Slashdot Mirror


OpenBSD Clashes with Adaptec In Quest for Docs

TrumpetPower! writes "OpenBSD developers have been asking for documentation from Adaptec for over four months. Adaptec's response has been to deliberately misunderstand what is being asked of them. A former Adaptec employee admits that the hardware is buggy and tricky to get right. So, as a result, OpenBSD 3.7 will ship without Adaptec RAID support. Personally, I'm glad that Theo isn't resting on his laurels."

30 of 367 comments (clear)

  1. Why just OpenBSD? by Dacmot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It would be nice if more of the Linux big names would jump on the bangwagon and lobby with companies to get open source drivers for hardware.

    1. Re:Why just OpenBSD? by jbn-o · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know why more developers of all kinds are not joining this effort. But when it comes to the development of the Linux kernel, I wonder how much inspiration comes from following Linus Torvalds' philosophy of favoring short-term pragmatism. Torvalds endorses using proprietary software to help maintain his fork of the Linux kernel and this choice adversely impacts the community in which he operates. As more people emulate his example, they will think it's okay to become dependant on binary drivers for all sorts of things citing some immediate convenience as in support of their behavior (not recognizing that whatever technical advantage they cite is undoubtedly temporary).

      As deservedly highly-rated as both your post and the grandparent posts are, the sentiments expressed are not the norm. There are many Slashdot sycophants who have championed buying nVidia video cards and dependence on nVidia to release the latest version of their binary-only video software.

  2. There's an old saying by deanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's an old saying, which I think fits well here.

    "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." - Napolean

  3. Why just documentation? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Absolutely. Open source drivers would be a beautiful gift, in this case it's actually more than what is being asked for. Adaptec is asked to release specs on their raid controllers, they chose not to.

    They are under an obligation to provide usefulness on legit architectures, but they aren't doing that. Adaptec should get over their shame of bugs, and allow the driver people at OpenBSD a chance at making things work.

    There is no general fix for this problem, often specs are released way too late. On the other hand, releasing open source drivers will open specs for the same device. These specs aren't just trade secrets, they're actually necessary for building drivers.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
    1. Re:Why just documentation? by 0racle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are under an obligation to provide usefulness on legit architectures

      Exactly what obligation does Adaptec have?

      --
      "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    2. Re:Why just documentation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      None. Just as I have no obligation to ever buy an Adaptec piece of hardware again.

    3. Re:Why just documentation? by Gid1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That's not a "responsibility" or an "obligation". It is, however, an incentive, and should be quite a strong one at that.

      Nowadays, I purchase equipment based more on its compatibility with FreeBSD (and occasionally OpenBSD) than any other factor (incl. performance and price), as that's what it's going to be used with.

      As far as responsibility or obligation is concerned, Adaptec's got none to the Open Source community, unless you can consider it a direct failure of its responsibility to its shareholders. Just because Open Source is "fighting the good fight", doesn't mean anyone owes us anything.

    4. Re:Why just documentation? by Frank+T.+Lofaro+Jr. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then companies shouldn't whine and scream "DMCA violation" when someone reverse engineers their hardware.

      Do you think the company has the right to refuse to release specs, but we don't have the right to complain or to reverse engineer them, and that they have the right to whine to the gov't if we do so.

      --
      Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
    5. Re:Why just documentation? by NuclearDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If you were Adaptec, would you write drivers for your hardware in Windows, a platform you're programmers are very experienced with and caters to the 90% marketshare, or write drivers for the niche 5% MacOS X or 5% other *nix market?"

      If I was Adaptec I'd realize that most people who buy RAID hardware are not planning to run a desktop computer with Windows. They're likely planning to run some sort of server, which I'm sure have much more than 5% of users running a non-windows OS.

      According to Netcraft, there are nearly 2500000 sites hosted on FreeBSD (source). This number does not include sites hosted on NBSD and OBSD (obviously).

      "Everyone on here expects companies to spend millions in development and bend over backwards for their own purposes."

      This wouldn't be millions in development. It would take one guy 10 minutes to e-mail the hardware specs (which they'd have to have available somewhere for them to have written their own driver) to the OpenBSD team and be done with it.

      "Adaptec isn't interested in OpenBSD because it's not in their best financial interest, despite their best intentions."

      Look at it this way, if you were a stockholder in Adaptec and were told millions of potential customers would not be able purchase your hardware because the company refused to release the specs for it, how would you feel?

