Slashdot Mirror
Sun Opens Up Enterprise Software
abscondment writes "Stating that "open source is the future" of the software industry, Sun's President and COO Jonathan Schwartz announced that Sun will be opening its enterprise software in a manner similar to Solaris 10. Sun is opening up the Java Enterprise System, Sun N1 Management software, and Sun developer tools, etc. - practically everything except Java - hoping to lure more developers and chief executive officers worldwide to use and deploy its enterprise software."
Does that mean I can finally type "emerge sun-jdk" on my Gentoo box and have it download and install in one easy step, without having to go to their stupid site and click on some stupid EULA??
Free as in beer, or free as in "not being a goddamn pain in the ass"?
(didn't I just post this a couple days ago??)
Kudos to Sun I say!
What is going on with Sun? Why do they keep opening up things all over the board but ignoring the one thing that they have received the most demand to open up?
They're only supporting open source to help erode Microsoft's stranglehold.
Ok, so what do they have other than Java that hasn't been opensourced and people really use?
I'd sure like to try that out. Veritas is too expensive.
This is a great thing Sun is doing. I wouldn't argue with that. I just wish that they would open up Java also. If only.
And maybe FP? (literally)
is it is Java. I wish people could get over their addiction to garbage collection.
- John Smilanick (http://www.johnsmilanick.com/
Sun's floating more trial balloons in order to counter decreasing mind and market share, none of them a new idea, just following.
Sun's President and COO Jonathan Schwartz announced that Sun will be opening its enterprise software in a manner similar to Solaris 10.
So... not very much then.
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
If Sun were to GPL Java, they've have every Tom, Dick and Harry making an "improved platform independant language." They lose the marketshare, and browsers/websites have to start supporting a million little random Java-like applets.
No, thank you. I want some software (security stuff) to stay closed-source forever. I would start to seriously dout the security of Java (right now I have complete faith in it's being 100% vulnerability free) if hackers were allowed to see everything about how it works.
I say: Smart Move Sun!
Obligatory Soundbite Catchphrase
The new x4100 servers look pretty sweet - dual core, dual proc Opteron 252 in a 1U low-power chassis. And N1 will work with RHEL as well, so long as it's on Sun hardware. It lets you do complete bare-metal installs from the OS up over the network and remote firmware patches, as well as the usual centralized patching and management. If you have to manage a bunch of similar machines, that's pretty nifty.
-EvilMagnus
Is this a good thing, a great jesture from SUN to be part of the 'open' community, or are they panicking as they go down the proverbial tube?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
they aren't including java, after I read this headline (I won't pretend to have RTFA) I was just notified of another available update for java which I have running.. it downloaded and began installing; but not before trying to include a google searchbar for IE (which I don't even use) .. if it's opensource they undermine their benefactors.
waspleg
Security through obscurity, that really ought to keep computer criminals at bay. To prevent Tom, Dick and Harry (slashdot readers) finding any vulns in your logic, I suggest you keep it "closed source" and out of public internet forums.
Sun is offering for free (as in beer) the same things that those that are going to pay for support for get with their support contracts. Sure, the free things come without timely feature patches, etc., but the barrier to using Sun software is defintely lowered. For those looking for free (libre) software from Sun, you can mostly get it too. OpenSolaris is an amazing step given the encumberances and continued business model that they had to struggle with. My guess is that most of Sun's customers will continue to pay for support even though they "don't need to." These customers tend to be the ones that believe that a Fortune 500 systems company is better prepared to deal with OS or other software problems than the outsourced IT department of a company that's core business is not software development. Those that get lured in by free beer have the option of switching to full support without changing software bits (unless they went to the libre bits).
With Red Hat, you can get for free (as in beer and freedom) almost the same bits as paying customers get. However, if you decide midstream that you need to switch from a free customer to a paying customer, you also need to change the code that you are running. This switch can be very costly because it disrupts your business.
It seems to me that this is an effort to pressure Red Hat into giving away RHEL. By reducing Red Hat's paying user base, Sun could put them on the ropes a bit. Again, those that feel that they really need support will still pay Red Hat.
Until Red Hat starts giving RHEL away for free, those that are simply going after the lowest (legal) cost of acquisition along with great ISV support and low risk have a clear choice in going with Solaris. This has the potential to at least slow the uptake of RHEL.
