Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sun Microsystems Operating Systems Security BSD

OpenBSD (Still) Seeks UltraSparc III Docs From Sun 163

Posted by timothy from the vogon-constructor-fleet-tactics dept.
An anonymous reader writes "There is a very interesting article on kerneltrap regarding OpenBSD's lingering battle with Sun over UltraSparc III documentation (that's right ... it still hasn't been resolved). Jeremy Andrews relates his efforts to get a position from Sun on the matter. In summary, he was completely stonewalled ... and that is exactly what makes the article so noteworthy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

OpenBSD (Still) Seeks UltraSparc III Docs From Sun More

OpenBSD (Still) Seeks UltraSparc III Docs From Sun

Comments Filter:

  • Why ever would they give up the IP ? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ThundaGaiden ( 615019 ) <reaper66@hotmail.com> on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:05AM (#5173379)
    Sun has always seemed to be in the bussiness of
    sharing , but oftens seems to do a stab in the
    back

    As an example Staroffice was a awesome piece of software, they release the source and everything ,
    then all of a sudden you have to pay for it... and there's a open source solution that has to catch up to the new release that Sun just made.

    I must admit I like Sun's approach more than MS's make it free , make it opensource , then make em pay...

    MS just makes you pay :P

    • Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:21AM (#5173415)
      Sun has always seemed to be in the bussiness of sharing , but oftens seems to do a stab in the back

      No, Sun are in the business of making money. All the cool stuff they do has to be paid for one way or the other. A fab is possibly the most expensive artifact on the planet, short of an aircraft carrier. Sun are perfectly willing to provide documentation to anyone willing to meet them halfway and sign an NDA, which is fair enough, since they need to protect their opportunity to earn a return on their investment. (Note that I said opportunity, not right).

      This is not a flame or a troll, but the OpenBSD people's position is "we want you to respect our terms, but we aren't willing to respect yours". Well, you can't have your cake and eat it - and no amount of ranting will change that.
      • Okay that's fair and I partially retract my
        statement , but I still feel a bit unhappy that I
        never got to see StarOffice 6 except for some pics
        on the web :)

        If the OpenBSD team isn't willing to agree to
        Sun's terms , well then , it is Suns hardware and
        they have the final say , but the article did make
        it sound like Sun wasn't willing to talk to the
        developers and barely the reporter either.

        My (updated) 2c

      • Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        How on earth do you suppose that people should be able to sign an NDA, and build an open source OS?
        • How on earth do you suppose that people should be able to sign an NDA, and build an open source OS?
          Simple:
          Anyone who want's the source, has to sign the NDA.

          Why should it be such a big deal? Using, installing or downloading any software generally results in the implied agreement of some licensing scheme, clauses, usage terms, etc.

          So now we have an extra one. The BSDNDA or LPGLNDA.

      • Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        A fab is possibly the most expensive artifact on the planet,

        Sun doesn't actually fab anything. They only do the chip design, and have them fab out-of-house.

      • Re:Why ever would they give up the IP ? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by TPS Report ( 632684 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @11:15AM (#5174370) Homepage
        Sun are perfectly willing to provide documentation to anyone willing to meet them halfway and sign an NDA, which is fair enough, since they need to protect their opportunity to earn a return on their investment.
        If they are so willing, as you say, why has an offer not been made? The fact remains: he has not been offered the documentation for something that is supposedly "open" and availble (whether under an NDA or not).

        This is not a flame or a troll, but the OpenBSD people's position is "we want you to respect our terms, but we aren't willing to respect yours".

        No, you have that wrong. The OpenBSD position is "What ARE the terms?" -- they haven't been offered anything at all.

        I think they have been ignoring his requests because they realize Theo is not going to be happy with an NDA, and is going to call the bluff. On one hand, Sun says it's an open architecture, but on the other hand - they're telling people they need to sign an NDA to get the data. I believe Sun would have offered him the NDA a long time ago if they thought he would sign it -- just like they've done with other (Linux) developers - but they probably realize it's not going to work like that with him. I don't think Theo is as concerned about the actual documentation; I think his driving motivation here is to get Sun to "practice what they preach."

        Theo is of the opinion that if you're going to say something is a certain way, it better be. Sun will need to either ignore him indefinately, thus avoiding the whole NDA paradox -- or they will change the policy and truly offer the documention in an open manner, as they claim.

        What I find interesting is the comment near the end of the article that basically says Theo thinks they have everyone sign an NDA to avoid public discussions of architecture bugs in the US3. Am I the only one that remembers Sun having customers sign NDA's so they could get their faulty UltraSparc chips replaced with bad cache? I can't find a link to past discussions about this, but...
        • Funny how BSD can be more 'free' than GPL sometimes. But of course, for a comparable pure-philosophy GPLed kernel we have to wait for the time Hurd developers ask for UltraSparc V specs... ... assuming neither of them got cancelled in the meantime :p
      • Does anyone remember the problems over Intel's appendix H of their Pentium handbook - vital for compiler writers as it gave the optimisation rules for the processor.