      ND

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
    6. Re:Why just documentation? by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Possibly because BSD has their own timeline? It seems to me that the OpenBSD guy was working to reach a deadline that would be beneficial to their MUTUAL customers. Adaptec did not seem to be in a hurry to support their customers. It is their choice, just like it is OpenBSD's choice not to bother supporting a companies hardware. What is amazing is that everyone seems to think that the BSD should bend over backwards for Adaptec and not the other way around. If they lose support of major OSes (opensource or not), they are going to regret not bending over backwards for their customers.

    7. Re:Why just documentation? by ta+bu+shi+da+yu · · Score: 4, Insightful
      As another poster pointed out, you pulled that 90% figure out of your arse. Secondly, the fact that BSD may or may not have huge marketshare is hardly the point here. The point is that Adaptec appears to have an issue with providing documentation for (of all thing) AAC RAID! Exactly how hard can it be?
      Perhaps at this point I should quote part of Doug Anderson's reply?
      "We here at Adaptec are doing all we can to provide you as much documentation as we possibly can in the timeframe that makes the most sense for both of us....and we had provided you documentation before on our driver, but what you are seeking now is more source information regarding our GUI management, etc..."

      Some choice quotes:
      1. "as much documenation as we possibly can in the timeframe that makes the most sense for both of us" (four months?)
      2. "what you are seeking now is more source information regarding our GUI management" - sorry? OpenBSD wants GUI management information? Am I missing something here?

      You say "We have to be realistic here and realize that we have to make it worth it for companies like Adaptec to support Linux or in this case, OpenBSD. Adaptec isn't interested in OpenBSD because it's not in their best financial interest, despite their best intentions." Well, from their email:
      "I can understand you seeking this, as you as well as many other flavors of Linux/Unix are looking for the same thing...and though we would like to support "all" of the various flavors of these new operating systems, we can't do so in an economic fashion, as support for "all" of these varying flavors is just not possible..."

      Why not? They aren't looking for specific support for ONE operating system. They are looking for documentation that explains how the hardware ticks. This has nothing to do with operating specific information: the operating system DEVELOPERS will work this out THEMSELVES, they don't want an Adaptec supplied driver!!! I would suggest that, by Adaptec's own admission if "you [OpenBSD] as well as many other flavors of Linux/Unix are looking for the same thing" then the OpenBSD project is not the only one having issues with Adaptec documentation and that the Theo has been the one to make the biggest stink about it so far.
      Then we get this:
      "We are coming out with an entire new rev of our firmware with the upcoming SAS/SATA-2 release in the July timeframe, and our plan is to provide a Software Development Kit (SDK), which will be generic in nature, and will have the documentation in hand that will help you to do the work on your side to continue to expand the support for Adaptec
      products in your OpenBSD OS...."
      So what?!? Are they saying that to get existing hardware working they have to wait till July AND OpenBSD users will have to update their existing firmware? What sort of response is this??? What's wrong with providing documentation for the existing hardware?
      Which leads me to an interesting point. You say that "Everyone on here expects companies to spend millions in development and bend over backwards for their own purposes.", which is correct. If companies spend millions in development, they spend it because they want their customers and potential customers to get the most benefit from their products, and thus keep buying from them. That a company would spend millions on development and then drag the chain on documentation is, to put it frankly, pathetic and more than a little stupid.
      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    8. Re:Why just documentation? by rco3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "...or I'm going to take my OS and go home"? What are they supposed to do, release drivers that they know don't work?

      Sounds to me like the OBSD guys said, "the drivers we've reverse-engineered aren't very stable, and we want more documentation so that we can make them stable for our existing users (of your hardware). If you won't give us that information, or persist in pretending to misunderstand what we want, then we will be unable to produce stable drivers for your hardware and we will refuse to release a driver with the instabilities we know of. We're in a hurry because our main coding time is coming up soon, and we've been asking for this for a while."

      There is nothing that requires Adaptec to provide the necessary documentation. Nor is there anything which requires the BSD guys to release a driver that they know is buggy.