See the license for the new offering:
4. Your Service Provider Use is limited to a ratio of two hundred non-Employees for each Employee (200:1) accessing the Software.
If only someone from Sun would clarify the language, we'd know they're not pulling a MySQL on us.
Sun starts to smell more and more like Corel.
Right now, Sun has control of internet apps/coding.
Schwartz came right out and said it in the press briefing audiocast: they believe that they will get the most value by controlling the integrated platform (excluding other providers from creating integrated offerings including Sun components, or setting the terms of entry to the field) which in their view consists of: Hardware, Solaris, J2EE server, various enterprise management products such as identity management, and (provisionally) the thin desktop. By entering the "free" market on the ancillary value software products, and keeping control of the heart of their platform (Java,) they are in their view achieving just this.
Sun: the smarter, more mature Microsoft? Microsoft which has learned to live and let live?
This might very well turn out to be a major Linux killer. Think about it... Why did Microsoft get as big as it did? "Because its products appealed to people", right, there is no question that Microsoft has scored big with their user friendlyness. But why would that affect the rest of the companies? Because in the early days it would be a little difficult to go against $manager who has seen the ease Microsoft offered and concluded "it had to be easy to setup" and "good for the company". After all; he could find his way around the product, why can't the admins ?
Now we're in a period where it turns out that many of Microsofts products are flawed. MS fault? I don't know. Yes, its more populair to say it is but IMO design and design tools are also a big part of all this. Still; it has become a better known good that MS isn't super secure. So now we admins introduce Linux. In some companies its getting a foothold but why? Because its good? Personaly I question this, I think a bigger issue is because its become better known. News reports have been targeted at Linux, bigger IT magazines have written about Linux, Expo's have dared to present Linux and as such its now a product most people know. nice.... Does that mean everyone knows & trusts it? Hmm, no. Its still programmed by (no offense intended) long haired hippies who can do whatever they want. And in a way people are right with that assumption. Just look at what a regular IT manager would say when looking at the kernel development tree: "OK, we had 2 branches (stable (even) and unstable (odd). Now we have one, and companies are to fend themselves. OK. RH has quit with their consumer product (RH9) and their RHEL is too expensive (we could just use MS). SuSE? Thats Novell and they are just trying to catch up. Any other takes? Linspire? You have got to be kidding me!" (experienced situation).
So now I can come up and say "Ok, I present a Unix environment (no, not *nix like) which can do all Linux can but is more reliable in the overal, backed up by a company called Sun and seems much more secure. I can also throw in a Directory Server, Instant Messenging server and a Java portal which can turn our developers completely crazy and all for the same price as Linux".
Sorry but I think I wouldn't be chosing for Linux anymore.
and yes; I didn't include the BSD's in my story because even though I know those are very good choices too the regular IT manager is bound to know Linux before BSD.
And you know why I cheer this? Because I think Linux was a lot more fun when it wasn't mainstream.
Java's source code is available for free. See http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/source_license.html .
"I want some software (security stuff) to stay closed-source forever"
The source isn't closed. It's not Free Software, but you can see it. I guess now this means you shouldn't use Java, seeing as all those evil hackers are gonna be rummaging through it.
And if you hadn't recalled, there already was a Java runtime from Microsoft. Wasn't compatible with Sun's Java. Doesn't exist anymore. Trademarks are sweet.
Also, it's not clear to me what they have actually opened up. They opened Solaris, JES, etc., fine. What else? Compilers? Drivers? SunRay? Is there a list somewhere?
Finally can somebody decipher their license, CDDL? http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3:mss:9125 :200412:dmcacncfamieofeochbn
Let's say I take Sun's source code, add some modification and nice packaging, etc., may I sell it to customers?
The package came, lovely yellow with the bubbly inside. "A CD-ROM!" I said aloud. "No better, I bet it's a DVD-ROM". I opened it up, popping layers of bubbles to find... a double-sided double-density 3 1/2 floppy. Confusion filled my mind as I pulled out my old 400mhz Pentium notebook.
I ran the included program, ENTSRC.EXE and up popped a window:
"Are you ready?"
"Yes!" I cried, hitting the Y key with orgasmic fervor.
"Are you truly ready for this?"
"Ohhhhh yessssss!" I moaned, banging the key again.
