Slashdot Mirror
New Compaq Servers (with Closed Source Libs)
pmsyyz sent us
a news.com story that talks about the new alpha based
Compaq Servers.
Lots of interesting tidbits (and hardware specs to drool over) but
it reveals that the compiler and libs will not be open source,
although they will be cheap. Just read it- its interesting,
but frusterating to read about putting Digital's excellence
and Compaq's marketing together, and stirring in a PHB decision like
a closed source compiler.
"Pointy Haired Boss" as in Dilbert.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
You seem to have a valid issue from the development standpoint. You may run into compatablity issues with the binary only compiler. I'd have to say... that would be Compaq's problem unless they choose to provide greater access to their source code.
For a production system such as a database, inter/intranet, or file and print server, however, the possible loss of development capablities would be more than offset by the long-term efficiency gained using specially tweaked libs and programs compiled using optimizations specifically designed for Alpha.
If there are major compatability issues between the GNU tools and Compaq's proprietary tools then the real loser will probably be Compaq. Maintaining compatibility is paramount these days; rather, competition on performance and ease-of-use will likely win the day.
What I'd like to know is... is there a choice to use GNU compilers and glibc rather than the proprietary ones? There is! Use standard Linux.
Choice is a good thing.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Here is a clue for you. Compaq is a company. They are in business to make money. Compaq has also been a contributor and supporter of Linux.
And, here is an example of why I think Compaq's proprietary libs and compiler is probably a good idea:
When you get an rpm or tgz binary for your system, you will probably get the source code and maybe a binary - right? Then you will compile the source with gcc - right? Or maybe install the binary version.
Now, what is so different about taking the same source code and compiling with a proprietary library and compiler? You still get a binary; you still have the source code; you can still contribute to the OpenSource/Free Software cause - what's the difference? I'll tell you. You get a library and compiler especially tweaked and tuned for the Alpha - you get the boost in speed. And, Compaq gets bragging rights. Everybody wins.
I love GNU tools; I think they're GRRRREAT! But hey, if Compaq can optimise a compiler and libs for Alpha and still maintain source-code compatability with apps designed to be compiled by GNU tools then I say good for them! It's Compaq's way of competing and still contributing.
ANY UNIX is better as far as I'm concerned.
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
This is actually a *good* thing. As long as the source code is free it doesn't really matter - let them compete on the basis of 'My compiler's better than yours... my processor's better than yours... my bandwidth is better that yours... etc..'.
As long as the source is free!
Codifex Maximus ~ In search of... a shorter sig.
Posted by jpepin:
I think this is exactly the kind of thing we need to see. Closed source compiler/libs and all. I feel it is crucial for the success of Linux that corporations see that they can still keep some secrets and make some money while still fostering and supporting the Open Source Movement. I mean look at it like this;
"Yes, sir, Mr. PHB, this 'Linux Thing' is a little new, but DEC, I mean Compaq has released this new line of servers that are Linux Certified, and they'll warranty it. And they'll ship it with a Proprietary (he'll think you said supported) compiler that will allow us to get the most out of that CPU, which has just dropped signifigantly in price. And oh yeah, an unlimited User Lic Pac is free."
That will start to have a serious effect at top levels of corporate descion making. That blue DEC case still carries a lot of weight in some places.
Remember, in large chunks of the IT world Intel==Micro. EOF. A 4x Xeon with redundant everything is still a PC. A DEC Server is a Server.
Until now an IT Manager who wanted to move a mission critical web application to a Linux server from say a Sun, would have really had an uphill battle. Now the playing field is a little more level.
That's all.
Joe
I imagine that if Compaq gets enough feedback from the community they may well reconsider their decision about the compiler. But we'll see.
It would be nice if it were free (in either sense), but I don't think it's fair to criticise Digcompaqital for not giving away what many see as their best product.
On the OS side, it's rather interesting to see the "big Iron" guys lining up behind Linux &emdash; it seems to me that in many ways they're looking to leave the low-end OS market behind (I doubt there's much money to be made there) so they can concentrate on tuning their OS for big machines (E1Ks, &c), and leave Linux for the lower-end hardware.
This is fine, but I'm a little concerned as what might happen if/when Linux gains more of the enterprise-level features, like partitioning/journalled js/etc.
I wouldn't like to see them turn on us...
Matthew.
