Slashdot Mirror
OpenSPARC and Power.org, Who has it Right?
Andy Updegrove writes "Last summer, IBM set up Power.org, to promote its PowerPC chip as what it called 'open hardware.' This year, Sun launched the OpenSPARC.net open source project around the source code for its Niagara microprocessor. But what does 'open' mean in the context of hardware? In the case of Power.org, Juan-Antonio Carballo said, 'It includes but is not limited to open source, where specifications or source code are freely available and can be modified by a community of users. It could also mean that the hardware details can be viewed, but not modified. And it does not necessarily mean that open hardware, or designs that contain it, are free of charge.' True to that statement, you have to pay to participate meaningfully in Power.org, as well as pay royalties to implement - it's built on a traditional RAND consortium model. To use the Sun code, though, its just download the code under an open source license, and you're good to go to use anything except the SPARC name. All of which leads to the questions: What does 'open' mean in hardware, and which approach will work?"
Who has it right?
I hate that question because it assumes that One is Right and the other is wrong.
It is like asking a student what is the Square root of 9
One student says 2 and the other says 5. Well there is no consensious so one of them has to be correct right? No both are wrong.
In an other class that asks the same question
One student says -3 and the other says 3. So one of them has to be wrong they are different answers. No both answers are correct.
Just because they are multiple view points it doesn't mean that there has to be a write or wrong answer for one of them.
Open your mind people!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Hardware deisgn freely available, as in beer.
FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!
Open source cores for full processors are actually old news.
The LEON 2 SPARC-compatible core has been around for years.
Anyone doing a real chip design, however, can afford to pay for a real supported core.
Test your net with Netalyzr
I do.
.org - not ,org
its
This is the first sentence of the post -c'mon don't make it so easy - I swear I am not a spelling nazi.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
All of which leads to the questions: What does 'open' mean in hardware, and which approach will work?
I think you're confused. "Open" has traditionally been shorthand for "Open Standards". Thus your hear terms like "OpenWindows", "OpenLook", and "Open Group". They're all referring to the standards being available to all, and not any sort of Open Source Software take on those standards. Open Standards make the world spin 'round, and are a key reason why we have so much compatibility in our daily lives.
What you're thinking of is "Open Source", also known as "Free (as in freedom and game show prizes) Software". This is a very different category of of openess that relies on a developer to give up some of his rights to support the greater good. This is a laudable goal, but it is often not shared by coorporations and businessmen.
For what its worth, Wikipedia has a fairly good article on the concept of Open Standards.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You have to understand the two companies to understand the differences in hardware licensing. Sun does not produce chips. Their business is to define a standard and have others implement the standard, which Sun then uses in their systems. IBM otoh DOES manufacture chips, as well as design them. Now they currently share production with Motorola on PPC, but it's always been a very tight and closed relationship.
Now given that, you can see how their respective views of "open" hardware have been formed, as they follow closely the respective companies buisness models.
In my dream for America I would like to put control of computer hardware and software companies firmly in control of the government - exactly where it should be. At the moment terrorists have way too much access to the inner workings of computers and software - especially with regard to open source software.
Just imagine what could happen if terrorists used the freely and openly available source code in Linux for example to create some sort of super weapon. The results could be catastrophic.
I am pushing like crazy for the US government to take full control of all USA based computer hardware and software companies, effectively creating one large mother company. There would be no more OS wars as there would only be one. Consumers would have the benefit of knowing that their hardware and software was US GOVERNMENT APPROVED (TM) and terrorism free.
To take it perhaps one step further, the government could even enable monitoring devices within the equipment to further prevent any crime or terrorist attacks.
As the old saying goes: IF YOU HAVN'T DONE ANYTHING WRONG YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
Sigh. Another numb-nutted blogger trolling for page views. Why do we see this crap on what used to be a great site? This guy is worse than a waste of time.
ScuttleMonkey, you are worthless.
Ahh.. so because sometimes there isn't a right and a wrong, we aren't allowed to ask ever again.
Was Atilla a bad man? How dare you be judgemental!!!
It comes down to the same thing as ever. "Open" doesn't mean much at all. "Free" as in freedom is a moral thing, and is much more stable and safer. Once again, the "open" people will make it more difficult for the "free" people to start up, but inevitably the "open" projects end in commercial failure due to their inability to find a stable base to cooperate on.
