Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

OpenBSD (Still) Seeks UltraSparc III Docs From Sun

Posted by timothy on from the vogon-constructor-fleet-tactics dept.

An anonymous reader writes "There is a very interesting article on kerneltrap regarding OpenBSD's lingering battle with Sun over UltraSparc III documentation (that's right ... it still hasn't been resolved). Jeremy Andrews relates his efforts to get a position from Sun on the matter. In summary, he was completely stonewalled ... and that is exactly what makes the article so noteworthy."

49 of 163 comments (clear)

  1. Why ever would they give up the IP ? by ThundaGaiden · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sun has always seemed to be in the bussiness of
    sharing , but oftens seems to do a stab in the
    back

    As an example Staroffice was a awesome piece of software, they release the source and everything ,
    then all of a sudden you have to pay for it... and there's a open source solution that has to catch up to the new release that Sun just made.

    I must admit I like Sun's approach more than MS's make it free , make it opensource , then make em pay...

    MS just makes you pay :P

    1. Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sun has always seemed to be in the bussiness of sharing , but oftens seems to do a stab in the back

      No, Sun are in the business of making money. All the cool stuff they do has to be paid for one way or the other. A fab is possibly the most expensive artifact on the planet, short of an aircraft carrier. Sun are perfectly willing to provide documentation to anyone willing to meet them halfway and sign an NDA, which is fair enough, since they need to protect their opportunity to earn a return on their investment. (Note that I said opportunity, not right).

      This is not a flame or a troll, but the OpenBSD people's position is "we want you to respect our terms, but we aren't willing to respect yours". Well, you can't have your cake and eat it - and no amount of ranting will change that.

    2. Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? by Kircle · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, the reason Sun started charging for StarOffice was because corporate buyers were unwilling use "free" software. They believe in the saying "you get what you pay for," and thus in an ironic way didn't feel comfortable using StarOffice unless they were paying for it. So what should Sun do? Distribute the suite for free? Or tag on a price and get a higher likelihood of penetration in the corporate market?

      Besides, I recall StarOffice being free to students and those in academics. And, of course, there is always OpenOffice.

      --

      -- Kircle

    3. Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A fab is possibly the most expensive artifact on the planet,

      Sun doesn't actually fab anything. They only do the chip design, and have them fab out-of-house.

    4. Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? by flynn_nrg · · Score: 3, Informative

      "Sun doesn't actually fab anything. They only do the chip design, and have them fab out-of-house."

      Absolutely. Given the small volume of UltraSparc cpus produced every year (very small compared to the x86 world), it would be extremely expensive for them to have an own fab. During my work at Sun I saw USIIi cpu boards made by companies like IBM (those had the well known ecache bug) and Sony.

    5. Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? by TPS+Report · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Sun are perfectly willing to provide documentation to anyone willing to meet them halfway and sign an NDA, which is fair enough, since they need to protect their opportunity to earn a return on their investment.
      If they are so willing, as you say, why has an offer not been made? The fact remains: he has not been offered the documentation for something that is supposedly "open" and availble (whether under an NDA or not).

      This is not a flame or a troll, but the OpenBSD people's position is "we want you to respect our terms, but we aren't willing to respect yours".

      No, you have that wrong. The OpenBSD position is "What ARE the terms?" -- they haven't been offered anything at all.

      I think they have been ignoring his requests because they realize Theo is not going to be happy with an NDA, and is going to call the bluff. On one hand, Sun says it's an open architecture, but on the other hand - they're telling people they need to sign an NDA to get the data. I believe Sun would have offered him the NDA a long time ago if they thought he would sign it -- just like they've done with other (Linux) developers - but they probably realize it's not going to work like that with him. I don't think Theo is as concerned about the actual documentation; I think his driving motivation here is to get Sun to "practice what they preach."

      Theo is of the opinion that if you're going to say something is a certain way, it better be. Sun will need to either ignore him indefinately, thus avoiding the whole NDA paradox -- or they will change the policy and truly offer the documention in an open manner, as they claim.