        Interestingly enough, at the time other companies had no problems to give out the full specs of any chipset that was shipping.

        Without a detailed spec on the processor, it is difficult to write a good compiler, and night on impossible to write an operating system. If Sun are scared to give out the specs of a shipped product in public, maybe they are worried about something.

        With an Open Source driver it is difficult to sign an NDA (it has been done). With an open source operating system it is impossible because too many people need real info about the behaviour of the hardware. Info will be reflected in comments and variable names. It is very difficult to agree not to disclose the information.

    • No, the reason Sun started charging for StarOffice was because corporate buyers were unwilling use "free" software. They believe in the saying "you get what you pay for," and thus in an ironic way didn't feel comfortable using StarOffice unless they were paying for it. So what should Sun do? Distribute the suite for free? Or tag on a price and get a higher likelihood of penetration in the corporate market?

      Besides, I recall StarOffice being free to students and those in academics. And, of course, there is always OpenOffice.
    • and there's a open source solution that has to catch up to the new release that Sun just made.

      Err, I can't confirm or deny this, having never tried SO6, but from what I heard and my experience running OO.org, the only things missing are some templates and fonts?


      Oh, and Redhat's tweaked OO.org shipped with RH8 looks gorgeous. You can always use all your TTFs - including the ones Bitstream is releasing for free - in OO.org anyway.

  • They want to do a linux distro.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jondor ( 55589 ) <gerhard AT frappe DOT xs4all DOT nl> on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:06AM (#5173386) Homepage
    The whole story leaves me with the idea that sun hopes to get most of the expensive development done by the OS community as they are preparing their own linux distro. As such nothing wrong with that..

    For OpenBSD they couldn't care less other than to keep them waiting and to keep possible competition at a distance.

    Just my first, uninformed, impression..

    • Re:They want to do a linux distro.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JimDabell ( 42870 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:22AM (#5173417) Homepage
      For OpenBSD they couldn't care less other than to keep them waiting and to keep possible competition at a distance.

      If Sun want to create a distro, fine. It won't be to profit from the distro though - it will merely be a "value-add" to the hardware. As such, competition is hardly something they would be scared of - the more operating systems running on their hardware, the better.

      • it will merely be a "value-add" to the hardware.

        Then why IBM has chosen Linux (not BSD!) for their new RS6K series?

        the more operating systems running on their hardware, the better.

        Better for whom? For us, customers? Most likely. For Sun, a hardware vendor? Most unlikely.

        I believe, however, it depends on what business model they use. IBM makes tons of money on support. Somehow they figured out that Linux is better for such business. Perhaps Apple doesn't make any significant moeny on support, so proprietary OS is better for them to make some money at least on licensing.

        So, how is support important for Sun? You answer this question and perhaps you know what OS Sun keeps in long term plans for Ultra Sparc.

        • it will merely be a "value-add" to the hardware.

          Then why IBM has chosen Linux (not BSD!) for their new RS6K series?

          I don't see the connection. If IBM choose Linux over BSD, or BSD over Linux, they are still just providing an operating system for their clients.

          the more operating systems running on their hardware, the better.

          Better for whom? For us, customers? Most likely. For Sun, a hardware vendor? Most unlikely.

          Care to explain your reasoning? If a hardware platform doesn't run the operating system I want it to well, I won't buy it. The same goes for virtually everybody else on the planet. Sun understands this.

          I believe, however, it depends on what business model they use.

          Of course. And I don't believe selling operating systems is a core component in Sun's business model. Which is why "competition" with any other operating system isn't really competition at all - they won't care if you take it off, they care about supplying a high-quality version of Linux for their customers.

      • value-added contains the important word "value".
        What's the value of adding linux for free? And this is only value if it actualy works.

        Where linux could be seen as a steppingstone to Solaris, openBSD could be seen as real competition especialy since openBSD is considered very secure and stable.
        Again, it's all the impression it makes on me, but never the less, it is an line of thought..
        • What's the value of adding linux for free?

          Well Linux has immense mindshare. There are a hell of a lot of people out there with Linux experience, more so, probably, than OpenBSD. These people will probably prefer Linux, or at least want it as an option. Sun are probably in the best position to make a distribution for their own hardware, they certainly have the expertise.

          And this is only value if it actualy works.

          Why would Sun release a non-functional distribution?

      • Sun isn't trying to create their own Linux distro... Sun Linux is just going to be their own software/tools/drivers layered on top of existing Linux distributions. As it ships now, the LX50 is running what appears to be stock RedHat.