Yeah, the DEC compiler is fast, fast, fast. But from a *configuration* point of view, well... it blows. I do cross-platform integration, and porting code from other unices to DEC took longer than all the other platforms put together. And it wasn't endian issues or any other such technical subtleties, either... it was just various bits of brain damage in the configuration. Non ANSI-compliant headers, for example, or the fact that their linker couldn't resolve symbols that didn't cause problems on any other platform.
And then there's D/UX itself, which was apparently written by a bunch of bitter, resentful VMS coders seeking vengeance on Unix (I know, most of them wound up at Micros~1, writing NT!). Little things like the man command using a hardcoded path to nroff, which of course wasn't in the installed base (so no unprocessed man pages worked), and other PATH hardcodings. Or the which command under root only looking at the "official" root PATH, not the actual PATH in the shell. Which dovetailed nicely with the fact that sudo screwed up the environment for child processes...
But i digress. A sensible, user-tested environment like Linux will fix all these gripes. I just wish they would either open up the source to their compiler and libs, or work closely with gcc/egcs to provide their best tricks to the open source compilers. What reasons do they have to do otherwise? I assume they'll be giving the compilers away, or close enough to it, so they won't recoup their cost. The only things that might hold them back are patents (not the case, afaik), or NDAs with other software companies like KAI (who does the C++ front end for some vendor compilers).
If it's just the usual corporate Catholicism of keeping the Mysteries to themselves, then Compaq has a lot to learn.
Hand me that airplane glue and I'll tell you another story.
That's anyway good news .... : .....). Selling such lib is not incompatible with GPL , is it ? ....
Because D/UX has got a price drop and you can now get some good software for almsot has much has the hardware. If they make real money with Alpha servers they should give the oportunity to the dev of linux by
1) Helping the compiler guys @ egcs (But I don't mean throwing away the $200 Millions Digital spent in developing it's cc) 2) distribute some binarie version of glibc and other widely used libs compiled with their compiler so that free software would still get some speed boost
3) There should be a price drop for "older" systems like mono 2164 basded systems so many more pple could aford to get one and dev stuff on them or help making 64 bit unclean code clean. Thats all for today
none Yet.
Well, as usual, NetBSD gets left out again, despite the fact that it's the only free OS that runs on high-end AlphaServers, such as the 8400. (Or maybe because of that fact; who knows?)
I'm entertaining suggestions about what we can do to fix this. What needs to be done to give NetBSD a bigger place in the Alpha community? Or is there a good reason it shouldn't have a bigger place?
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
OK, this is really embarassing to ask, and I'll .. but I don't know what "phb" stands for. Could someone be so kind as to fill me in?
probably kick myself when I hear
Sorry if this post is "noise".
Someone else asked. Sorry for the noise.
I started writing this post an hour and a half ago, then was called away to a meeting so if I'm reiterating sentiments that have already been voiced, I apologise.
As far as Compaq are concerned, it's probably not in their interests to open-source their compiler. It is a value added service, not an essential. If you want an open-source compiler you can always use gcc. If you want their compiler, you'll have to accept it on the terms that it _is_ a value added service (and by all accounts, an absolutely stunning compiler), is closed-source, and is probably going to cost you.
Sure, it would be _nice_ if it was open-source, but I believe it would be counter-productive.
Open-sourcing their compiler might effectively _prevent_ the development of existing freeware compilers for Alpha systems, since the compiler and source are already there, who but the most dedicated hacker will bother to develop an alternative? (NIH notwithstanding, I guess.)
And I believe the reason why development of existing free software continues is because the software was originally _designed_ to be open source - that is, it is generally more legible, modular, well documented and so forth. Software developed by corporates is hardly ever so easy to follow, and most hackers will probably die of boredom before they ever get to understanding the code, let alone modifying it. (Remember Mozilla, anyone?)
So effectively, neither Compaq nor the open-source/free software community gain any of the benefits of open-sourcing their software, while Compaq's competitors pore over their software, say "ah! so that's how they did it" and write their own versions, because corporates don't need dedication - just a lot of paid programmers.
This will lose Compaq the main edge it currently has over its rivals in the Alpha supplier market. This does Compaq no good whatsoever - they get no effective return on their investment.
So, in a way, it could be argued that non-release of the source _benefits_ the open-source community because it actually gives the dedicated compiler hackers something to aim at. For Compaq, by releasing a closed, non-free compiler, is effectively allowing the continuance of unrestricted development of the existing freeware compilers.
