Maybe you might want to head to the Rust Belt and talk to the thousands of people who just lost their jobs thanks to your interference with the economy. They would gladly give you something well deserved of you - and it's NOT money. Until one can move from country to country with true practical choice with no obstacles to employment or education, I'll stick with having our citizens first, recent immigrants second, and H1B/L1's never. Sure, it's not exactly friendly for immigration, but the countries we deal with will not reciprocate - by eliminating that and any form of university selection policy, it will ensure we have the people in our own backyard that can do the job quite well.
Those people do matter, and to reinvest in them would be the least that must be done. The proper thing would be to ensure that our citizens are first with every regard to jobs and education. Offshoring their jobs just puts you further up the list when they do end up cleaning the US.
Obviously parent has no knowledge of what college students have as practical choices if not well-connected, or is obviously not in any serious tone. The grandparent at least has something serious as a policy that should be put in action either way they act.
China and Taiwan continue to flagrantly ignore the US laws that govern them and produce illegal devices that allow playback and recording of media from analog sources. ...and they'll stop right at US Customs.
When was the last time anyone bought a DVD player that was made in the USA anyway? And how exactly does the US think they'll enforce this law onto the rest of the world?
When was the last time *any* electronics were made outside of Asia, if not in the USA? If anything, I'd not mind to have a US/Europe built machine - at least there's build quality, instead of a product that dies over and over. I'll take quality over price anytime.
It's nice to see these on the SATA drives, but what's keeping things like that from crossing back to SCSI that SATA has taken? Sure, there are some people who will think cheapness has some good, but I'll take uncompromising quality with speed hands down nearly anytime. 500GB+ SCSI's time is overdue.
Shamefully, you really cant for most machines - although there is hardware out there that contains a majority of Non-Asian sourced parts (e.g. IBM RS/6000 270, with parts made in USA and Europe, with some from Taiwan). It might be a bit more expensive, but the quality points to it being worth the expense to ensure reliability.
I'd wonder what it'd look like from a durability standpoint if the hardware (nvidia's products for example) was made in the US and/or EU. Maybe then those $500 cards would have some actual justification to their cost and profit margins.
Sure, it's fine to have that kind of software level support, but with their apparent lack of documentation (let alone support) of anything more powerful than a Matrox G450 (which is lowend for that kind of machine).
There isnt even binary level support, which makes things very odd that they cripple their own hardware (see that there is no option for anything but a lowend GXT135P, a G450 PCI card) - given that it'd be fine to have enough documentation to run their highend GXT3xxx/4x00/6x00 video hardware.
It's fine to have that software well-supported, but if the hardware isnt there...
Re: American attitudes. It's possible that the corps have too much power and are abusing it to 'export' jobs. But why, I ask, is it right to export products to India, but not export jobs to India? I guess people have difficulty in accepting that service is seen as a product too.
Unlike physical goods, jobs have lives attached to them. When you take the job (unrightfully) and put it somewhere where the person cannot get to, that is definitely not competition. When you run your company into the ground to break union contracts (ala Delphi), when you devalue the whole community ala Walmart, that's when you start thinking that regulation might have been a good idea. That is, when you offshore Re: Getting pissed off... Check my post, if you think I said that Indians are the best, read it again. I have no such mis-conceptions. I merely want to see India and China get what they deserve, in terms of a share of what this world produces. Nothing more, nothing less. Well, so do I. When they improve their human rights and / or have their US companies heavily taxed for these normally untaxed assets until things improve, their rightful share does not exist. That means dealing with all the problems related to game theory.
It's that them leaving sun4m and your quoted sun4d outside of the source code release - just due to some major dtrace difficulty is the real issue. Just enough to get a (workable, buildable without extras) source-backed "Solaris 9++" system up would be fine for the sun4m/d platforms. No need to dig up Solaris 6 cd's for the HCL Olympics you have to go through to install relevant support - it's all there to build.
The only thing that keeps the Ultra 1 even close to supported is the Ultra 2 which fixes some serious bugs. Sure, it might require a bit of work, but at least there's something to work with on documentation - whereas they removed support completely after Build 22 for sun4m/d, not even to *think* about doing anything but deflecting questions as they have already.