"Please read this EULA. Do you agree never to do anything nasty to Sun, never call it names, or mock Larry Ellison? Do you vow to besmirch .Net and Mono? Will you feed your cat only high-protein foods, and make love to your wife three times a week?"
"Anything!" I shouted, clicking Y one last time. And up it popped.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
There are companies that truly believe in open source and its philosophy and there are companies like sun. This is a hail-marry effort to stop their impending demise. Their market share has been dwindling for years and it's starting to tank even more, especially with the linux options. Let me make a prediction now, one day we will see OSX going open source when their market share drops below a percentage point. And it won't be because Apple has seen the light either...
I'm not trolling, I just think we should throw our praise behind companies that TRULY believe in the philosophy not just using it to try and prevent their demise.
For the enjoyment of new readers:
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2001/04/network.html
"Stating that "duplicate stories are the future" of the software industry, Slashdot's President and COO Rob Malda announced that Slashdot will be opening its duplication software in a manner similar to Solaris 10. Slashdot is opening up the Slashdot Duplication System, Slashdot N+1 Dupe Management software, and Slashdot duplication tools, etc. - practically everything except News- hoping to lure more slashdotters and chief executive officers worldwide to use and deploy its duplication software."
// TODO: Insert Cool Sig
As far as "opening up," though, as of today Sun has opened nothing new, as far as I can tell. It is just "reaffirming its commitment to open source this software," to quote the press release.
Breakfast served all day!
Aw shucks... now I can't complain about how I submitted 2 dozen or so detailed bug reports when Java Studio Creator was in beta and they gave me nothing, not even a discount on its release, in return. :P
:)
This is great new otherwise, first thing I did when I read about this was download Studio Creator and Studio Enterprise.
I kill harmless processes for sport
Ah ha, the Google/Yahoo exception!
Just like native methods calls aren't compatible either. Sun is doing the same God-damned thing with JNI that they sued Microsoft for doing. So step off.
Here's a great example of some "sweet" trademarkage: the color brown
D'oh.
I hope some day Sun Cluster and Sun Management Center will be included (you pay through the nose for those two products).
This makes some sense and kudos for Sun. Basically there needs to be a gateway for core modules, just like the linux kernel, but instead the JDK depends on an organization to formally keep it stable vs a community (which can be too democratic). Since Java is free to develop this is a good balance for app developers as well as most core developers.
If you look at it more, the JCP process compliments this strategy well.
EJB3.0 will give everything a run for the money.
If it really was open as it was meant to be, they'd not play the same game with hardware and just "lose" code for the 32bit side as well as the hardware that those machines used. Sure you arent going to have an ss2 running Sol10, but I bet you could have an SS10, an SS5/170 (DVMA bug could be fixed, the *right* way), or a quad Ross 200(which could make a run for the minimally supported Ultra2) run those with some decent framebuffers and a lot of other useful hardware.
At least other companies gave a chance to their old boxes - AIX 5L with MCA dropped only after 5.1(Still well supported), enough to go do some stuff with vacpp/gcc. Sun however, decides to play the HCL + documentation game.
Even if the licensing is friendly, this is from the company that doesnt mind dropping hardware support in 2 versions.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Sun is the most significant Unix company in existence, which no one who knows anything about the Unix market and it's history can deny. What true Unix company still exists and is as true to Unix more than Sun? None. IBM, HP, DEC, SCO, SGI, etc. all lost to Sun during the dot com years. HP has HPUX on life support, no new innovation and no will left to survive. IBM talks up Linux because AIX is breathing its last breath. The rest are not even worth mentioning because they are either completely dead or will be any minute. How did things get to this point? Because Unix and the hardware designed to run Unix has been Sun's primary focus for which it has continued to develop, improve and campaign for relentlessly.
I am perplexed by the number of people posting FUD about Sun on slashdot. Who by their comments, clearly know nothing of Sun's financial situation or products. Sun is not going away anytime soon, even if they didn't sell a single new support contract or single new hardware device ever again, they would continue to exist. But that's just it, Sun has not given up (unlike its rivals), it is raising the bar and delivering on commitments.
