Slashdot Mirror
Sun vs. OpenBSD?
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."
Because Sun is limiting their customer base by excluding an OS that people want.
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.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
How can it be you need an NDA to get the specs? Wouldn't the cat be out of the bag as soon as someone released source code based on the specs? The best doco for hardware after all is source code that implements the spec.
I agree completely with Sun on this one. They have to make a buck, and when a free OS comes along wanting to utilize its systems and take away from its revenue. I work with Sparc 10 systems everyday, and I have come to love the Solaris system, it is pretty flawless and is specifically designed for the Ultra Sparc architecture. Plus, many people the utilize the Sparc Systems with Solaris use specifically written programs for the Solaris systems and are designed in house, this OpenBSD system could be hell on those programmers and Sys Admin.
[n8.r0n] http://petesweb.spymac.net/
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.
The long term implications of an Ultra secure operating system based on Sparc hardware is a very interesting one. A whole new niche market could be opening up here. More interestingly, this will be I believe one of the steps needed towards the Fortune 500 moving to OpenBSD. It's just a matter of time, before their emphasis on security is doubled, or tripled from what it presently is as industry continues to move online and companies increasingly continue to protect their assets especially due to tight profit margins. I can see paranoia becoming the default at long last and a thirst for highly secure systems.
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.
Yeah, it has to make you wonder - how would Sun be hurt financially by releasing Sparc software specifications? They own Sparc, afterall. You'd think it could only result in more hardware sales for them.
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.
Or is it not the actual processor - but support hardware/boot rom issues that they are having a hard time getting information about?
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Nice troll yourself. Where's the document in question describing the new SPARC memory protection feature that OpenBSD requires? It does not exist, hence the problem. Quoting some useless FAQ doesn't make it any more real or "open".
I'd have to say that Sun are doing pretty well here in the UK. They've just started a scheme where educational and non-profit research establishments can get a full site license for StarOffice 6.0 for £23 - that's in total, not per computer. As a technician for an educational establishment, this makes me rather happy.
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
> We all have a love/hate relationship with Microsoft (okay, mostly a 'hate' one for Slashdotters) but at least they don't control the architecture, OS, and CPU for the Windows platform.
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.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
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.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
Theo said he would prefer to run openbsd.org on Ultrasparc architecture, since it provides certain levels of hardware security, from following the thread on the BSD forums.
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.
Because if you'd bother to actually *READ* the article about this you'd see that they have already provided the Linux team with enough information to get it running, but won't give the OpenBSD team the info that they need.
Keeping a step ahead of opensource with Solaris isn't an issue.
I have a similar problem with Adaptec. I'm trying to get register-level specs for their AIC-7xxx series of scsi chips.
On their Linux page 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 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.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
Why are people at Slashdot so down on Sun at the moment? They stuck with Unix when all the other vendors were going for NT, they make great hardware and have a great OS and certainly aren't losing market share to IBM or HP for God's sake. They're here to stay!
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?
GPL code can't be taken into a commercial product. Sun may not be as worried about GPL code as BSD code. IBM for example could take information from BSD code and wrap right into AIX without disclosure. That isn't true for GPL code.
Further nobody actually knows what the Linux guys got.
If I bought "your" hardware, does that make it
mine? If you tried to take it back - could I
take _you_ to court?
so... you say you own the "technology".. Your
"technology" would be pretty pointless without
"my" software, wouldnt it?
oh.. you write software also.. so that means
I'm actually getting a lease on an appliance
now.. not a general purpose computer..
sorry.. I didn't read the contract. I thought
I was getting a computer.
[no need to mention monoplies]
--
Silvio