  • I Don't Understand This (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tealover ( 187148 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:09AM (#5173390)
    Wasn't Sun in part started by Bill Joy of the *original* BSD fame, of which OpenBSD is an off-shoot? You'd think that Bill would show the OpenBSD guys some love.

    Yes, I know Bill Joy creating BSD was a long time ago but there is no need for such duplicity and passive hostility. Let's get it together Sun !

    • Re:I Don't Understand This (Score:5, Insightful)

      by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:37AM (#5173450) Homepage Journal
      That's the problem with these big companies. They're made of disparate groups each with its own world view. So statements like "company foo is pro/anti open source" become meaningless. There is a lack of central vision and co-ordination. (Hint: what was one of the reasons Microsoft became what it is?) Look at IBM. Invests heavily in Linux, but OTOH is extrememly protective of its IP. Look at HPQ. (Remember the Perens anti-DMCA demonstration circus?) Look at SCO. They're all the same, vacillating (no pun intended). Except for exclusively OSS companies like RH, you can never tell.

      • Re:I Don't Understand This (Score:4, Insightful)

        by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @09:38AM (#5173678)
        That's the problem with these big companies. They're made of disparate groups each with its own world view.

        Their own P&L you mean. Each group is responsible for reporting profits to head office, and if those profits aren't there, then heads will roll.

        That means that if one business unit has to pursue a policy that doesn't help another in order to protect its own profits, it will. This happened at IBM: the PC hardware division wasn't willing to risk it own sales by by preloading OS/2 just because it would have made things easier for the OS/2 division.

        Which do you suppose makes more profit (and hence has more influence at head office) at Sun: the Open Source advocacy group, or the UltraSPARC engineering group? (Hint: the workstation and server group probably "buy" the CPUs internally from the SPARC group).

    • SunSSH == OpenSSH (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Sun seem happy to ship OpenSSH with Solaris 2.9 without attribution (the documentation refers to 'SunSSH' throughout) - they are of course allowed to do this due to the BSD licensing however rather than just leeching this work you might have thought they would have provided some support on the Sparc docs.

      $ uname -a
      SunOS dev-sun 5.9 Generic_112233-01 sun4u sparc SUNW,Sun-Blade-100

      $ ssh -V
      SSH Version Sun_SSH_1.0, protocol versions 1.5/2.0.

      $ strings /usr/bin/ssh | grep -i openbsd
      @(#)$OpenBSD: ssh.c, v 1.69 2000/10/27 07:32:19 markus Exp $
      @(#)$OpenBSD: sshconnect.c, v 1.79 2000/09/17 15:52:51 markus Exp $
      ..... lots more lines

  • Sun.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gortbusters.org ( 637314 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:09AM (#5173394) Homepage Journal
    makes various choices in the open source community, from JBoss [slashdot.org] to a Linux training center. [slashdot.org]

    At the same time, Sun is one of many who are struggling to be profitable [yahoo.com]. From the article, "Sun boasts their UltraSparc III as an "open" architecture, yet seem to recognize that there is insufficient information freely available for the open source community to support it with operating systems."

    Is it purely a financial ploy perhaps?

  • The docs ARE available... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Some Bitch ( 645438 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:11AM (#5173397)
    ...but there's an NDA associated with getting them. It looks to me like De Raadt doesn't want to agree to the terms and threw his teddy out of the cot when Sun told him 'tough luck then'.
    • The question is: if Sun can allow David Miller to write GPL'd code, why don't they allow the OpenBSD team to write Berkley'd code?

    • Re:The docs ARE available... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      no, Theo has not even been presented with the opportunity to read docs wiht NDA. it's not like you can go dld them off sun.com after clicking to agree to an NDA.

      besides it goes against the whole point of the BSD license to sign such agreements.

    • Um, RTFA:

      "An early version of this manual was allegedly made available to Linux developers once a Confidential Disclosure Agreement was signed (Sun's version of a Non-Disclosure Agreement), however no such offer has been made to the OpenBSD team, an offer that if made is likely counter to the project's goals."

      I agree that Theo probably wouldn't want to agree to the terms of the NDA, but we don't know what he'll actually do, because, according to the article, the offer hasn't been made to him (or the OpenBSD project).
    • Mod this down. The commentor doesn't know what she is talking about. No one on the OpenBSD team has even been offered the docs under an NDA or not.
  • Reminds me of Quantel saying they are "open sourced" because they support "Java beans" kinda like Microsoft's current version of open.

    (Quantel was/is saying you can write five lines of code that will run on our multi-100K boxes as long as it does not infringe on our patents.)

    Whoo, hoo! lets hear it for closed and unscrutable systems.

    Don't bug me I am playing Age of Mythology

  • The key of the article (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fruey ( 563914 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:25AM (#5173421) Homepage Journal

    This is very interesting, because it really hits on the blurry line between "open" and controlled (closed), and also between the way that Linux developers signed something to not disclose information on the hardware itself, although their source code to access this hardware is available.