      What I still don't understand is *why* Adaptec persist in refusing to allow a large, talented, motivated group of programmers to write a good driver for their hardware FOR FREE. If xBSD gets a working driver, then the other BSDs, Linux, etc. won't be far behind. Adaptec needs the server market, Unices are strong in the server market, more Unix drivers for Adaptec hardware means more people buying Adaptec hardware to run on free OS's, everybody wins! Except that Adaptec (apparently) won't play nice. How is that Theo de Raadt's fault?

      Of course, I'm not within the loop at Adaptec, and so I don't know why they won't release documentation when it's needed. Perhaps they have some blindingly brilliant reasons why they don't want to release the information necessary to write fully functional drivers. What I do know is that it can't be seen from the outside, looking in.

      In any case, I've had my share of trouble with Adaptec RAID cards under Windows. I probably wouldn't buy another one anyway.

      --

      Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
    9. Re:Why just documentation? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The OpenBSD guys response was "Can't you read! I want documentation NOW or I'm going to take my OS and go home."

      It is a shame that you so grossly misrepresent the position of the OpenBSD people, and try to spin your ex-employer's position in a more positive light.

      The OpenBSD people have a deadline on the near horizon, and they wanted to be able to include a non-buggy version of the driver in that release. They have been asking Adaptec for help for months, but to no avail. Then, when the OpenBSD people went public, Adaptec suddenly wonders what is the problem.

      What I find sad in all this is that the OpenBSD people are being criticized for wanting to deliver free, quality, reliable, supported software to the users of OpenBSD. Our community should give them more support, not non-constructive criticism.

  4. Simple solution... by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's a very simple solution for this: Don't buy anything from Adaptec, ever. They'll be out of business; problem solved.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  5. Re:I wonder how this will affect Adaptec? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 4, Insightful

    well you can guess that this particular controller will be avoided by anyone with connections. Openbsd doesn't enjoy much use from desktop or developer users because it's too hard, and has few advantages.

    The one advantage it does have is security, which is vital for running large scale servers. These servers have reliabilty as a high priority, so RAID is the norm.

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  6. Re:How many people... by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which make you think: "Why is OpenBSD doing this and not FreeBSD". I think it's sad that the FreeBSD developers don't seem to care that much about having free drivers (the AAC is free I believe, but the management interface is not).

    Of cause what really annoys me is that the Linux developers seem to care even less. Why is it that the developers of free software can't stand togther and demand documentation? And why is it that it's the smallest team that must make these demands?

  7. this is a good solution by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's all about making sure the big shareholders know that the company's policies are costing them sales.

    People say that Theo should stop being so annoying, but the only way shareholders find out is when it gets massively publicised like this.

    It worked for the 802.11 drivers. It's worth a shot here.

    --
    I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
  8. Re:I wonder how this will affect Adaptec? by Fweeky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Ironically AAC's support under FreeBSD at least has been superior to Linux's for quite a while (not so much in the past few months, but certainly for the past couple of years before). We originally bought our cards to run under FreeBSD, and had significant problems migrating to Linux where the aacraid driver liked to fall over every few weeks.

    I'd rather use software RAID now. Closed source management tools and unreliable software, hardware and firmware are not things I want anywhere fucking near my data storage subsystems.

  9. Me by ArchieBunker · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have an old Ultra 1 doing firewall and light server duty for a DSL line. So far its had zero hardware issues and everything has worked. Wish I could have said the same for NetBSD. It locked up randomly on the same box.

    I haven't used OpenBSD in a few years and was really impressed with their rewrite of packet filter. You linux folks should check it out.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  10. Threshold of complexity by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why adaptec isnt releasing detailed specs is obvious. If people had them they could better evaluate the product. Apparently the marketing dept. at adaptec fears transparency and complacency.

    Look at the small and medium end raid market now. Theres not many players, Adaptec,promise,3ware and a bunch that adaptec bought up. Adaptec gains nothing by opening up itself to a point by point comparison with lesser competitors. Their name recognition is carrying them much the way IBM's used to. Further if the hardware is bugged and tricky and adaptec knew about it then they open themselves up to liability.

    Their reasons are obvious keep the barriers high and keept those that can't climb them out.

  11. Re:Tried e-mailing the guy.... by B747SP · · Score: 4, Insightful
    these guys got snippy when they got a 500

    You're not wrong. Is it just me, or does this de Raadt character get 'snippy' each and every time the world doesn't roll over and play the game how he wants them to?