"If it's a bad idea, trash it. If it's a good idea, steal it and release the source code."
--
"This isn't the post you're looking for. Move along."
I was speaking to one of the guys from the Compaq compiler group at Linux World. Compaq realizes that good compilers just make their hardware look better, so they do want to see that happen. The problem is that they can't (for whatever reason) release all the technology open source. They can provide information and some technology to help gcc based compilers get better, but they are afraid that it is a major overhaul and will require a couple years to become functional. The big problem is that the instruction scheduling has to change dramatically particularly for floating point. So, they are taking a two pronged approach. One is to get their compiler out in the short term for a low cost. The second is to add functionality to gcc. Eventually they could get out of selling their compiler. It's a good plan and the right thing happens over time. Alpha's rock running Linux, but our 400 Mhz DEC Unix systems out perfrom 466Mhz Linux systems. I suspect that's mainly because of the compiler and the good math libraries which they have also released for free (proprietary). - |Daryll
And what about bugs introduced into my code from bugs in the compiler? At least with Open Source compilers, I can fix that myself, if I need to. And if you don't believe me, you obviously haven't read enough changelogs. I've seen plenty of entries scattered all over the place to the effect of "added a work around for the [compiler] [version] bug on [platform]." What do we do with their closed source compilers? Never have them fixed?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
And my point was that performance isn't the only important issue. If the only response to him is some idea that having source lurking somewhere on the same hard drive is going to magically make a compiler faster, you've got to be kidding me.
Respond to this: The compiler can still be closed source and it won't affect the compiler's performance as a paperweight.
Big deal. Paperweight performance isn't the only issue for compilers. It's legitimate to point that out if I go about saying that it doesn't matter if a program is closed source because paperweight performance isn't affected.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Daryll,
This is awesome news. Is the guy that you heard this from a reliable source? I.e. is he high up enough to be getting this info reliably, like as a first-hand source that doesn't change its mind much?
On the math lib note, try out libffm. Sometimes it's faster than the compaq portable math libraries, though it depends greatly on the application.
On a third note, is there any chance that you'll work on glide support for the Alpha?
Thanks for the info, this makes the future of Linux/Alpha look bright indeed.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
As far as your argument about gcc being abandoned goes, I doubt it. I don't think that Cygnus would let itself fall behind.
As far as "This will lose Compaq the main edge it currently has over its rivals in the Alpha supplier market." What are you talking about? Compaq supplies hardware. You're not going to reverse engineer Alphas and come up with Alpha clones from an optimized compiler. Especially not on any timeframe that matters.
Do you think that Compaq is in the business of selling compilers? They make the compiler to make their hardware faster, and nearly give it away so that they can sell more hardware. Are you going to tell them that 100 different optimized compilers are going to result in compaq selling less hardware?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
> A source tarball was asked for. A binary is
> available. If I show up to a race with the parts
> to a car and a built car, why would you assume
> the pre-built car was not there?
There is validity to this argument. But let's say that the atmospheric content has changed from what the pre-built and welded-shut car comes with. The parts can be easily adjusted. The welded-shut car can't. It's close enough to have nothing when you have a car that won't count. (please give the analogy some leniency, I'm not a mechanical engineer to give a really dead-on technically correct example).
> > You are correct in that its proprietary nature
> > is unrelated to its performance. However, I
> > don't see how this gives your argument any
> > credence.
> Your first sentence is correct. The second one
> does not make sense. He was talking about
> performance which you agreed with in the first
> sentence.
No, he wasn't making a performance argument, he was making a closed source/open source argument, and using performance as one justification of that argument. Shaw is attacking the open/closed argument, which is the real argument being made.
> He stated facts. You can argue the moon is made
> of green cheese, but it does not change facts.
No one disagreed with the fact that the digital compiler will probably be faster than current egcs/gcc compilers. Many people, myself included, might take issue with the idea that the digital (compaq) compilers are better. That's what the argument is about.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Isn't egcs currently the market leader in ANSI C++ compilers?
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Thanks, Jim, that makes sense. I wish the original message had been clearer. Some people got their dander up because they thought some GPL-ed library would be closed.
Of course the usual GCC libm would co-reside on the same machine.
Compiler hackers will take this as a challenge.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So, make EGCS better. We've known for a long time that GCC couldn't stand up to DEC's compiler on the ALPHA.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.