    Sun boasts their UltraSparc III as an "open" architecture, yet seem to recognize that there is insufficient information freely available for the open source community to support it with operating systems. I have been told that the required documentation does exist, however, with a Sun part number of 805-0408-05-P. An early version of this manual was allegedly made available to Linux developers once a Confidential Disclosure Agreement was signed (Sun's version of a Non-Disclosure Agreement), however no such offer has been made to the OpenBSD team, an offer that if made is likely counter to the project's goals.

    Clearly then OpenBSD developers are sticking to their guns, their question is really how an "Open" architecture cannot be disclosed without some contractual agreement.

    I begin to suspect that the other comment (against Linux kernel devs) about this may be key:-

    There's always people who suggest it is possible, but the pain is so high, it's just not worth it. Especially when the Linux kernel's interface with hardware is detailed about as well as the Linux manual pages. Especially when Linux is famous for stuff like: writereg(0x4, 0xff01);

    Now, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I might say that the precise reason that comments are sparse in these sections of CPU code for the Linux kernel is due to some clause in the Sun disclosure agreement.

    In any case

    • The Sun Ultra Sparc III cannot be open if you cannot access it publically, it is rather available under terms and conditions
    • The Linux project clearly had some other motivation to write the kernel code for this architecture, perhaps even encouraged by Sun (think Cobalt Linux?)
    • The OpenBSD project is somehow staking out that they are "purer" for adopting this stance, which is all very noble, but means ultimately that OpenBSD is unlikely to support this architecture (apart from OpenBSD zealots, most of us will just run Linux instead, I guess).

    Still, I'd like to see as much openness from vendors as possible. They have to realise that the people who support closed source business models are going to be driven out by cheap commodity hardware which is now powerful enough to do amazing things (think clusters of cheap hardware on AMD/Intel/Sparc architectures all talking together via some OpenSource kernel and clustering project, think Google). Their days are numbered, sure they'll still have a place, but their creaming off profits from their current installed base will start seeing serious competition from value added service providers with no ties to specific hardware, and that is great for the consumer. Do not forget, it used to be IBM, Sperry (then Unisys) and Burroughs that did all hardware and software support. Now, as an independent consultant, you can get out there and do amazing stuff with commodity hardware and your own tailored solutions pulling from a wealth of great free server software solutions.

    We are already in a phase (as are companies in European telecoms like France Telecom and British Telecom) where holding on to what you have for as long as you can, before competition really breaks you, is the only business plan they seem to have.

    Score one for innovation and open projects, every time.

    • Re:The key of the article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:35AM (#5173443)
      Clearly then OpenBSD developers are sticking to their guns, their question is really how an "Open" architecture cannot be disclosed without some contractual agreement.

      You've misunderstood the word "open". SPARC is open in that anyone can download the specification and implement it - you can set up a rival SPARC-based hardware company, fab your own SPARCs and compete with Sun, if you want to, and they will have no legal means to stop you.

      However, what is not open is Sun's own implementation of that SPARC specification. That's because they spent a lot of their own money on it, creating the best implementation they could. If you want your own SPARC, you will have to implement it on your own.

      Think about it this way: if you want to have your own recording of a Mozart symphony, you can buy one that an orchestra has recorded, or you can perform it and record it yourself. What you can't do is take a pre-recorded copy and try to pass it off as your own - even tho' the score is in the public domain.
      • I saw in the article the emphasis on UltraIII being open. I know SPARC is open, that's not the issue at hand as I understood it

        Sun boasts their UltraSparc III as an "open" architecture

        So what is open, SPARC or UltraSparcIII. I haven't the time to find out. Do you know, sql*kitten?

        • So what is open, SPARC or UltraSparcIII. I haven't the time to find out. Do you know, sql*kitten?

          As far as I know, UltraSPARC-III is the (proprietary) implementation of the (open) SPARC9 specification.
          • OK, so the article is wrong in stating "the Open UltraSparc-III architecture", it is rather the open Sparc9 archictecture upon which the UltraIII is based.

            And, in all that, how much use is the SPARC9 specification for writing kernel code? Not much, I imagine... since indeed memory addressing and cache stuff is what the real issue in coding is.

      • You've misunderstood the word "open". SPARC is open in that anyone can download the specification and implement it - you can set up a rival SPARC-based hardware company, fab your own SPARCs and compete with Sun, if you want to, and they will have no legal means to stop you.

        Hmm. But this specification is insufficiently - um - specific for OS developers?

        It seems that the weasel word here is 'architecture'. That can be sufficiently vague as to make 'open architecture' a pretty empty phrase.

      • SPARC is open in that anyone can download the specification and implement it... what is not open is Sun's own implementation of that SPARC specification.