    An important point in a geek's career is the time when s/he recognises that if s/he's gonna get any further in said career, they're gonna have to maintain a business-benefiting attitude and act in business-benefiting ways else businesses won't employ you any more. Sheer guru-like skill only carries you so far, and then you've gotta play nice with others or others won't play with you anymore.

    Some geeks come to that realisation early in their careers. I try to tell my geek.students that before they graduate. Some geeks never ever wake up, and they grow old on low incomes angry at the world.

    de Raadt does some wonderful things, sure, but there's always this persistent undertone of a bad attitude waiting to sneak out and throw his weight around. Public nastygrams and "screw you, we'll ship with even less support for your product than we did before" dummy spits constitute "does not play nice with others" in my book.

    Trouble is, geeks carry no weight in business, and the businessfolks have all the money. It's up to us to decide if we want some of that money or not.

    --
    I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  12. theo rocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wish the Linux people would have enough balls to make a stand with us. No such luck there.

    Oh well

  13. Re:Tried e-mailing the guy.... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Insightful
    "screw you, we'll ship with even less support for your product than we did before" dummy spits constitute "does not play nice with others" in my book.
    This is not incompatible with 'a business-benefiting attitude' and 'acting in business-benefiting ways'. William Gates Jr has built a very successful business by acting exactly in this manner. If you think geeks have a bad attitude and businessmen do not, perhaps it's just because geeks publish their nastygram messages on the web and businesses keep them secret.
    Trouble is, geeks carry no weight in business, and the businessfolks have all the money. It's up to us to decide if we want some of that money or not.
    I think you have an incorrect assumption here. Theo de Raadt is not trying to get money. He is trying to improve a free operating system, OpenBSD.
    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  14. Re:Tried e-mailing the guy.... by rhizome · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Trouble is, geeks carry no weight in business, and the businessfolks have all the money. It's up to us to decide if we want some of that money or not.

    Jeez, he just wants documentation. Why is this such a problem for people to understand? It's not about how much money he could be making if he had a better set of kneepads, or if he let Adaptec shine him on because that's the way "the game" is played. It's about being able to do what he wants with the hardware he (or the other users of OpenBSD) use. It costs nothing or next-to-nothing for Adaptec to provide the same documentation that their own developers use, yet apparently Adaptec doesn't wants to keep this secret because it might be embarrassing.

    Perhaps you think it's a good idea to keep this information secret because the embarrassing aspects of the docs might get in the way of some of Adaptec's employees' desire to play the game and exercise their ability to go for "some of that money". Or perhaps not; maybe there's another reason not to allow serious and qualified developers access to existing documentation. Theo just wants to write software that people will use and will use as a reason to purchase more Adaptec products. I'm shocked that you would actually teach students that this is a bad idea.

    Then again, having a problem with the way someone conducts themselves is no reason to disregard their innocuous requests. The money is not always right.

    --
    When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
  15. Re:Tried e-mailing the guy.... by Mhrmnhrm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some idiot mailbombed his account. It's only natural that Adaptec removed the squeaky wheel, rather than oiling it.

    --
    I suspect that one of these choices is incorrect. Correct.
  16. rule of thumb by idlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it is quite common for vendors to put out hardware that isn't quite engineered up to spec, where, if you looked at its design and interface, you'd see that it really can't work quite right, or get the performance they claim. Another reason is that the documentation may simply not exist, a clear indication of poor engineering practices at the hardware vendor. I suspect that's actually the main reason so many hardware vendors are so secretive about their interfaces: they don't want to air their dirty laundry in public.

    As a rule of thumb, if you are buying a piece of hardware, buy one for which known, good, independently-developed open source drivers exist. The existence of such drivers is a good indication that the hardware is well-documented, probably decently designed, and that it probably does what it is advertised as doing. And that's a good rule of thumb even if you are buying the hardware that you only intend to use with closed-source operating systems.

  17. Re:Tried e-mailing the guy.... by Mr+Foobar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > William Gates Jr has built
    > a very successful busines

    Not to be a pedantic, but I think the Gates you're looking for is William Gates III. Wm Gates Jr is his lawyer father, who probably is as responsible for the success of MSFT as his son...

    By the way, yes Theo can be a bit of a prick, but he's going after putting out simply the best version of BSD Unix around. It's why I've bought every release since the mid-2.x...

    --
    -> I dislike sigs...
  18. Re:Tried e-mailing the guy.... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're not wrong. Is it just me, or does this de Raadt character get 'snippy' each and every time the world doesn't roll over and play the game how he wants them to?