      What I find interesting is the comment near the end of the article that basically says Theo thinks they have everyone sign an NDA to avoid public discussions of architecture bugs in the US3. Am I the only one that remembers Sun having customers sign NDA's so they could get their faulty UltraSparc chips replaced with bad cache? I can't find a link to past discussions about this, but...
      --
      I was told that I could listen to the radio at a reasonable volume from nine to eleven...
    6. Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? by dagnabit · · Score: 3, Informative

      Low volume isn't the only reason they don't fab themselves... outsourcing that process allows Sun to seek best-of-breed fab technology without having to invest huge $$ in fab infrastructure and then have to "get their $$ worth" out of it. Which makes the stockholders happy (happy as can be, anyway...)

      And TI (their main fab partner) gets the symbiotic benefit of having a reason to accelerate and chase the latest and greatest fab stuff to then use on their _own_ products (mainly DSP chips).

  2. They want to do a linux distro.. by Jondor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The whole story leaves me with the idea that sun hopes to get most of the expensive development done by the OS community as they are preparing their own linux distro. As such nothing wrong with that..

    For OpenBSD they couldn't care less other than to keep them waiting and to keep possible competition at a distance.

    Just my first, uninformed, impression..

    --
    Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
    1. Re:They want to do a linux distro.. by JimDabell · · Score: 4, Insightful
      For OpenBSD they couldn't care less other than to keep them waiting and to keep possible competition at a distance.

      If Sun want to create a distro, fine. It won't be to profit from the distro though - it will merely be a "value-add" to the hardware. As such, competition is hardly something they would be scared of - the more operating systems running on their hardware, the better.

    2. Re:They want to do a linux distro.. by JimDabell · · Score: 2, Insightful
      What's the value of adding linux for free?

      Well Linux has immense mindshare. There are a hell of a lot of people out there with Linux experience, more so, probably, than OpenBSD. These people will probably prefer Linux, or at least want it as an option. Sun are probably in the best position to make a distribution for their own hardware, they certainly have the expertise.

      And this is only value if it actualy works.

      Why would Sun release a non-functional distribution?

  3. I Don't Understand This by tealover · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wasn't Sun in part started by Bill Joy of the *original* BSD fame, of which OpenBSD is an off-shoot? You'd think that Bill would show the OpenBSD guys some love.

    Yes, I know Bill Joy creating BSD was a long time ago but there is no need for such duplicity and passive hostility. Let's get it together Sun !

    --
    -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    1. Re:I Don't Understand This by arvindn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the problem with these big companies. They're made of disparate groups each with its own world view. So statements like "company foo is pro/anti open source" become meaningless. There is a lack of central vision and co-ordination. (Hint: what was one of the reasons Microsoft became what it is?) Look at IBM. Invests heavily in Linux, but OTOH is extrememly protective of its IP. Look at HPQ. (Remember the Perens anti-DMCA demonstration circus?) Look at SCO. They're all the same, vacillating (no pun intended). Except for exclusively OSS companies like RH, you can never tell.

    2. Re:I Don't Understand This by sql*kitten · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That's the problem with these big companies. They're made of disparate groups each with its own world view.

      Their own P&L you mean. Each group is responsible for reporting profits to head office, and if those profits aren't there, then heads will roll.

      That means that if one business unit has to pursue a policy that doesn't help another in order to protect its own profits, it will. This happened at IBM: the PC hardware division wasn't willing to risk it own sales by by preloading OS/2 just because it would have made things easier for the OS/2 division.

      Which do you suppose makes more profit (and hence has more influence at head office) at Sun: the Open Source advocacy group, or the UltraSPARC engineering group? (Hint: the workstation and server group probably "buy" the CPUs internally from the SPARC group).

  4. Sun.. by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 2, Interesting

    makes various choices in the open source community, from JBoss to a Linux training center.

    At the same time, Sun is one of many who are struggling to be profitable. From the article, "Sun boasts their UltraSparc III as an "open" architecture, yet seem to recognize that there is insufficient information freely available for the open source community to support it with operating systems."

    Is it purely a financial ploy perhaps?

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
  5. The docs ARE available... by Some+Bitch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but there's an NDA associated with getting them. It looks to me like De Raadt doesn't want to agree to the terms and threw his teddy out of the cot when Sun told him 'tough luck then'.