Be scientific. Make judgements. Make predictions people can actually use, measure and follow. Dare to be wrong. It's much better to be wrong than lost. Don't just sit there and say "it's all okay with me man"..
"It's not even wrong." - Pauli.
OK, obviously by the definitions most of the Slashdot crowd will go along with, the Sun release is the "open" one.
The more interesting question is "what use is an open core?"
Open source software has obvious utility in that it can be used by millions of people for a wide variety of jobs. All you need is a computer to get started.
Open hardware, on the other hand, is useful only for education or simulations unless you happen to have a fab plant.
If education and experimentation can be served by a "non-free" license then is there really any benefit to having a "free" license? I suspect by the time off the shelf technology is available to create CPUs based on current designs, they will be centuries obsolete. Even US copyrights and patents will have expired by then (unless they change the laws again) so it's a bit of a moot point.
Now I grant this might be a bit of a narrow viewpoint - for example some of the Lisp hardware designs would be very interesting to work with - but since the hardware costs of this sort of manufacture make the information needed to do it only one component of the (EXCEEDINGLY expensive) whole, I'm not sure the marginal benefit of having "free" cores will be very interesting, at least for something like a modern CPU.
Of course, there are non-economic considerations, but I don't really see overwhelming benefits for the "free as in freedom" model as opposed to the "free except for producing your commercial product based on them" model.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
- "Nigeria" is an African country. A prince there will soon be making me very rich.
- "Viagra" is a sex drug. I ordered some from a nice company that emailed me. It will also be here soon.
- Sun's chip is called "Niagara"
"Niagera" is none of these things.
I guess I don't get why IBM would have a problem with other people using their hardware specs for free. The barriers to entry are pretty big for one thing. It's not like your average Joe has a Billion dollar fab in his back yard and can use IBM's code to create a processor. The real trade secrets are in the manufacturing process. There's a big difference in making a chip and making millions of chips that cost less than $100 to mass produce.
No Sigs!
Then there was the i craze. iPod,iMac,ivillage.com, BMW's iDrive, ....
Maybe "open" is the new cool prefix to use. I'm sure anyday now someone will be selling OpenPods, sending openMail...
The phrase 'Open" means nothing. It implies many things, ranging from whether you're RMS to Steve Jobs. Developer programs have been mutating for years, starting way back in the '80s. The real depth of the programs, and their usefulness is pretty simple. Take an example: Intersil releases their specs for their chipsets for WiFi. These chipsets have more WiFi code in BSD and LinuxLand than any other, bar none. Proxim/Lucent/Terabeam/others have huge and cool software basis in the open source world. By contrast, others that mandate you swear fealty and pay staggering amounts of money for code, pragmas, instruction sets, timing info, and so on, get left in the dust.
If you RTFA, you'll find quite a contrasting amount of difference between two top vendors. But read the licenses carefully. Then, where lucky, look up code that others have done before starting to conjure up apps, drivers, and so on. This is the beauty of being open: code, reuse code, share code, improve code, make closed source knotheads look like the idiots they are.
---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
"Open" hardware is a design I can download to my FPGA. Covered only by GPL at most - no patents, other copyrights, or other restrictions on use and redistribution. That I can change and redistribute (possibly requiring publishing my changes, as per GPL). There's other kinds of open hardware, but I know the kind that I recognize: the same as open software.
--
make install -not war
http://www.realultimatepower.net/
I don't honestly see what making SPARC or PowerPC "open" is going to achieve at this point.
SPARC and PowerPC are pretty clearly niche and/or legacy architectures now. IBM has ceded the mainstream desktop to x86, and SPARC lost that battle a long time ago. The only question most people care about now is whether their x86 system is 32 or 64 bit, Intel or VIA or AMD.
Right now, most open source software tends to be tested and hacked on to at least make it run on PowerPC, for the benefit of Mac users. As the PowerPC Mac users switch to x86, who's going to care about PowerPC compatibility? I remember what it was like running Linux on PowerPC before OS X, and it wasn't pleasant--lots of stuff x86 Linux users took for granted didn't work, or you were stuck with old versions, because nobody had bothered to port, test or debug it.
SPARC and PowerPC will continue in the high-end server niche, but I think that niche is increasingly going to be squeezed by x86 too. Why deal with the possible risk of having your enterprise application break on PowerPC Linux, or being stuck with old versions of software, when you could run it on a big x86 Linux system and run the same binary 90%+ of the app's users are relying on every day? Sometimes there's safety in numbers.