The most you'd tie up is a few in the legal department.
Is there nothing Google can't do? Recognize that those educated in open admission universities are just as good if not better than the prestige universities. So far they seem to want to strike out every time on this one.
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.
You must not have known of the 200mhz ROSS modules which arent exactly slow mbus modules in their own right (throw 4 in and see how they stack to an Ultra1 on 32bit operations), and it'd only take a slightly polished version of Build 22 to take care of those who wanted to fill in the spots for themselves. Sure it'd be in all practicalities Solaris 9 repatched, but it would be a source release that's well overdue for these cpu's that would at least be an end point - you'd have somewhere to start building your sbus support, and somewhere to maybe write something to match dtrace.
That, and you can add the part that they support hardware a lot longer, and provide a "final release" for the older machines to at least have something open.
Yes, but doesn't all of this kind of make sense for Sun? I mean if they die as a company, all of their IP becomes abandonware, and thus not helpful to anyone anymore.
They already do this, and ever since Build 23, they've cemented that proof wrt Solaris 10 and the further defense of that in Opensolaris.
The question is will they continue to honor the Open Source way by continuing their commitment, or will they simply abandon what they've open sourced and move on with the new capital?
Given by their treatment of the sun4m platform and hardware past version 6, I'd say they'll abandon it before it's really too slow to work with it.
...but this does not make for an excuse to keep sun4m off OpenSolaris, no matter what mutterings your kernel devs might have to justify it. Now if you made it possible to rig up an ultrasparc over mbus somehow with this, you might get somewhere. However, that still does not justify including sbus, but cutting out the architecture that primarily used it from source code (even if it was an early build). At the very least, it'd be a fitting end to see a source/binary (for drivers if impossible to source) release of OpenSolaris fit to sun4m. That would get people still with Quad Ross SS/20's, Ross SS10's, SS5/170's, and the others out there that definitely could take advantage of some of the features as well as have the ability to fix some of the major offenders (since I guess Bart Smaalders seems to have forgotten about the numerous bugs, and just wants to shove sun4m under the "closed hierarchy" carpet).
It's not about the cost, it's about having the ability to fix the bugs on these machines. Distraction with an open Ultrasparc core isnt a good idea.
The best I can see out of it is Sun trying to follow in the paths of OpenPOWER. At least the company behind OpenPOWER is the same one that at least did one last release (AIX 5L 5.1) that allowed some sort of openness that Sun would drop at the fall of a hat.
Do not hire anyone from the Midwest or from any non-exclusive university for any meaningful position if at all.
Sounds like this would be one of the ones they go by a lot - since it seems to be 1) International/Exclusive educated, 2)If you have to hire Midwestern, give them some valueless and obscure position, or 3) Hire them only when the company is guaranteed to run into the ground, blaming them for the bankruptcy while moving to another company.
However that happens, that seems to be mutually exclusive from "Do no evil". Given Google's origins from a very exclusive school that has helped run the other part of Palo Alto into the ground along with their (informal) policies against Midwestern/US students, I'd have to say that they were doing evil *before* they incorporated.
They just now have the legitimacy to be evil if they want to, and it shows quite well of their not-so-good intentions.
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.
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.
There is force that exists, and people are being screwed. When "free to exploit the consumer markets" exist, and the practical choice (in this case, the pre-modifed Linux WRT54G/GS) is modified against the consumer's wishes in a deceptive manner, they are being screwed.
Exploitative economics is not a defense to mess with your customer. The deception by introducing the linux model later (by fully knowing of those who mod this would avoid the "standard" model if the linux one was there first) is further proof.
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.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe you might want to head to the Rust Belt and talk to the thousands of people who just lost their jobs thanks to your interference with the economy. They would gladly give you something well deserved of you - and it's NOT money.
