he gets a new one, one thats even better. Thing is in those cases he had options - if they don't like me playing here I'll make my own gym. But he doens't have options with Sun - if he pisses them off, there's no OpenSPARC org he can talk to. This is probably a time that being arrogant hurt him.
Even with expenses of zero, there's still the NDA part. Theo doens't want to sign an NDA, which the Linux guys are happy to do. Theo then complains about how they get stuff he doens't. Ummm....
Don't buy undocumented hardware.
Hmm, Theo is, and then complaining about it.
Re:Theo's Conversation (Score:2)
Two thoughts (Score:3, Informative)
Secondly, to all the people who are accusing Sun of having no strategy, no plan, no policy, no hope, etc.. Just because YOU haven't bothered to find it out doesn't mean that it doesn't exist! There are a LOT of posts here that berate Sun for doing something that they clearly are not, or failing to explain something that they make perfectly plain. Go do your damned research!
sitting on the fence again (Score:3, Interesting)
Capitalism is for the weak. If you need money to survive YOU SUCK!
bit of run around (Score:2)
Stop whining like a bitch (Score:5, Insightful)
GNOME as replacement to CDE
But, but... isn't this a triumph to the community? A closed, proprietary GUI is replaced by an open one?
change free StarOffice back to cash
Now let's see. StarOffice was a Sun initiative. They gave away a huge shitload of PROFESSIONAL code, design and man hours of work to the community. And you have the audacity to whine like a little bitch when they take back control of what was theirs in the first place?! And all that without messing up the OpenOffice which they could very well have done. Don't you see? They gave a gift to the community and community contributed back some AMATEUR code. I'd call that a fair trade, but no... open source bitches like you must have it all or nothing.
ignore OpenBSD
No it wasn't. Sun is in business. They don't benefit from giving away their platform to competition that gives things away for free.
Re:Stop whining like a bitch (Score:2)
No, a lot of it was written by the OSF members; remember, Motif came out of the whole "AT&T/Sun vs. OSF" wars, and it came from the OSF side - the AT&T/Sun side had the OPEN LOOK toolkits XView (SunView ported to run atop X11) and OLIT (AT&T's Xt-based OPEN LOOK toolkit).
Re:My comments (Score:2, Insightful)
NDAs are a fact of corporate life - is asking someone to sign one before you give away details on the technology it's taken you years and millions to develop *really* that evil?
-Blacklaw
Re:My comments (Score:2, Insightful)
What's wrong with replacing CDE with Gnome?
If you want StarOffice for free, use OpenOffice? Companies weren't interested in StarOffice when it was free, now we have the best of both worlds - a free open source version and a professionally supportable product with a licence.
From the posts, it sounds like they didn't ignore OpenBSDm, they asked for an NDA to be signed. What's wrong with that?
Re:Werd 'em up (Score:3, Informative)
"Myth: Sparc is a closed proprietry architecture
if sun wants to be able to call itself open, its up to us to ensure they back up the marketing fluff.
Re:Werd 'em up (Score:3, Informative)
Interesting that you should quote this bit, but not the rest. SPARC is open. Anyone can build a sparc chip, and modify and customise the specs to suit their needs. Sun do that, and one of the chips they've made to suit their needs is called the UltraSPARC-III. Nothing is stopping you producing a WienerSPARC-IV and running *BSD on it. Nothing about SPARC is "viral" in the way that the GPL is - ie products derived from the specs do not have to be open in the way the initial specs are. This is Sun's case. It's fair - think of SPARC as a sort of BSD licenced hardware spec. You can take the spec and produce "free hardware" or you can take the specs and produce "proprietary hardware" - true freedom in the way the BSD licence views it. How is this out of line with Theo's policy? Are they requesting any closed source projects based on BSD code return the specs so they can make OpenBSD work better with it? No. Then why should they stamp their feet about closed hardware implementations based on an open standard?
Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA (Score:2)
Thank you.
Re:Theo's approach (Score:2)
but remember the old saying "The squeaky wheel gets the grease"? well... sometimes the wheel gets replaced!
Re:ah you goofed again (Score:2)
Re:Oh no, not again... (Score:2)
it's here [openbsd.org]
please note the section stating:
OpenBSD can not include material which includes copyrights which are more restrictive than the Berkeley copyright, or must relegate this material to a secondary status
and consider that the reason theo isn't using the linux implementation as a hint is because the gpl is more restrictive than the bsd license.
this may also be the primary reason for refusing to sign the nda. it may be considered "more restrictive" (i certainly didn't get an nda with my copy of obsd 3.2)
now please have a cup of shut the fuck up yourself.