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.
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
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
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.
No, Sun has always designed the majority of the CPUs that they use in their systems. They are fabless; they don't own the chip fabrication factories... but they have buildings full of people working on chip design.
Others have designed SPARC CPU chips (Fujitsu / HAL; Ross) which Sun used, as well. But Sun engineers designed UltraSPARC-I, II, IIi, IIe, III, IIIi, IV, T-1, and going backwards the SuperSPARC, MicroSPARC-I and II, most of the Sun-4 and Sun-4c generation stuff.
- "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.