I am getting really excited about the latest moves by Sun. Afterall, I only got involved with Linux because I couldn't afford to run a Solaris box for personal use. Do you think Linus would have ever been inspired to start working on Linux if he was able to run Solaris for free and it ran on his PC? I think not. And yes, much has changed since 1991 and Linux has certainly grown up. But what many fail to see is that Solaris has not been standing still. The gap certainly started closing rapidly around 2003 with the release of the 2.6 kernel. However, with Solaris 10, Sun leaped even further ahead. And I'm not talking about speed, reliability and scalability improvements, which it certainly had much of. Solaris 10 has features like DTrace, predictive self-healing, containers/zones, ZFS and more. These are completely new technologies. And unlike Linux, Sun's code comes out solid from the day it is released. If you're a developer, I urge you to go look at the source code and compare it to the typical Open Source project's code. I think you will see that the difference is like comparing a donkey to stallion.
Hopefully these words are not interpreted as being anti-Linux. I have dedicated a huge portion of my life during the last decade to Linux, its development and support. I feel ashamed to be part of a community that sees anything different as the enemy or a threat. The Linux community should not feel threatened by Sun or anyone else for that matter. The commercial entities that feed off our community however (IBM, HP, Red Hat, Novell, etc.) should be afraid, very afraid...
It's a good thing.
They've finally realized that they are a hardware company, and the software is just the icing that drives the hardware sales.
Their hardware really is phenomenal, especially from the V880 on up (anything that can handle hot-swapping CPUs is damned impressive!).
What I'm personally excited about is the opening of Sun Ray Server Software... the software is useless without the hardware, so charging extra for it was counter-productive.
The fact that it's being opened means support on current Linux distros will improve quickly (currently, you're stuck with 2.4 kernels or insane amounts of botching and pasting). People will be able to put together a hotrod Linux box and pick up dozens of Sun Rays for a super-cheap bunch of desktops.
Sun may not make licensing fees from the people who can't afford it, but they'll sell more hardware. This has a cascade effect, considering the word of mouth advertizing that will come from all of the people seeing these devices and asking "what's that?" followed by "oh, we could use something like that too!".
http://sun-rays.org/ is a decent discussion forum for Sun Rays - in case anyone is interested.
- Preferences: Solaris 10 (servers), Ubuntu (desktops), Solaris 11 (personal servers) -
Dropping support after two versions? If I recall correctly, a SPARCstation 10 can run SunOS 4.1.3, SunOS 4.1.3_U1, SunOS 4.1.4, Solaris 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, 8, and 9. It may very well also be able to run Solaris 2.0 through 2.2, since it was the new hotness right around the time they were releasing Solaris 2. So that's 11 versions it can run for sure, and 3 others it's quite likely to be able to run.
As for the SPARCstation 20, the support is not as wide, but it can run SunOS 4.1.4 and I'm fairly sure 4.1.3_U1 as well. It may require Solaris 2.5 or newer, and possibly hardware update versions of 2.5 (especially for those 200 MHz Ross CPU modules) but it is also supported all the way from 2.5 up through 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, 8, and up to 9. So, that's 6 or 7 versions.
The story for the SPARCstation 5 is similar. I never tried the 170 MHz version, but I had 110 MHz version on my desk 8 years ago running Solaris 2.5, and it's supported all the way up through Solaris 9 as well. I'm fairly sure some Sparc 5 systems can run SunOS 4.1.4, although it's been so long I can't recall.
So yeah, none of these systems can run Solaris 10, but they are all also machines that were introduced over 10 years ago. It would be nice if Sun had released the source for versions older than Solaris 10, but it seems to have been a fairly big hassle to go over the lineage of all that code and ensure they really had rights to open source 100% of what they did, so I don't blame them for only wanting to go through that process on a single version.
Even if the licensing is friendly, this is from the company that doesnt mind dropping hardware support in 2 versions.
Huh? The last 32-bit chassis, the SS5 & SS20 shipped in 1995. That's 10 years ago. Solaris 2.4, 2.5, 2.5.1, 2.6, 7, 8, and 9 thru the latest 9u7 run on them just fine. Solaris isn't NetBSD. They don't carry support forward for everything. The decision about when to drop the SS5 was probably made back in 1996, when the Ultra's started shipping in numbers. They set a roadmap, and stuck to it.