    1. Re:The docs ARE available... by barbazoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The question is: if Sun can allow David Miller to write GPL'd code, why don't they allow the OpenBSD team to write Berkley'd code?

    2. Re:The docs ARE available... by iMMersE · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Because the Berkley'd code can be used in other commercial software with just a little copyright message, whilst GPL'd code can be used in other commercial software, but then requires the source code of that software to be released.

      --
      codegolf.com - smaller *is* better.
    3. Re:The docs ARE available... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      no, Theo has not even been presented with the opportunity to read docs wiht NDA. it's not like you can go dld them off sun.com after clicking to agree to an NDA.

      besides it goes against the whole point of the BSD license to sign such agreements.

    4. Re:The docs ARE available... by Mournblade · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, RTFA:

      "An early version of this manual was allegedly made available to Linux developers once a Confidential Disclosure Agreement was signed (Sun's version of a Non-Disclosure Agreement), however no such offer has been made to the OpenBSD team, an offer that if made is likely counter to the project's goals."

      I agree that Theo probably wouldn't want to agree to the terms of the NDA, but we don't know what he'll actually do, because, according to the article, the offer hasn't been made to him (or the OpenBSD project).

    5. Re:The docs ARE available... by Jondor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But the problem is not if they give it or not.. The problem is that they don't want to be clear on the subject.
      A clear NO gets the point across. It's not the refusal, but the lack of communication which is the problem.

      --
      Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!
  6. The key of the article by fruey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is very interesting, because it really hits on the blurry line between "open" and controlled (closed), and also between the way that Linux developers signed something to not disclose information on the hardware itself, although their source code to access this hardware is available.

    Sun boasts their UltraSparc III as an "open" architecture, yet seem to recognize that there is insufficient information freely available for the open source community to support it with operating systems. I have been told that the required documentation does exist, however, with a Sun part number of 805-0408-05-P. An early version of this manual was allegedly made available to Linux developers once a Confidential Disclosure Agreement was signed (Sun's version of a Non-Disclosure Agreement), however no such offer has been made to the OpenBSD team, an offer that if made is likely counter to the project's goals.

    Clearly then OpenBSD developers are sticking to their guns, their question is really how an "Open" architecture cannot be disclosed without some contractual agreement.

    I begin to suspect that the other comment (against Linux kernel devs) about this may be key:-

    There's always people who suggest it is possible, but the pain is so high, it's just not worth it. Especially when the Linux kernel's interface with hardware is detailed about as well as the Linux manual pages. Especially when Linux is famous for stuff like: writereg(0x4, 0xff01);

    Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might say that the precise reason that comments are sparse in these sections of CPU code for the Linux kernel is due to some clause in the Sun disclosure agreement.

    In any case

    • The Sun Ultra Sparc III cannot be open if you cannot access it publically, it is rather available under terms and conditions
    • The Linux project clearly had some other motivation to write the kernel code for this architecture, perhaps even encouraged by Sun (think Cobalt Linux?)
    • The OpenBSD project is somehow staking out that they are "purer" for adopting this stance, which is all very noble, but means ultimately that OpenBSD is unlikely to support this architecture (apart from OpenBSD zealots, most of us will just run Linux instead, I guess).

    Still, I'd like to see as much openness from vendors as possible. They have to realise that the people who support closed source business models are going to be driven out by cheap commodity hardware which is now powerful enough to do amazing things (think clusters of cheap hardware on AMD/Intel/Sparc architectures all talking together via some OpenSource kernel and clustering project, think Google). Their days are numbered, sure they'll still have a place, but their creaming off profits from their current installed base will start seeing serious competition from value added service providers with no ties to specific hardware, and that is great for the consumer. Do not forget, it used to be IBM, Sperry (then Unisys) and Burroughs that did all hardware and software support. Now, as an independent consultant, you can get out there and do amazing stuff with commodity hardware and your own tailored solutions pulling from a wealth of great free server software solutions.

    We are already in a phase (as are companies in European telecoms like France Telecom and British Telecom) where holding on to what you have for as long as you can, before competition really breaks you, is the only business plan they seem to have.

    Score one for innovation and open projects, every time.

    --
    Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    1. Re:The key of the article by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Clearly then OpenBSD developers are sticking to their guns, their question is really how an "Open" architecture cannot be disclosed without some contractual agreement.

