Slashdot Mirror

SPARC is an open CPU, probably more so than x86 or PowerPC.

Look at the number implementations.

...because I only have Sun/Texas Instruments SPARC boxen, no Fujitsus around here I'm afraid.

Oh, I see, they mean SPARCv9. Why couldn't they say so? Given the number of manufacturers who make SPARC processing units it's a bit of a shame that many Open Source projects only claim to support the one manufacturer's chips.

BTW has anyone got any experiences of running this on TI UltraSPARC IV machines that they'd like to share?

Hmmm...last time I looked, Sun actually built things with their own CPU.

Then Linux users, who like me pride themselves on the openness of their software, should consider using open standards for their hardware. Such as SPARC, especially the scrummy 64-bit sparcv9. These things can scale up to a 64-CPU box; I'd like to see the Athlon manage that ;-)

You'd expect someone reviewing a computer to have at least a vague clue about that computer...unfortunately life doesn't always live up to expectations.

The SunPCI III is, I think, the primary selling point of the Blade 1500 -- it's what separates this workstation from the proprietary competition by essentially combining an UltraSPARC and an IA32 machine into one unit with full binary compatibility for both architectures.

Following on from...

The proprietary 64-bit workstation market is dominated by Sun Microsystems

All very nice. Except that the UltraSPARC is not a proprietary 64-bit system! The SPARC series of chips are developed by SPARC, in whom Sun have a relatively large stake. Such chips include the Leon2, the designs for which are available under the conditions of the Lesser GPL. This is not a proprietary architecture! Want to make your own SPARC chip? Download the SPARC definitions and get to it! No-one's going to stop you, this is after all an open system!

OK, so there's one thing in there that does make the Blade workstation proprietary, and that's the IA-32 compliant processor on the hardware PC emulator. That's a closed-license design, not nice and open and standards-compliant like the SPARCs are.

You'd expect someone reviewing a computer to have at least a vague clue about that computer...unfortunately life doesn't always live up to expectations.

The SunPCI III is, I think, the primary selling point of the Blade 1500 -- it's what separates this workstation from the proprietary competition by essentially combining an UltraSPARC and an IA32 machine into one unit with full binary compatibility for both architectures.

Following on from...

The proprietary 64-bit workstation market is dominated by Sun Microsystems

All very nice. Except that the UltraSPARC is not a proprietary 64-bit system! The SPARC series of chips are developed by SPARC, in whom Sun have a relatively large stake. Such chips include the Leon2, the designs for which are available under the conditions of the Lesser GPL. This is not a proprietary architecture! Want to make your own SPARC chip? Download the SPARC definitions and get to it! No-one's going to stop you, this is after all an open system!

OK, so there's one thing in there that does make the Blade workstation proprietary, and that's the IA-32 compliant processor on the hardware PC emulator. That's a closed-license design, not nice and open and standards-compliant like the SPARCs are.

This is quite off base in my opinion. Yes I work for Sun, but even if Sun weren't trying to push Linux into the market (which Sun is) Sun recognizes that anything that is unix is better for the market than Windows.

"Compete on implementation, not on control of the specification"

That's been one of Sun's mottos in this area for quite a while (possibly from even before Linux existed)-- and if you really think about it, it's a pretty good one. Sun has applied that kind of thinking to chips and OSs for years (there are other URLs too, those are just two examples). Before "open source" was en vogue, open systems were, and it's worthwhile to think about what the open systems market was all about.

I wonder if they consider designing a SPARC compatible CPU. I thought SPARC was an "open standard", but the SPARC site does mention that there are some licensing costs. How much would those cost?

The SPARC processor is covered by IEEE Standard 1754-1994 and licensed by the non-profit organization SPARC International Inc.. You can, for example, buy SPARC-compliant hardware from Fujitsu and run Solaris on it.

What is true. Sun is not at the bleeding edge of processor development -- a place primarly for scientific computing. They are however at the leading edge, along with many others, and because of that they produce very stable, very productive, very scalable commercial application servers.