When did the Solaris 10 branch fork? I'll bet it was back in 2001. Back then Sun execs were probably still thinking they were going to see a recovery in a quaretr or so, and "OpenSolaris" wasn't a priority. So I'm guessing you're complaining about decisions that were made long ago, under much different circumstances.
Bite the bullet, and buy a newer pizza box. There's thousands of Ultra 1's floating around out there for cheap. And consider this... Now that Solaris 10 is open source, they can never do this to you again.
Temkin
My mistake for not referring to the ZX directly with the 2 version complete drop. In 6 it was supported, 7 if you could patch it, and removed far enough to not support that method in version 8. Otherwise, though the point that Sun does this kind of thing is still valid.
Dropping support after two versions?
The Sun ZX is what I referred to here as being dropped in two versions, my mistake. As for the workstations, dropping them before opensolaris is a bad move even if they are 10 years+ old.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Bite the bullet, and buy a newer pizza box. There's thousands of Ultra 1's floating around out there for cheap. And consider this... Now that Solaris 10 is open source, they can never do this to you again.
Unlike the SS5/170's bug which is well known, but needs documentation/source to fix, the Ultra 1's bug is hardware based (unreliable in 64bit mode due to a RED_STATE bug, that takes any real advantage from the Ultra1 that it had). With that bug in mind, it's more or less a turbo'd SS5/170 due to even Solaris not using the 64bit side.
NetBSD(as of 1.5), Linux(Unless you have the docs or a good idea of how to avoid the bug), OpenSolaris(Deliberately cut from the source that Ultras only 2-3 years older can use) wont run on the SS5/170, which really leaves old Solaris versions (if you can get them) or OpenBSD (the only solution, and even then the ZX is neutered due to lack of documentation).
Once you see a 170 against an Ultra1 in the practical configuration, you'll see that the 170 makes for just being a smaller Ultra1. The higher up in configuration (Ross) SS10's and SS20's would be even faster. Only a full 64bit Ultra2 (with the later board revision) would be above the Sparcstations.
As for the fork, if they could bring code from the Ultra out, there's no real reason they couldnt have brought enough code and binaries out to give 32bit one last version to build onto.
I've bit the bullet enough(SS5/170, SS10, Ultra2) not to go for deliberately buggy or crippled SPARC hardware.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Using your logic SuSe Linux not open source enough either:
Have a look as the SuSe Linux license agreement, it contains the same restrictions:
http://www.novell.com/licensing/eula/sles_9.pdf
If you actually want to know the answer, most of the flak Sun gets seems to be because they intentionally chose an open source license that's not compatible with the GPL.
P LIncompatibleLice...
I guess then Firefox and Apache aren't open enough for you either. The MPL and Apache license are both incompatible with GPL:
Here is a definition of open source:
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
and Solaris is open source as it has an approved open source license (CDDL):
1) http://www.opensource.org/licenses/cddl1.php
Some folks are concerned that CDDL it is not GPL compatible. The FSF defines CDDL as a FREE license, but incompatible with GPL.
2) http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#G
Other licences defined as FREE, but also incompatible with GPL (see above reference) include:
Apache License, Version 1.0
Apache License, Version 1.1
Apache Software License, version 2.0
Mozilla Public License (MPL)
IBM Public License, Version 1.0
Eclipse Public License Version 1.0
PHP License, Version 3.0
So it appears that CDDL is open source (see 1)
and free as in speech (see 2)
and Solaris is also free as in beer
I'm downloading Sun Studio 11 for Solaris, x86, and Linux right now.
Actually I think that's a pretty good move for the OpenSource community.
This way there still be a need for an OpenSource JVM, and enought interest behind the Apache Harmony project to keep it moving.
Think about it, there is already lots of free JVMs, like GNU GCJ/Classpath, Kaffe, SuperWabba, etc... They're just not 1.4 compilant yet. But they're usefull for lots of tasks, and they're free.
If Sun releases Java under an OpenSource licence, it will kill the Harmony Project. And as a java web developer I'm very exited about Apache Harmony. Think about it, Apache has the Struts framework, TomCat servlet container, Geronimo application server, and will have the JVM powering them... the possibilities for performance tunning, and optimization are endless!
---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
When I try to download I get greeted by a fatal exception :(
Mocking Larry Ellison is OK by me, but Sun is run by Scott McNealy.