PowerPC has the embedded space, of course, and maybe that'll be enough to sustain it as a target for general purpose code. I guess video game toolkits and related libraries will continue to be ported to PowerPC, at least.
But to go back to "openness"--in the embedded and video games space, who cares if the design is "open" or not? All the PowerPC video game consoles are locked down proprietary systems, as are various other embedded PowerPC systems like TiVo and car computers. And in the high end server space, I don't know that anyone cares there either--System i and System z seem to do OK without having open standard CPUs.
[Opinions mine, definitely not IBM's, obviously... and I may be completely wrong, perhaps openness is important in those niches?]
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
well, I wish sun would give UltraSparc 3 and 4 docs to the open source OS too, but to say they've contributed very little to open source just isn't true. they've made huge contributions like opensolaris & staroffice (you might not like their licenses but that's another issue)
All I really want is a simple PPC CPU+Motherboard with AGP and PCI that'll fit into an ATX Case. For less than $600 US.
I am NOT going to pay $2k for a reference board. It seems to me that for all of IBM's talk about openness with respect to the PPC architecture, it doesn't seem to have done an awful lot to bring it to the masses.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Having a CPU core stuffed into your FPGA along with the glue logic for your device means one less micro on the board. You could even lop off the core bits that don't get used if you're that concerned about space. You may think this is outlandish but Altera already does this with their NIOS II soft-core embedded processor.
Yes, it won't perform as well as a real processor but there are times when CPU performance is not the bottleneck. Electromechanical systems spend a lot of time waiting for the motor to get move the fribbus over the wotsit.
-mkb
... and require that all government computers run RedFlag on redSPARK.
Please post your comments with your Redberry.
SPARC and PowerPC are pretty clearly niche and/or legacy architectures now. IBM has ceded the mainstream desktop to x86, and SPARC lost that battle a long time ago. The only question most people care about now is whether their x86 system is 32 or 64 bit, Intel or VIA or AMD.
Unless we're talking about the 100x or so more machines in the embedded space. Just because the chip isn't in a PeeCee doesn't mean it's not a computer. And embedded designers DO care about this stuff.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." --Groucho Marx
Sun has contributed very little to the free software community.
Well since Sun has attributed very little that you consider useful, please remove RPC, PAM, StarOffice, Java, Gnome, shadow passwords and any other code and concepts that Sun wrote or contributed heavily to.
Thank you!
I remember reading ~1992 that anyone doing real software development could afford to pay for a real supported compiler. They were downplaying the benefit of GCC and the other GNU tools. Well as hardware has gotten cheaper and faster and the Internet has expanded and more people have gotten tech-savvy, guess what? Lots of people are doing *REAL* software development with FLOSS software tools.
Back when you needed $10000 worth of hardware + OS licenses etc. to make software development feasible, paying $300 for a compiler was no biggie. But now you can get an awesome complete workstation for $600 and even the $100 Microsoft OS tax starts to seem like a pretty crappy deal.
I imagine that hardware design will increasingly go the same way. Obviously, there are a lot more hurdles to go before we'll be fabbing chips in our basements. But I work in electronics research in a physics department, and people are doing amazing stuff like printing integrated circuits with inkjet printers... commercial equipment to do that is now selling for $100k.
My bicyles
Would this work? At $500US, it comes in well below your price range.
Sure, everybody just wants a nice cheap powerful x86 box these days, even Mac users. But there'd be a lot of hacker appeal to having the source for the processors available. Everybody would tinker with their processors and implement them on FPGA (a cheap way of fabbing chips on a small scale, basically). Instead of people boasting about their tuned kernel, we'd be boasting about our tuned processors. "I got my OpenSPARC running on a Xilinx FPGA and I optimized out the floating point unit so I could add more cache."
And as we've seen with Linux, W3, Apache, etc., hacker projects can turn into BIG business down the road!!
Frankly, I'd switch over to OpenSPARC or OpenPOWER or OpenRISC if I could. I already can and do hack around with the source code to my software, and I'd love to be able to do the same with the hardware...
My bicyles
I work for a Power.org member, so maybe I am biased, but I think OpenSPARC is one of the best things Sun has ever done.