        If it were a complete specification, then surely the OpenBSD wouldn't need to know anything of the implementation? Which, presumably, means that the specification isn't complete?

        I can quite understand Sun not wanting folks to know the implementation details. But if they're needed to write for it, then it's not an open platform. Whatever they say.

    • Re:The key of the article (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sczimme ( 603413 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:54AM (#5173483)

      "The Sun Ultra Sparc III cannot be open if you cannot access it publically, it is rather available under terms and conditions". (original emphasis)

      GPL = (terms and conditions), too.

      [relax. think about it.]
      • Good point, sczimme. However, GPL is mostly about reproducing and re-using the code, rather than just putting it in the Public Domain.

        All specs are Open, all code is open, if you change it, and re-release it, that's when the GPL really kicks in.

      • true. the gpl places terms and conditions on code useage. the bsd license is "open" in the same sense we are talking about here, in that it places no restrictions on useage. that's why the openbsd devs can't sign NDA's, it may limit their ability to write open code.

        now, for the definition of "free" and bsd vs gpl, that's another flamewar entirely.
      • But you can look at GPL products without agreeing to the terms and conditions. You can't look at the US3 specs. Think about it.

        You don't agree to the GPL by reading it, you agree to it by using the source. You can't see OR use the US3 docs without agreeing to terms.

        The two situations are not the same.
    • (apart from OpenBSD zealots, most of us will just run Linux instead, I guess)

      I've been using Linux for more than 5 years, settling on Debian. I prefer OpenBSD and FreeBSD, but I am interested in Gentoo (and Debian I will always love, if just for apt)...

      I think it's hard to gauge which camp has more zealots (% wise) because it's the zealots that rant and rave all the time. Many people who are actually deploying Linux and BSD's are quitely going about their business.

      I would honestly think, with Linux being the current cool thing to be into, that there'd be a greater percentage of Linux zealots than BSD zealots. Hell, everyone has heard of Linux (and call it Line-icks and no I don't correct people but I hate people doing it to me), but ask most Mac OSX users about BSD and you get "BSD?" or even "oh yeah, Linux is cool".

      : )

      Now, as an independent consultant, you can get out there and do amazing stuff with commodity hardware and your own tailored solutions pulling from a wealth of great free server software solutions.

      Yeah, today I was attending a Wintel/Apple site I set up with a Debian netatalk/samba/squid/dhcpd/apache server. A year later it's still going strong without a problem.

  • Politics (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lockne ( 602949 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:33AM (#5173437)
    Article: "An early version of this manual was allegedly made available to Linux developers once a Confidential Disclosure Agreement was signed (Sun's version of a Non-Disclosure Agreement), however no such offer has been made to the OpenBSD team, an offer that if made is likely counter to the project's goals."

    So what they're essentially saying is that they want Sun to give them the documentation without the OpenBSD developers having to sign an NDA, because doing so wouldn't be in line with the OpenBSD goals?

    Sun is free to refuse. And the OpenBSD folks are free to reread their own goals and start taking them seriously. For example these two:

    - Be as politics-free as possible; solutions should be decided on the basis of technical merit.
    - Do not let serious problems sit unsolved.

    Now go sign that NDA! :-)

    • Re:Politics (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      First off, you forgot the most important goals:
      • Provide the best development platform possible. Provide full source access to developers and users, including the ability to look at CVS tree changes directly. Users can even look at our source tree and changes directly on the web!
      • Integrate good code from any source with acceptable copyright (Berkeley style preferred, GPL acceptable, NDA not). We want to make available source code that anyone can use for ANY PURPOSE, with no restrictions. We strive to make our software robust and secure, and encourage companies to use whichever pieces they want to. There are commercial spin-offs of OpenBSD.

      Signing an NDA will not provide for that because the OpenBSD team cannot point developers to the docs they used to make the chip work. Fewer developers means less eyes on the code. No access to the docs means no freedom of use for you and me.

  • Sun And Documentation... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:36AM (#5173447) Homepage


    Sun, with ANY kind of documentation, is going to be a royal pain in the ass. Here, i'll give you a personal example.

    One day, I picked up a SparcStation 1 at a surplus auction. Cool, I thought, I'll learn SPARC architecture, a bit about disaster recovery with Sun hardware, Solaris, you name it. So, I hacked the hell out of it, and learned everything I could without documentation. When it came time to look at a manual. I called Sun.

    "Hi... I was wondering if you could send me the owners manual for a SparcStation 1."

    "Sorry. Thats handled by SunStore."

    "Whats SunStore?"

    "They handle all our documentation."

    So, I call SunStore, and ask the same question.

    "Hi.. I was wondering if I could order a user's manual for a Sun SparcStation 1. I know the machine is like 10 years old, but do you still have the manuals?"

    "Yes, we do."

    "Great, i'd like to order one, then. Is Visa ok?"