Unlike the SS5/170's bug which is well known, but needs documentation/source to fix, the Ultra 1's bug is hardware based (unreliable in 64bit mode due to a RED_STATE bug, that takes any real advantage from the Ultra1 that it had). With that bug in mind, it's more or less a turbo'd SS5/170 due to even Solaris not using the 64bit side.
The UltraSPARC-1 64-bit bug is highly unlikely to occur. It's a sequence of instructions that no compiler is going to generate. You have to want it to happen, and hand craft the code to do so. I'll admit this makes for a denial of service hole if you run in an untrusted environment. I've run Solaris in 64-bit on Ultra 1's & Ultra 2's w/US1 modules as desktops for years, it's a one line option enable, and I've never had a problem. FWIW, there was a bug on the SS5-170 under one release of Solaris, that suffered an infinite loop problem running certain gcc generated code, and it required a power-off reset. So the TurboSPARC isn't perfect either.
As for the U1 being a "turbo'ed" SS5-170... Not even close. The SS5 has narrow antique SCSI-II, 10base-T ethernet and a 256mb memory limit. The U1 can be had with wide SCSI and fast ethernet, can configure more RAM, and has a much faster memory system. The ZX framebuffer you mentioned was a double width card, and the TZX was a double width card with a fan card in the third slot, so it's not like you'd have much room to work around these shortcomings. (T)ZX frame buffer support was removed before Solaris 8, which probably forked back in 1997. There's probably very few people left at Sun that even remember it, let alone worked on the drivers. The other SS5 24-bit framebuffer option, the S24 was a POS. I've never met anyone that liked it.
I wouldn't consider the SS5 to be one of Sun's "great" workstations. It was a refined LX, which was a lower cost SS2, which was a souped up SS1 (which was a kick ass machine back in 1989!). The SS5 was a nice little affordable desktop back in it's day. Like the 486 that was it's contemporary, it's day has come and gone. Throw it in the back room running a DNS server if you must, I admit I have a SS5-170 here at home, which I bought for $10 at a flea market. But get over it and move on. If you're truely hung up on the 4m's, go find a SS20 chassis. It was a much more capable machine.
which really leaves old Solaris versions (if you can get them)
Solaris 9u7 is less than two years old. Free as in beer download, and really quite nice. They even fixed logging UFS! A fitting end to the Sun4m's.
As for the fork, if they could bring code from the Ultra out, there's no real reason they couldnt have brought enough code and binaries out to give 32bit one last version to build onto.
If you read the OpenSolaris site, there is some discussion on this. The problem is, the sun4m code was torn out early, and then the kernel was modified to take advantage of features that don't exist in the 4m hardware. If you put the 4m support back, you either loose major feature enhancements, or fork the kernel. Again, Solaris is not NetBSD... They're not going to carry HW support forward forever, and sacrifice major enhancement opportunities, just so you can run on 10 year old hardware. Sun left the 4m's behind long before the OpenSolaris effort started.
BTW - If you read the docs, Solaris 10 requires 512mb of RAM (mostly IMNSHO due to the memory pig called Gnome), so the SS5 would be off the list even if the other 4m's were still supported!
The GPL is closed and incompatible with the real world.
to get decent performance it is often required for a client machine to know more than its user should know. Worse it may even be able to cause a hit if local hitscan passes to prevent lag from ruining hits (usually within some limits such as the shot adjusted by the server to hit still being feasible).
hence the only security left is through difficulty of reverse engineering the client to produce a cheat versions. It isn't good security but its a comprimise made because fast responsive games are more important than stopping the hardcore cheaters.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Solaris 9u7 is less than two years old. Free as in beer download, and really quite nice. They even fixed logging UFS! A fitting end to the Sun4m's.
Well, then why they arent opening that or the infamous "Build 22" that bmc refers to in the same manner just so there is no qualms about "unsupported frame buffers" or problems with security patches is something that escapes logic. It's at least so that there's something that properly supports the sun4m (and maybe sun4c) architecture.
What would be a fitting end to the sun4m would be able to run any Sun framebuffer (even the S24), and to have the ability to have even other sun4 platforms (CS6400?) run relatively modern code. With all those fixes put in, and what Build 22 supposedly has in it, there could be something that at least builds cleanly and is not just a binary CD that's dropped 2 years after.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.