But it's no way as cool as the Solaris port to PowerPC.
Sun is involved in both, you see!
So who cares? They're both right.
It is like asking a student what is the Square root of 9
11. Duh.
That would be nice wouldn't it. And then if you removed all the shit from GNU, and some more random cruft from who knows where, you might have a reasonable system.
I'm hoping for more, not fewer PowerPC platforms. PowerPC continues to do more per watt than other hardware. It's better for the kinds of small, quiet systems most people really want. The Mac mini is a great example of the kind of system I'd like next. The same things make an attractive laptop. It would be nice to see IBM make Linux hardware and get back into the home market. They have what I want.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Sooooo since power.org really isnt free, as how most of us think of free, is there a free implementation out there somewhere like there is for SPARC ( leon2/3 )?
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Uh, the license to OpenOffice.org is LGPL, something the slashdot crowd usually is okay with. Your statement could be interpreted as implying there is something wrong with CDDL; if you believe so, you should state it.
Regarding UltraSparc III and IV, those are older designs and aren't particularly interesting. In fact, they're probably less useful than the the CoolThreads design, because there are a bunch of other Sun-ish things it assumes exist (MP cores are far more about cache coherency and chipset then just straight-line execution). It takes resources to Open Source anything (think about the legal review alone), so it's not surprising that Sun would Open Source whatever it thinks will provide the most impact on the market.
"... and require that all government computers run RedFlag on redSPARK."
They can't use the term Sparc, so they are think it to turn it around and name it RedCraps.
nowadays everyone likes "open" thigs - thats because open-souce software is so nice to its users... but I see more and more products being called "open" although they are only partially open or completely closed, but use open file standards...
I say RMS should patent the word "open" in IT context and only GPLed stuff may be called "open"...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
When power.org started, the execs in charge were thinking to somehow build what Intel had built... a market where outside vendors made the motherboard and IBM just supplied the CPUs and IP to build the motherboard. PowerPC64 Linux was the OS that would be used on this power.org hardware.
However, PPC64 Linux (Bare Metal Linux exempted) is currently dependant on not only having a Open Firmware device tree, but on firmware abstracting much of the HW specific nuances of the system. The ugly nuances of the interrupt subsystem (Apple's U3), for example, forced IBM's recent PowerPC970 based systems into using the LPAR (Logical Partitioning, i.e. hypervisor) architecture. In general, to have a fast enough "time to market", firmware must abstract the funky HW issues from the OS's. Note that the major PPC Linux distributors have >8-12 month integration pipeline, whereas the integration (testing/review) pipeline for firmware on a given system can be 1 month.
A good chunk of the firmware on one of the PPC970 systems will be made public if not already. Theoretically, people could modify this firmare to boot-strap an Open Hypervisor like "Zen". Whether this free firmware actually springs a market, or just becomes another PPC toy dinosaur remains to be seen. I'm fairly skeptical, though, as I've seen that the market for "open systems" only leaps forward when the reference system has a decent price/performance point. IBM's going to have to work harder with it's vendor'd motherboard chipsets to achieve that.
I can't help but wonder, when will be the second time in history developers can gain access to the chip multi-threading (CMT) technology unique to the UltraSPARC T1? Is that even possible as per definition?
Sun is big, they should know better than to let this bullcrap marketing business slang selling-point junk be the first thing a developer sees...
Last time I checked the price was closer to $1000 and the speed was under 1GHz.
I wonder if they'll get the dual core unit out any time soon. These are prices I can afford.
OpenSPARC is not a response to POWER.org. POWER.org is a response to SPARCInternational. SPARC International is an independent, non-profit organization founded in 1989 to administer SPARC instruction set licenses. SPARC International owns SPARC, not Sun.
OpenSPARC is a separate program, just like LEON is a separate program. OpenSPARC is run by Sun.
What does 'open' mean in hardware?
Simple: patent-free, or at least patent-unencumbered. Hardware development is
such a minefield of patents that no small player can seriously participate
without getting big allies. Of course, there are many other reasons why
small players would have a hard time, patents are only one. But they are
determinant: a patent-laden "open" hardware spec is not really open. You
either have freedom or you don't, the rest is mere nuance.
http://www.red-bean.com/kfogel
Hardware is never really free.
If you want to use something like CANbus or I2C you have to pay royalties.