    There's quite some distance between demanding immediate obedience and 4 months of delays and excuses. Most businessmen don't stand for that either (or they go out of business).

    An important point in a geek's career is the time when s/he recognises that if s/he's gonna get any further in said career, they're gonna have to maintain a business-benefiting attitude and act in business-benefiting ways else businesses won't employ you any more.

    'Business benefiting attitude' does not mean sycophant or pushover. It means acting in the best interests of a company, sometimes whether they like it or not. Fact is, a lot of assholes succeed in business, mostly because they know how, to whom, and when to be assholes. A trained asshole is a powerful weapon.

    Trouble is, geeks carry no weight in business, and the businessfolks have all the money. It's up to us to decide if we want some of that money or not.

    Bullshit. How many CEOs of the Fortune 500 are MBAs and how many are technical people that learned business? You're confusing 'engineer' with 'asocial dweeb who lives in his parents' basement'.

    --
    "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
  19. Just a few thoughts by redhatkingpin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been reading the posts on the misc mail list for OpenBSD, and I think a few things need to be said.

    First, Theo and the other developers, although making good points, are being quite rude to employees. I think that its important for them to push this issue, but I think they are handling it immaturaly. Flaming Adaptec (ex-)employees is not a good move, even if Scott did make a post on OSNews -- attack the companies economic base through a boycott instead.

    Secondly, I think that if Theo and the gang started an organized boycott of Adaptec raid controllers in a professional manner, then got those people to sign a petition, write to Adaptec, and such along with getting a pretty accurate count of how many of Adaptec's raid controllers have been purchased by those boycotting Adaptec, they might be able to show themselves to be consisting of a large enough market to cause a dent in Adaptec's profits. Not only OpenBSD, but also FreeBSD, NetBSD, and Linux users who feel that its important to use open source drivers. This may require a bit of work, but its the most effective way to get Adaptec's attention. I mean, how many open-source Unix servers are using their raid cards? How many of those users, admins, etc. realize the importance of an open source driver so it can be maintained by the community, since most companies have been slow (to say the least) to update their binary drivers? Not to mention, the flexibility involved with porting it to different Open-source Unix OS's and using it with different software configurations and versions?

    Thirdly, some people are arguing that that Adaptec will release an SDK in 4 months, but given the history of the Adaptec drivers and drivers by other companies, that would probably involve using a binary driver... which wouldn't help.

    I think that if the open source OS's are going be taken seriously by vendors, then they need to act in a professional manner and show their economic strength through well-crafted reports and well-organized efforts.

    I support the work of Theo and the other OpenBSD developers -- I believe they are right, but I think the open source community has to join together for a common cause and be professional about such things.

    If we, as a community, can make this happen in a professional manner, and win, then maybe, just maybe, we can extend this to other vendors. If we can't pull together, then we're fighting a losing battle against closed source OS's such as Windows and venders such as Adaptec, and we might as well give up now.

    We can do this, I know we can. But, we have to do it correctly. So, come on folks, act professional, realize what's at stake, and organize. Think of the visibility the grass roots democratic groups got when they organized and acted like a unified front -- they didn't win the election, but that was surely noticed.

  20. Re:Tried e-mailing the guy.... by ScouseMouse · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You're not wrong. Is it just me, or does this de Raadt character get 'snippy' each and every time the world doesn't roll over and play the game how he wants them to?

    Yes, but that doesnt mean he's always wrong. Its probably best to judge him on what he's saying *at the moment*. Being argumentative is not nesseserily a bad thing, although he does put his foot in it more than is really a good idea

    Trouble is, geeks carry no weight in business, and the businessfolks have all the money. It's up to us to decide if we want some of that money or not.
    Thats not really true. I'm a geek and i have quite a lot of say in technical decisions. Our CTO is a geek also. I do not work for a technical company. I work for a publishing company.

    If any company hires a technically minded person and then wont listen to his or her advice, they they they are wasting that person.

    Would you hire an accountant and then ignore their advice about financial matters? if so, please tell me the company you are involved with so I can avoid accidentally getting hired there.

    Any company that ignores the advice of its geeks is wasting a valuable resource. The companies I have worked for realise this.

    That doesnt mean they are always right, however moderating conflicting advice is part of being a manager.