      You've misunderstood the word "open". SPARC is open in that anyone can download the specification and implement it - you can set up a rival SPARC-based hardware company, fab your own SPARCs and compete with Sun, if you want to, and they will have no legal means to stop you.

      However, what is not open is Sun's own implementation of that SPARC specification. That's because they spent a lot of their own money on it, creating the best implementation they could. If you want your own SPARC, you will have to implement it on your own.

      Think about it this way: if you want to have your own recording of a Mozart symphony, you can buy one that an orchestra has recorded, or you can perform it and record it yourself. What you can't do is take a pre-recorded copy and try to pass it off as your own - even tho' the score is in the public domain.

    2. Re:The key of the article by sczimme · · Score: 4, Insightful


      "The Sun Ultra Sparc III cannot be open if you cannot access it publically, it is rather available under terms and conditions". (original emphasis)

      GPL = (terms and conditions), too.

      [relax. think about it.]

      --
      I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
    3. Re:The key of the article by fruey · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Good point, sczimme. However, GPL is mostly about reproducing and re-using the code, rather than just putting it in the Public Domain.

      All specs are Open, all code is open, if you change it, and re-release it, that's when the GPL really kicks in.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    4. Re:The key of the article by fruey · · Score: 2, Interesting
      I saw in the article the emphasis on UltraIII being open. I know SPARC is open, that's not the issue at hand as I understood it

      Sun boasts their UltraSparc III as an "open" architecture

      So what is open, SPARC or UltraSparcIII. I haven't the time to find out. Do you know, sql*kitten?

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
    5. Re:The key of the article by pldms · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've misunderstood the word "open". SPARC is open in that anyone can download the specification and implement it - you can set up a rival SPARC-based hardware company, fab your own SPARCs and compete with Sun, if you want to, and they will have no legal means to stop you.

      Hmm. But this specification is insufficiently - um - specific for OS developers?

      It seems that the weasel word here is 'architecture'. That can be sufficiently vague as to make 'open architecture' a pretty empty phrase.

      --
      Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
      me a number based on the order in which I joined
    6. Re:The key of the article by fruey · · Score: 2, Informative
      OK, so the article is wrong in stating "the Open UltraSparc-III architecture", it is rather the open Sparc9 archictecture upon which the UltraIII is based.

      And, in all that, how much use is the SPARC9 specification for writing kernel code? Not much, I imagine... since indeed memory addressing and cache stuff is what the real issue in coding is.

      --
      Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant
  7. Politics by lockne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Article: "An early version of this manual was allegedly made available to Linux developers once a Confidential Disclosure Agreement was signed (Sun's version of a Non-Disclosure Agreement), however no such offer has been made to the OpenBSD team, an offer that if made is likely counter to the project's goals."

    So what they're essentially saying is that they want Sun to give them the documentation without the OpenBSD developers having to sign an NDA, because doing so wouldn't be in line with the OpenBSD goals?

    Sun is free to refuse. And the OpenBSD folks are free to reread their own goals and start taking them seriously. For example these two:

    - Be as politics-free as possible; solutions should be decided on the basis of technical merit.
    - Do not let serious problems sit unsolved.

    Now go sign that NDA! :-)

    1. Re:Politics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      First off, you forgot the most important goals:
      • Provide the best development platform possible. Provide full source access to developers and users, including the ability to look at CVS tree changes directly. Users can even look at our source tree and changes directly on the web!
      • Integrate good code from any source with acceptable copyright (Berkeley style preferred, GPL acceptable, NDA not). We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to. There are commercial spin-offs of OpenBSD.

      Signing an NDA will not provide for that because the OpenBSD team cannot point developers to the docs they used to make the chip work. Fewer developers means less eyes on the code. No access to the docs means no freedom of use for you and me.

  8. Sun And Documentation... by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 4, Funny



    Sun, with ANY kind of documentation, is going to be a royal pain in the ass. Here, i'll give you a personal example.

    One day, I picked up a SparcStation 1 at a surplus auction. Cool, I thought, I'll learn SPARC architecture, a bit about disaster recovery with Sun hardware, Solaris, you name it. So, I hacked the hell out of it, and learned everything I could without documentation. When it came time to look at a manual. I called Sun.