    "Uhh.. Well, we can't sell it to you."

    "What do you mean?"

    "Well, we cant sell you just one."

    "Huh?"

    "You need to order in lots of 500."

    "You mean in order to buy a SparcStation 1 manual, I need to buy 500?!"

    "Yes."

    "Uhhh.... Ooooh-kaaay.. How much is a lot of 500?"

    "$39.95"

    "Oh, okay..I guess thats fine.. I dunno what i'm gonna do with 499 Sparc manuals tho. I guess you can keep them, and just send me one. Thats all I need."

    "39.95 is the unit price, sir. You're looking at a total of.... $19,975."

    "No way!"

    "Yes sir. Will this be on a Visa or Mastercard?"

    *click*
    • I just rang them up and they posted out Sparcstation 2 manuals. They arrived two days later, with a little note saying "Thanks for using Sun kit, hope you have fun. If you want to buy new stuff call us." kind of thing...

    • Re:Sun And Documentation... (Score:5, Informative)

      by LeftHanded ( 160472 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @09:49AM (#5173746) Homepage Journal
      Great story! However, you can get all kinds of user manuals, hardware manuals, software manuals, etc from http://docs.sun.com [sun.com] You can read them on-line, download Adobe Acrobat versions, and purchase the documents as well. It's a lot easier than it used to be... HMM, no Sparc 1 manual, but the Sparc Classic and similar is at http://docs.sun.com/db/doc/801-2176-13 [sun.com]:

    • Re:Sun And Documentation... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Andrew Francis ( 567017 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @09:49AM (#5173748) Homepage
      Sun, with ANY kind of documentation, is going to be a royal pain in the ass. Here, i'll give you a personal example. One day, I picked up a SparcStation 1 at a surplus auction.

      My experience was quite different. I was trying to get some Sun Xterminals (rather old; they were basically Sparcstation 2's without hard drives) booting and serving up displays from a Red Hat machine, instead of the aging Sparcserver we were about to retire.

      We had support contracts with Sun for several machines, but not the Xterminals or the Sparcserver they booted from. I put in a request with Sun (via a web form) anyway. Within a few hours, someone at the local Sun office was on the phone to me. The next morning, I had a single copy of the manuals on my desk, via courier.

      PS - there's a heap of stuff on docs.sun.com [sun.com]

  • UltraSparc III for Dummies!

    There's the answer!

  • Sun may be in the fetal position as a company.. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by gorjusborg ( 603799 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @08:55AM (#5173485) Journal
    Sun seems to be a company with an identity crisis. Are they a hardware company that dabbles in software? Are they a software company who dabbles in hardware?

    Either way, they are looking at a bleak future considering the proliferation of Linux, and the availability of cheap, relatively high performance x686 hardware.

    If Sun is a software company, they are probably not comfortable with the fact that Solaris, recently the 'standard' OS for low-end scientific/technical computing (at least in the semiconductor industry) is being passed over in favor of the cheaper (faster) alternative Linux.

    If Sun is a hardware company, they should be worried. The semiconductor company I work for, which previously used Sun machines exclusively, has found that a dual XEON running Linux outperforms the new SunBlades it owns. The blades cost about 4-5 times more than the XEON systems, and have about half the speed for our applications.

    I am not surprized if Sun is starting to feel that it has to protect itself.
    • Yes. And, (I speculate) that the internal struggle is between the (at least) "certain" hardware past and the (for sure) uncertain java future.

      I think what we are seeing here is a "strategic" stonewalling of the hardware side to try to maintain its "margins" - which are often a consequence of some kind of proprietary software. OpenBSD kind of kills that idea.

      I speculate that internally Sun has advanced a kind of "let's have the best security platform in the industry" motion for its hardware. Release Ultrasparc III specs? That's counter strategic (aka - shoot yourself in the foot) especially if its OpenBSD.

      So you be McNeally: how are you going to explain to stock analysts your great plan for resurrecting your company when you give away your proprietary advantage?

      I'm just a bitter shareholder.

    • This reminds me of sage advice found in a park service
      guide for tourists under the heading of "what to do if
      attacked by a bear [or an 800 lb. gorilla]", where the
      writer(s) advised that one should "go limp, and roll into
      a fatal position".

      Seriously, Sun is quite clearly and seriously a hardware
      company. They write software to sell the hardware that
      runs it. In the process, they do attempt to milk the
      software for every possible dime, but even if it were
      impossible to charge for Solaris, or TeamWare, or SunCluster,
      they would still produce it. Hardware without software is
      not a high margin business. There's no confusion or lack
      of direction involved here.

      Since SunSoft and JavaSoft are independent P &L centers,
      they do have independent motivations and goals, relative
      to SMI, which can give a schizophrenic view to the outside
      observer. But you can rest assured that the board is quite
      fully aware that Sun is a hardware company.
    • To be quite honest, I suspect that with two major sets of redundancies over the last year, this OpenBSD problem has fallen through the cracks as jobs get lost, responsibilities change, etc, etc.