Until one can move from country to country with true practical choice with no obstacles to employment or education, I'll stick with having our citizens first, recent immigrants second, and H1B/L1's never. Sure, it's not exactly friendly for immigration, but the countries we deal with will not reciprocate - by eliminating that and any form of university selection policy, it will ensure we have the people in our own backyard that can do the job quite well.
Those people do matter, and to reinvest in them would be the least that must be done. The proper thing would be to ensure that our citizens are first with every regard to jobs and education. Offshoring their jobs just puts you further up the list when they do end up cleaning the US.
Obviously parent has no knowledge of what college students have as practical choices if not well-connected, or is obviously not in any serious tone. The grandparent at least has something serious as a policy that should be put in action either way they act.
Then they pass a tax on their products to account for the difference. Problem solved.
China and Taiwan continue to flagrantly ignore the US laws that govern them and produce illegal devices that allow playback and recording of media from analog sources.
When was the last time anyone bought a DVD player that was made in the USA anyway?
And how exactly does the US think they'll enforce this law onto the rest of the world?
When was the last time *any* electronics were made outside of Asia, if not in the USA? If anything, I'd not mind to have a US/Europe built machine - at least there's build quality, instead of a product that dies over and over. I'll take quality over price anytime.
...Then watch as your bonus go faster than you can say Age Discrimination Lawsuit. Mmm, the smell of justice.
Obviously someone doesnt see the point of the the reply to that joke...
It's nice to see these on the SATA drives, but what's keeping things like that from crossing back to SCSI that SATA has taken?
Sure, there are some people who will think cheapness has some good, but I'll take uncompromising quality with speed hands down nearly anytime. 500GB+ SCSI's time is overdue.
Shamefully, you really cant for most machines - although there is hardware out there that contains a majority of Non-Asian sourced parts (e.g. IBM RS/6000 270, with parts made in USA and Europe, with some from Taiwan). It might be a bit more expensive, but the quality points to it being worth the expense to ensure reliability.
I'd wonder what it'd look like from a durability standpoint if the hardware (nvidia's products for example) was made in the US and/or EU. Maybe then those $500 cards would have some actual justification to their cost and profit margins.
Sure, it's fine to have that kind of software level support, but with their apparent lack of documentation (let alone support) of anything more powerful than a Matrox G450 (which is lowend for that kind of machine).
There isnt even binary level support, which makes things very odd that they cripple their own hardware (see that there is no option for anything but a lowend GXT135P, a G450 PCI card) - given that it'd be fine to have enough documentation to run their highend GXT3xxx/4x00/6x00 video hardware.
It's fine to have that software well-supported, but if the hardware isnt there...
Re: American attitudes. It's possible that the corps have too much power and are abusing it to 'export' jobs. But why, I ask, is it right to export products to India, but not export jobs to India? I guess people have difficulty in accepting that service is seen as a product too.
Unlike physical goods, jobs have lives attached to them. When you take the job (unrightfully) and put it somewhere where the person cannot get to, that is definitely not competition. When you run your company into the ground to break union contracts (ala Delphi), when you devalue the whole community ala Walmart, that's when you start thinking that regulation might have been a good idea. That is, when you offshore
Re: Getting pissed off... Check my post, if you think I said that Indians are the best, read it again. I have no such mis-conceptions. I merely want to see India and China get what they deserve, in terms of a share of what this world produces. Nothing more, nothing less.
Well, so do I. When they improve their human rights and / or have their US companies heavily taxed for these normally untaxed assets until things improve, their rightful share does not exist. That means dealing with all the problems related to game theory.
It's that them leaving sun4m and your quoted sun4d outside of the source code release - just due to some major dtrace difficulty is the real issue. Just enough to get a (workable, buildable without extras) source-backed "Solaris 9++" system up would be fine for the sun4m/d platforms. No need to dig up Solaris 6 cd's for the HCL Olympics you have to go through to install relevant support - it's all there to build.
The only thing that keeps the Ultra 1 even close to supported is the Ultra 2 which fixes some serious bugs. Sure, it might require a bit of work, but at least there's something to work with on documentation - whereas they removed support completely after Build 22 for sun4m/d, not even to *think* about doing anything but deflecting questions as they have already.