    "Hi... I was wondering if you could send me the owners manual for a SparcStation 1."

    "Sorry. Thats handled by SunStore."

    "Whats SunStore?"

    "They handle all our documentation."

    So, I call SunStore, and ask the same question.

    "Hi.. I was wondering if I could order a user's manual for a Sun SparcStation 1. I know the machine is like 10 years old, but do you still have the manuals?"

    "Yes, we do."

    "Great, i'd like to order one, then. Is Visa ok?"

    "Uhh.. Well, we can't sell it to you."

    "What do you mean?"

    "Well, we cant sell you just one."

    "Huh?"

    "You need to order in lots of 500."

    "You mean in order to buy a SparcStation 1 manual, I need to buy 500?!"

    "Yes."

    "Uhhh.... Ooooh-kaaay.. How much is a lot of 500?"

    "$39.95"

    "Oh, okay..I guess thats fine.. I dunno what i'm gonna do with 499 Sparc manuals tho. I guess you can keep them, and just send me one. Thats all I need."

    "39.95 is the unit price, sir. You're looking at a total of.... $19,975."

    "No way!"

    "Yes sir. Will this be on a Visa or Mastercard?"

    *click*

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:Sun And Documentation... by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just rang them up and they posted out Sparcstation 2 manuals. They arrived two days later, with a little note saying "Thanks for using Sun kit, hope you have fun. If you want to buy new stuff call us." kind of thing...

    2. Re:Sun And Documentation... by LeftHanded · · Score: 4, Informative

      Great story! However, you can get all kinds of user manuals, hardware manuals, software manuals, etc from http://docs.sun.com You can read them on-line, download Adobe Acrobat versions, and purchase the documents as well. It's a lot easier than it used to be... HMM, no Sparc 1 manual, but the Sparc Classic and similar is at http://docs.sun.com/db/doc/801-2176-13:

      --
      I think...I think it's in my basement. Let me go upstairs and check. -M.C. Escher (1898-1972)
    3. Re:Sun And Documentation... by Andrew+Francis · · Score: 5, Informative
      Sun, with ANY kind of documentation, is going to be a royal pain in the ass. Here, i'll give you a personal example. One day, I picked up a SparcStation 1 at a surplus auction.

      My experience was quite different. I was trying to get some Sun Xterminals (rather old; they were basically Sparcstation 2's without hard drives) booting and serving up displays from a Red Hat machine, instead of the aging Sparcserver we were about to retire.

      We had support contracts with Sun for several machines, but not the Xterminals or the Sparcserver they booted from. I put in a request with Sun (via a web form) anyway. Within a few hours, someone at the local Sun office was on the phone to me. The next morning, I had a single copy of the manuals on my desk, via courier.

      PS - there's a heap of stuff on docs.sun.com

      --
      (My email address is on my homepage)
  9. Sun may be in the fetal position as a company.. by gorjusborg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sun seems to be a company with an identity crisis. Are they a hardware company that dabbles in software? Are they a software company who dabbles in hardware?

    Either way, they are looking at a bleak future considering the proliferation of Linux, and the availability of cheap, relatively high performance x686 hardware.

    If Sun is a software company, they are probably not comfortable with the fact that Solaris, recently the 'standard' OS for low-end scientific/technical computing (at least in the semiconductor industry) is being passed over in favor of the cheaper (faster) alternative Linux.

    If Sun is a hardware company, they should be worried. The semiconductor company I work for, which previously used Sun machines exclusively, has found that a dual XEON running Linux outperforms the new SunBlades it owns. The blades cost about 4-5 times more than the XEON systems, and have about half the speed for our applications.

    I am not surprized if Sun is starting to feel that it has to protect itself.

    --
    If it's not one thing, it's Steve's Mother
    1. Re:Sun may be in the fetal position as a company.. by joab_son_of_zeruiah · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yes. And, (I speculate) that the internal struggle is between the (at least) "certain" hardware past and the (for sure) uncertain java future.

      I think what we are seeing here is a "strategic" stonewalling of the hardware side to try to maintain its "margins" - which are often a consequence of some kind of proprietary software. OpenBSD kind of kills that idea.