      Frankly I can see why some request about something as irrelevant as OpenBSD (in terms of doing what's needed to keep one's job in the short term) is going to go to the bottom of people's 'to do' list.

      Looking for exciting conspiracy theories about OpenBSD somehow being a threat to Sun is rather futile.

  • Sun should do the right thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Noryungi ( 70322 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @09:01AM (#5173512) Homepage Journal
    The i386-based machines are seriously threatening Sun.

    Linux, OpenBSD and other open-source OSs (NetBSD, FreeBSD) have already proven they can replace Solaris in most cases.

    Admit it, Sun: your best bet for survival against the Microsoft Juggernaut is not just to pay lip service to Open Source. It is to be truly open. Otherwise, platforms such as the UltraSparc will be abandoned in favor of cheaper and more competitive architectures...

    Release these docs, Sun. Prove to the Open Source community, and not just to Linux kernel hackers, that you are serious about supporting alternative Operating Systems.
    • more a troll than insightfull. though a little of both i guess.

      If Intel releases docs for their platform, that's their business. Intel and Sun differ on the one place they've always differed. Big boxes. The E10k machines and such.
      • Sun hardware is distinctive for more than just their E12K class machines. Their machines are built from top to bottom for high performance computing. Whereas Intel boxes still typically remain glorified terminals. A 4-cpu or 8-cpu Sun machine is still of considerable interest.

        Even if your only OS choices for a V880 were Linux or FreeBSD, that V880 would still be something that demands examination.
    • IA64 _may_ threaten Sun...I don't see i386 doing so.
      • IA32 has already taken thousands upon thousands of dollars away from Unix Workstation vendors who are still relying on their own custom CPU cores for their workstations. How many people still use sun workstations for EVERY seat in a company? When I went to work for Silicon Engineering (Now Creative Silicon, a division of Creative Technologies/Labs) everyone but the CEO, VP, HR, and Accountant sat at a Sun workstation; at the time it was 5s, 2s, 1s, 1+s, IPXs, and IPCs. These machines (running SunOS4) were so reliable that people sat at disk servers as their main workstations because it seemed silly to have a SS10 doing nothing but NFS.

        Anyway when I got there we started finding ways to transition to PCs because at the time:

        1. A new 32 bit PC with a higher clock rate than the (at the time) 32 bit Hypersparc (Ultrasparc I was JUST coming out and cost a bundle) chips, and providing excellent performance (think Pentium MMX) with most hardware on board, much as Unix workstations have traditionally had everything on board. I forget what the boards were called, it's a shame, but it was an intel board with mach64 graphics onboard. So we added NICs and I built some linux boxen and some slowlaris-x86 (2.5.1, yecch) systems. It was actually cheaper to build a P55C@233MHz than to buy a used SS5 @ 175MHz. Sure, it was IDE and not SCSI, but with one disk that's generally not any kind of problem. The Mach64 video was superior to the SunGX/CG6 found on the SS5. Ram is cheaper, and just as fast.

          Also keep in mind that even the i386 chips made a significant impact on commercial Unix through SCO. While SCO is definitely in the shithouse now, they used to be a major player. It used to be, if you saw an x86 box running Unix, it was running SCO. There was a time when it was the best x86 Unix, bar none; that time has long since gone away but it did happen. Also, a 286 system running Xenix was QUITE competitive with the 68000-based Unixlike systems of the day (From Sage and others) in both price and performance.

          Now, x86-64 (AMD) and IA64 (intel) are BOTH looking like they're going to absolutely cream everything except possibly the new Alpha processor. The Ultrasparc is definitely on its way out, and Sun's current batch of hardware with it. There's no good reason to stick with a dying architecture, it must be costing them more money than it's really worth to keep developing it, but what do you do with all those fabs? You can't just write 'em off and move on, they have a lot of people attached to them as well.

          Now the situation is never as simple as I make it out to be, some shops are still clinging to Sparc and to having all their binaries work across all their systems, but they are few and far between. 64 bit offerings from AMD and Intel, coupled with motherboards with 64 bit double-pumped PCI, will make the Ultrasparc irrelevant in systems with eight or less processors. At that point it will only make sense to buy "big iron" systems. It is however only a matter of time before someone brings out systems which use ludicrous numbers of sledgehammer or itanium2 processors, and then where will Ultrasparc be? At the very, very far end of the price-performance ladder. AMD should take up the best end of that, I suspect, with Itanium2 close behind (comparatively.) I'm not really sure where Alpha belongs, maybe I should go back and reread that article. But I don't think there's room for Ultrasparc much longer unless they bring out a CPU deserving of the title "next-generation".