The most you'd tie up is a few in the legal department.
Is there nothing Google can't do?
Recognize that those educated in open admission universities are just as good if not better than the prestige universities. So far they seem to want to strike out every time on this one.
You might as well tack on Lineage II, and with proper time, you might be able to make your money back in adena sales.
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.
You must not have known of the 200mhz ROSS modules which arent exactly slow mbus modules in their own right (throw 4 in and see how they stack to an Ultra1 on 32bit operations), and it'd only take a slightly polished version of Build 22 to take care of those who wanted to fill in the spots for themselves. Sure it'd be in all practicalities Solaris 9 repatched, but it would be a source release that's well overdue for these cpu's that would at least be an end point - you'd have somewhere to start building your sbus support, and somewhere to maybe write something to match dtrace.
That, and you can add the part that they support hardware a lot longer, and provide a "final release" for the older machines to at least have something open.
Yes, but doesn't all of this kind of make sense for Sun? I mean if they die as a company, all of their IP becomes abandonware, and thus not helpful to anyone anymore.
They already do this, and ever since Build 23, they've cemented that proof wrt Solaris 10 and the further defense of that in Opensolaris.
The question is will they continue to honor the Open Source way by continuing their commitment, or will they simply abandon what they've open sourced and move on with the new capital?
Given by their treatment of the sun4m platform and hardware past version 6, I'd say they'll abandon it before it's really too slow to work with it.
By some previous moderation, I dont think you're correct about me working for IBM if you were implying that, or if that was even your thought.
Unfortunately, once you've been outed maybe you might want to bring some facts, and some sun4m support for good measure.
...but this does not make for an excuse to keep sun4m off OpenSolaris, no matter what mutterings your kernel devs might have to justify it. Now if you made it possible
to rig up an ultrasparc over mbus somehow with this, you might get somewhere. However, that still does not justify including sbus, but cutting out the architecture that primarily used it from source code (even if it was an early build).
At the very least, it'd be a fitting end to see a source/binary (for drivers if impossible to source) release of OpenSolaris fit to sun4m. That would get people still with Quad Ross SS/20's, Ross SS10's, SS5/170's, and the others out there that definitely could take advantage of some of the features as well as have the ability to fix some of the major offenders (since I guess Bart Smaalders seems to have forgotten about the numerous bugs, and just wants to shove sun4m under the "closed hierarchy" carpet).
It's not about the cost, it's about having the ability to fix the bugs on these machines. Distraction with an open Ultrasparc core isnt a good idea.
The best I can see out of it is Sun trying to follow in the paths of OpenPOWER. At least the company behind OpenPOWER is the same one that at least did one last release (AIX 5L 5.1) that allowed some sort of openness that Sun would drop at the fall of a hat.
Do not hire anyone from the Midwest or from any non-exclusive university for any meaningful position if at all.
Sounds like this would be one of the ones they go by a lot - since it seems to be 1) International/Exclusive educated, 2)If you have to hire Midwestern, give them some valueless and obscure position, or 3) Hire them only when the company is guaranteed to run into the ground, blaming them for the bankruptcy while moving to another company.
However that happens, that seems to be mutually exclusive from "Do no evil". Given Google's origins from a very exclusive school that has helped run the other part of Palo Alto into the ground along with their (informal) policies against Midwestern/US students, I'd have to say that they were doing evil *before* they incorporated.
They just now have the legitimacy to be evil if they want to, and it shows quite well of their not-so-good intentions.
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.
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.
BZZT. Wrong.
There is force that exists, and people are being screwed. When "free to exploit the consumer markets" exist, and the practical choice (in this case, the pre-modifed Linux WRT54G/GS) is modified against the consumer's wishes in a deceptive manner, they are being screwed.
Exploitative economics is not a defense to mess with your customer. The deception by introducing the linux model later (by fully knowing of those who mod this would avoid the "standard" model if the linux one was there first) is further proof.
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.
Well, I'd almost want to say that they already have one
It's not that overrated if anything to say that - as if that was your purpose anyhow.