      I speculate that internally Sun has advanced a kind of "let's have the best security platform in the industry" motion for its hardware. Release Ultrasparc III specs? That's counter strategic (aka - shoot yourself in the foot) especially if its OpenBSD.

      So you be McNeally: how are you going to explain to stock analysts your great plan for resurrecting your company when you give away your proprietary advantage?

      I'm just a bitter shareholder.

  10. Sun should do the right thing... by Noryungi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The i386-based machines are seriously threatening Sun.

    Linux, OpenBSD and other open-source OSs (NetBSD, FreeBSD) have already proven they can replace Solaris in most cases.

    Admit it, Sun: your best bet for survival against the Microsoft Juggernaut is not just to pay lip service to Open Source. It is to be truly open. Otherwise, platforms such as the UltraSparc will be abandoned in favor of cheaper and more competitive architectures...

    Release these docs, Sun. Prove to the Open Source community, and not just to Linux kernel hackers, that you are serious about supporting alternative Operating Systems.

    --
    The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
    1. Re:Sun should do the right thing... by christophersaul · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What 'most cases' would you care to mention? In the cases where Linux is 'good enough', Sun will sell you an LX50. When Linux doesn't scale, when decent support is required, when the app doesn't even run on Linx...

      Don't forget too that IT is more than just an OS. There are support issues, consulting services, account management, reference sites and other things to take care of to keep customers happy.

      But even staying with pure technical issues, what 'most cases' are you referring to?

  11. Fujitsu SPARC64GP by southpolesammy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If Sun won't cooperate with the UltraSPARC III, then why not engage Fujitsu to develop kernel code for their SPARC64GP processor line? It's at least as good, if not superior, to the UltraSPARC III, and it sends another message to Sun to say, watch out -- you're not the only fish in the pond...

    --
    Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    1. Re:Fujitsu SPARC64GP by southpolesammy · · Score: 2, Informative

      SPARC64GP are either rack-mountable servers (starts at 1U for V100 or 120-like machines) and scales upto 200 CPUs for a system that fills two racks...

      SPARC64GP starts at the PrimePower 200 line, which is a tower server that can do 1-2 CPU's. Fujitsu does not have a 1U implementation (I'm working with their engineers daily right now, so I have a little up-to-date knowledge about this). And as for the top end, yes, the upcoming PP2500 is a mainframe-class server that does upto 128 CPU's running at 1.035 GHz, and outperforms the SunFire 15K by leaps and bounds.

      Running OpenBSD on anything but a single blade 1000/2000/ the upcoming jalapeno-workstations or a small server is - IMHO - completely nuts.

      Perhaps, but then why bother going after the UltraSPARC III line? At a minimum, you'll be running on either a Blade 2000 or a SunFire 280R. So if platform choice is an issue, why even bother with the UltraSPARC III at all, unless Theo de Raadt has future plans to take OpenBSD into the realm of larger, midrange class servers? Logic will tell you that either it's a ruse to get Sun to cooperate, or he has bigger plans in mind.
      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    2. Re:Fujitsu SPARC64GP by Tet · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Running OpenBSD on anything but a single blade 1000/2000/ the upcoming jalapeno-workstations or a small server is - IMHO - completely nuts.

      Given the lack of SMP support, then yes, OpenBSD doesn't make much sense on larger Sun boxen. However, running OpenBSD on a V100 or V120 makes perfect sense, particularly for firewalls. We currently use Compaq DL320/360s for this, but Intel hardware suck, and Sun hardware is a joy to work with remotely (particularly the Netra T1 and V100/V120 series, which can be remotely power cycled via the serial port). Does anyone know if the V100/V120s are supported by OpenBSD? They're not on the list of approved hardware, but they do have an UltraSPARC IIi, rather than the UltraSPARC III that is causing so many problems. I might have a go at installing it when we get our next batch in...

      --
      "The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
  12. More pressing issues for Sun by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think Sun has a few more important concerns right now than helping a rather obscure version of BSD run on their proprietary hardware.

    I think they may be trying to regain profitability right now and OpenBSD compatability just isn't going to help in that regard.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:More pressing issues for Sun by Arandir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think Sun has a few more important concerns right now than helping a rather obscure version of BSD run on their proprietary hardware.