Even MUX'es have to be paid (to generate data/strobe signals in high speed serial lines)
So, Code is free; but if you want to sell it you have to pay royalties.
"Sun has contributed very little to the free software community. The only distros that do support Sun can only do so very weakly, due to lack of any material contributions from Sun. No hardware, no documentation, nothing."
What a load of uninformed tosh! Sun has been a big team player for years, you only have to look through the RFC's to see how much work they've done. Further the most recent thing standard they've worked on was the XML specification, Jon Bosak (a Sun guy) led the creation of it at W3C. Possibly the 2 largest players in networking were Berkley & Sun!
With regards to installing Linux on SPARC, I've never had any problems with it - perhaps you should check out the howto's? However, I'm not sure why anyone would want to run Linux on a SPARC, Solaris is (IMHO) the better OS and you can run Linux apps through BrandZ (if you can't be bothered just to recompile them).
And then there's OpenSolaris, OpenOffice, postgreSQL etc! How can you possibly say they have contributed very little?
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so. - Douglas Adams
I won't bother with the coat, I'll just leave.
About a year ago, I wrote an introduction for free software writers to hardware design and the Free Hardware Design movement for a course on Free Software philosophy, theory, legal frameworks and politics held at Gothenburg University, Sweden. The article will later be published in a book together with some other articles written by other students at the course.
It is of course available online, at http://redhog.org/Projects/School/FreeSoftware/fre ehardware.pdf.
--The knowledge that you are an idiot, is what distinguishes you from one.
WARNING: Wrong 'Intellectual Property' protection invocation
ERROR: RMS namedrop enacted in pro-patenting context
Add NetBeans, the slab memory allocator and a whole of boring but rather critical Linux plumbing.
Ever wondered why Linux is rather Solaris like ????
Highly amusing. Last time anyone counted Sun had contributed more code to the RedHat distribution than any other entity except FSF.
I rather like the idea of people who don't think that Sun's OpenSource contributions matter being made to remove all Sun's donated code from their Linux distribitions because Linux would cease to exist at least for them.
http://www.opencores.org/
Open-source IP cores, HDL code (Hardware Description Language - generally either Verilog or VHDL) that you can do what you like with. Nothing as sophisticated as a PowerPC or modern SPARC though.
I'll care about the difference when I can actually make use of the processor design code. When I have my own 'chip printer' sitting next to my computer that can print out a chip when I feed it the output from the design software. I suppose there are some benefits to CPU cores being open, I don't mean to completely trivialize that, but it's like, the Sun processor design might be more 'open' than IBM's, but I can't *use* either of them, so it's pretty academic to me.
This is not a new phenomena. Ever hear of OpenVMS?
I think OpenOpteron.org has it right. But maybe FreeAlpha.net is not too bad either.
A standard has to be fully published, else it is not a standard.
An Open standard would have to be modifiable freely, and could then not be a standard, as it would be quicksand and unacceptible.
A close standard is simply a contradiction.
Point1 being: the word "open" in combination with "standard" does not mean a thing. In combination with hardware, it could. The first step towards open hardware would be on the backend. Having free access to verilog is useless if the FPGAs and the foundries have only a paranoid attitude to libraries (cf ARM/artisan, synopsis, cadence...) and each their own and proprietary formats.
Point2 : when the interest of corporations do not overlap that of their client, their interest is of no importance in a technical discussion. Even if all corparations in the industry have aligned on this attitude. Even less so in fact.
ARM can hardly be considered an "open" architecture. Very old ARM architectures, yes. For some years, ARM (the company) have been aggressively blocking independent implementations of the later ARM architectures, even incomplete subsets, from being distributed.
One of the most interesting open hardware projects to be pulled from distribution was an incomplete ARM clone, due to legal pressure. You're not allowed to independently design a circuit which implements the ARM instruction set.You're not even allowed to write a software emulator for the application-level instructions!
That makes ARM one of the most closed, encumbered CPU architectures around, of those where you can read the documentation, in my book. At least with x86, MIPS, Power etc. nobody's been stopped from distributing software emulators.
-- Jamie
I'm sorry to hear that. I must have only been familiar with the very old ones. Nevertheless I've always heard that ARM became popular through its openness and the vast number of clones. Is that wrong, or did they suddenly bring the hammer down?
* And remember, it's spelled N-e-t-s-c-a-p-e, but it's pronounced "Mozilla."