Oh, and please do have a visit to Sparc Consortium and check out the many other who contribute to sparc development.

see www.sparc.org

...which finally has the SPARC V8 manual and the SPARC V9 manual online (online manuals appears to be what the original poster wanted), although they only seem to have the V9 manual online as compressed PostScript, not PDF. In the past, that documentation wasn't online; I heard a claim that it was due to copyright issues with whoever produced the printed versions (Addison-Wesley?).

See the SPARC Standards Documents Depository for the standards documents at sparc.org.

see www.sparc.org

...which finally has the SPARC V8 manual and the SPARC V9 manual online (online manuals appears to be what the original poster wanted), although they only seem to have the V9 manual online as compressed PostScript, not PDF. In the past, that documentation wasn't online; I heard a claim that it was due to copyright issues with whoever produced the printed versions (Addison-Wesley?).

See the SPARC Standards Documents Depository for the standards documents at sparc.org.

Or is it not the actual processor - but support hardware/boot rom issues that they are having a hard time getting information about?

www.sparc.com

From the SPARC site:

The RISC-based Scalalable Processor ARChitecture includes processors from multiple vendors that range in price from less than $10 to more than $3000, and powers devices that scale in functionality from small digital cameras to large mainframe-class UNIX servers. This microprocessor architecture is controlled and managed by SPARC International (SI), an independent governing body founded in 1989. Since its inception, the SPARC architecture has been guided by its fundamental design philosophy of open standards. Open - to promote innovation, to provide options and flexibility, to encourage fair competition, and ultimately, to help businesses relying on the SPARC platform thrive. Any version of the SPARC Instruction Set can be licensed from SPARC International, and then used to design processors implementing that open standard. Truly - in letter and in spirit, SPARC's open - for business!

What makes SPARC "open?"

While many proprietary architectures claim to be open, the truth is that adopters of a proprietary chip must accept the architecture "as is." Conversely, the SPARC architecture fulfills essential elements of openness.

The SPARC instruction set is published as IEEE Standard 1754-1994.

SPARC specifications are available for licensing by any person or company, giving customers flexibility and freedom to design their own solution.

Control of the SPARC architecture is in the hands of an independent, non-profit organization, SPARC International, whose membership is open to everyone.

How much does it cost to use the architecture?

All technical information about the architecture is available for free and without royalties from SPARC International's public website. Anyone is welcome to download the SPARC specifications, which provide all of the technical requirements needed to design processors and other products based on the open SPARC standard.

SPARC International also offers registry services for a one-time fee of $99, which is particularly important to those companies that track the source of technology in their products.
While the technical information is free, use of the SPARC trademark requires two things: First, membership in SPARC International; and second, compliance testing of the device.

SUN developed the architechture but doesn't own the SPARC trademarks etcetera anymore. Check out SPARC International for details.

Sun has been designing their own chips since the Sun 3. They have designed a neat new processor (ps. anyone else - it really is neat, check out that link). The MAJC processor is in no way tied to running Java code. It is just a neat way at getting hardware to support multi-threading better.

But let's judge Sun on their history. Look at Sun's history with chip production. Look at the bios they use: OpenFirmware. Look how they have spun control of the sparc architecture off into Sparc International, to make it a truely open platform.

Then look at MicroSoft's track record. Do you doubt that M$ will be trying to gain monopoly control over WebTV devices, in the same way they have captured the desktop market?

I really don't see any point in your comparison.

cheers,
G

Um, I hope Intel never has a 64-bit SPARC. It would be rather unseemly to steal the trademark and architecture from another company.

Intel could quite legitimately produce a SPARC chip, and call it a SPARC chip (subject to conformance testing.)

Check out SPARC International

Sun doesn't seem any more proprietary than Wintel to me. The OS can be licensed by other hardware makers, as can the Sparc architecture. See SPARC International for more information.