      What I find funny about this whole article is the underlying hypocrisy. I'm not pointing at you necessarily, but I am pointing at a bunch of two faced Linux advocates posting here.

      If this story was about GNU not getting the docs for use with Hurd, there would be a major hue and cry. If it was about Linus and Alan having to sign a proprietary contract before getting Sparc docs, Sun hardware the world over would be burning in bonfires. But it's OpenBSD, so they don't care. Linux people are telling Theo to "suck it up" and sign an NDA. Hey wake up you nimwits! Non-Disclosure Agreements are the very antithesis of Free Software. You cannot be an honest Free Software advocate while arguing that OpenBSD needs to sign an NDA. You cannot say that freedom is for Linux users but not for anyone else. You cannot say that it's wrong to dominate and subjugate Linux users, but that it's okay to shackle OpenBSD users under onerous restrictions.

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
    2. Re:More pressing issues for Sun by guacamole · · Score: 3, Informative

      But it's OpenBSD, so they don't care. Linux people are telling Theo to "suck it up" and sign an NDA.

      Acutally, the Linux/SPARC developers did suck it up and sign the NDA to get the docs.

  13. DITCH SUN by rorre · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's really that easy.. most sun people run solaris, and those who really want BSD can choose other hardware. Sun don't care, why should we.

    1. Re:DITCH SUN by Skapare · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Good hardware. Bad management. But that latter one is the fundamental reason I've recently decided to drop the Sparc Architecture in projects I work on. The one I do have that architecture is relevant is BICK. It lets you build a Linux bootable ISO image to make a CDR that can boot your own customized CD based system on either Intel x86 or SUN Sparc architecture even from the same CD. The reason I did that wasn't the trickery of doing 2 architectures on one CD, but rather, because I have worked with SUN machines many times, and having such a tool would be cool (e.g. carrying around one rescue CD for both architectures). However, for several reasons I have decided to drop SUN Sparc from the next version. This serious attitude problem Sun has is a major component of the reasoning (and is also why I will not select SUN hardware for future use in my business). The fact that they won't work with the OpenBSD team isn't by itself the reason I do this, but it is quite representative of an overall problem with SUN that is the reason.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  14. SunSSH == OpenSSH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sun seem happy to ship OpenSSH with Solaris 2.9 without attribution (the documentation refers to 'SunSSH' throughout) - they are of course allowed to do this due to the BSD licensing however rather than just leeching this work you might have thought they would have provided some support on the Sparc docs.

    $ uname -a
    SunOS dev-sun 5.9 Generic_112233-01 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-100

    $ ssh -V
    SSH Version Sun_SSH_1.0, protocol versions 1.5/2.0.

    $ strings /usr/bin/ssh | grep -i openbsd
    @(#)$OpenBSD: ssh.c, v 1.69 2000/10/27 07:32:19 markus Exp $
    @(#)$OpenBSD: sshconnect.c, v 1.79 2000/09/17 15:52:51 markus Exp $
    ..... lots more lines

  15. Intel Pentium Handbook: Appendix H by anonymous+cupboard · · Score: 2, Informative
    Does anyone remember the problems over Intel's appendix H of their Pentium handbook - vital for compiler writers as it gave the optimisation rules for the processor.

    Interestingly enough, at the time other companies had no problems to give out the full specs of any chipset that was shipping.

    Without a detailed spec on the processor, it is difficult to write a good compiler, and night on impossible to write an operating system. If Sun are scared to give out the specs of a shipped product in public, maybe they are worried about something.

    With an Open Source driver it is difficult to sign an NDA (it has been done). With an open source operating system it is impossible because too many people need real info about the behaviour of the hardware. Info will be reflected in comments and variable names. It is very difficult to agree not to disclose the information.

  16. What exactly do they need... by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...beyond what is found in, for example;

    [warning 5+mb download]

    http://www.sun.com/processors/manuals/usIII_um.p df
    ?

    If that's not good enough, fine, what areas need
    more info? What exactly are they looking for?

    1. Re:What exactly do they need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


      They need more detailed MMU and cache info that what is in your comment.