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."
much like this article from the other day.
man
No manual entry for
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/
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.
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.
Over the last few weeks this argument has been raging. I've lost count of the number of IRC conversations I've had on ircnet #openbsd, and here's my take on the options presented to the OBSD developers.
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)
Super Awesome Broadband
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.
Nice troll. From the SPARC International FAQ:
And
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.
How come other OSs (not just Solaris) seem to have versions for UltraSparc. I know for a fact that Mandrake has a version that works fine on UltraSparc processors. I'm pretty sure BeOS can, and that many other linux/unixes can. I used to know a guy who had DOS running on a sun machine. If everyone else doesn't seem to have a problem why does BSD?
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
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".
You also might be interested in this OpenBSD Journal article about the same subject. Usually the discussions about the articles are very insightful on deadly.org
the problem is sun professes to be open. http://www.sparc.org/faq.html
..."
"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.
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.
Yeah, Sun is known for all the great single processor machines they make and openbsd is known for it's great smp support. It's a match made in heaven. I'm sure there are people lining up to run openbsd on one of the 106 processors in the sunfire 15k and sun is turning them away. Oh the horror.
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?
The linux team apparently approached sun to show them the specs, Sun said "sign an NDA or no deal." Linux team signs, code goes under the GPL.
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.
Troll Like a Champion Today
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.
What?! Microsoft doesn't control the OS for the Windows platform?
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
It exists only in a non-open form - via an NDA.
This is why it can not be used by OpenBSD.
Since you are an AC I'd say its close to 100% that Theo has done way more for the community than you have.
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.
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.
"Myth: Sparc is a closed proprietry architecture ..."
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?
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
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.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
:-) Sparc != UltraSPARC-III. SPARC is an open architecture. UltraSPARC-III is a proprietary, closed chip. What is difficult about that? TCP/IP is an open protocol, OpenBSD implements it in an open way, and MS does so in a closed way. One closed implementation of an IEEE spec does *not* make that spec closed and proprietary.
Aaaaargh! Stop it!
Try NetBSD... safe,straightforward,useful.
This story was posted in the BSD section, I wrote something there. Didn't start enough of a flame war, so I'll repost it. Before flaming, make sure you read the email thread.
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.
First of all, as much as I admire his work it must be said: Theo is an abrasive asshole. He is idealistic to the point of being utterly inflexible and insulting. He'd get farther if he behaved like a grown-up.
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!
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
Sun seems to enjoy playing both sides of this war, giving and helping when necessary to maintain community support while playing their cards with the big companies instead of turning their backs on them like the community would have them do. Sun is a good company overall, but I sure wouldn't want to work there again. They are rather insignificant these days, now that openoffice is GPL. If they get in bed with OSS before its too late they might stick around long enough to make some great change in the industry, assuming marketting and morons don't flood them out.
Capitalism is for the weak. If you need money to survive YOU SUCK!
With regards to taking the code from the Linux folks, it's not only a matter of respecting the GPL (if that was even a factor) but more a matter of correct coding. How can the OpenBSD folks be sure Linux code is implemented correctly, per the specs of the documents Sun gave them? They can't, without the documents.
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.
How are you defining "rapidly loosing market share"? Most of the market analyses over the past 2 years have shown Sun gaining market sharein Unix server and workstation shipments against IBM, HP/Compaq, SGI, et al.
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.
Stealing a rhinoceros should not be attempted lightly.