    • What 'most cases' would you care to mention? In the cases where Linux is 'good enough', Sun will sell you an LX50. When Linux doesn't scale, when decent support is required, when the app doesn't even run on Linx...

      Don't forget too that IT is more than just an OS. There are support issues, consulting services, account management, reference sites and other things to take care of to keep customers happy.

      But even staying with pure technical issues, what 'most cases' are you referring to?
      • 4-8 cpus.

        Most companies wouldn't know what to do with a 12 cpu or larger machine. OTOH, Linux does quite nicely on such hardware and there are ample applications available.

        Linux does quite well in the server lowend specifically because Sun neglected it. Sun treated Intel Solaris little better than Microsoft treated the MIPS version of NT. Support from vendors for Solaris intel suffered as a result.

        While you may fail to find a top-to-bottom system vendor for Linux, all of the other deployment issues should not be the problem that you make them out to be.

        3rd party vendors will provide support for their own products. Other organizations will exploit the need created by the demand generated by the lower hardware cost of Linux.
    • Hey,

      Admit it, Sun: your best bet for survival against the Microsoft Juggernaut is not just to pay lip service to Open Source. It is to be truly open.

      If I was sun, my concern would be that closed source has worked fine up until now... but there aren't many examples of highly succesful Linux companies.

      Is there any proof that open source works, as a company model?

      Michael
      • Why does Free Software HAVE to work as a company model?

        Free Software has never had to "pay it's own way". People scratch their own itch and Free Software continues to grow. Companies bigger than Sun are doing the scratching these days.

  • Fujitsu SPARC64GP (Score:4, Insightful)

    by southpolesammy ( 150094 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @09:06AM (#5173537) Journal
    If Sun won't cooperate with the UltraSPARC III, then why not engage Fujitsu to develop kernel code for their SPARC64GP processor line? It's at least as good, if not superior, to the UltraSPARC III, and it sends another message to Sun to say, watch out -- you're not the only fish in the pond...
    • Have you even seen a picture of a Fujitsu Primepower [google.com] much less tried to buy one in US?

      They're serious boxen, not desktop. Are their any SPARC64GP desktop boxes?
      • They're serious boxen, not desktop.


        Indeed.


        Are their any SPARC64GP desktop boxes?

        No, to the best of my knowledge.

        (or they're age-old and do not really apply to the Ultra-SPARC III-problem)

        SPARC64GP are either rack-mountable servers (starts at 1U for V100 or 120-like machines) and scales upto 200 CPUs for a system that fills two racks...


        Running OpenBSD on anything but a single blade 1000/2000/ the upcoming jalapeno-workstations or a small server is - IMHO - completely nuts.


        • SPARC64GP are either rack-mountable servers (starts at 1U for V100 or 120-like machines) and scales upto 200 CPUs for a system that fills two racks...

          SPARC64GP starts at the PrimePower 200 line, which is a tower server that can do 1-2 CPU's. Fujitsu does not have a 1U implementation (I'm working with their engineers daily right now, so I have a little up-to-date knowledge about this). And as for the top end, yes, the upcoming PP2500 is a mainframe-class server that does upto 128 CPU's running at 1.035 GHz, and outperforms the SunFire 15K by leaps and bounds.

          Running OpenBSD on anything but a single blade 1000/2000/ the upcoming jalapeno-workstations or a small server is - IMHO - completely nuts.

          Perhaps, but then why bother going after the UltraSPARC III line? At a minimum, you'll be running on either a Blade 2000 or a SunFire 280R. So if platform choice is an issue, why even bother with the UltraSPARC III at all, unless Theo de Raadt has future plans to take OpenBSD into the realm of larger, midrange class servers? Logic will tell you that either it's a ruse to get Sun to cooperate, or he has bigger plans in mind.

        • Re:Fujitsu SPARC64GP (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Tet ( 2721 ) <slashdot AT astradyne DOT co DOT uk> on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @01:16PM (#5175345) Homepage Journal
          Running OpenBSD on anything but a single blade 1000/2000/ the upcoming jalapeno-workstations or a small server is - IMHO - completely nuts.

          Given the lack of SMP support, then yes, OpenBSD doesn't make much sense on larger Sun boxen. However, running OpenBSD on a V100 or V120 makes perfect sense, particularly for firewalls. We currently use Compaq DL320/360s for this, but Intel hardware suck, and Sun hardware is a joy to work with remotely (particularly the Netra T1 and V100/V120 series, which can be remotely power cycled via the serial port). Does anyone know if the V100/V120s are supported by OpenBSD? They're not on the list of approved hardware, but they do have an UltraSPARC IIi, rather than the UltraSPARC III that is causing so many problems. I might have a go at installing it when we get our next batch in...

    • ...why not engage Fujitsu to develop kernel code for their SPARC64GP processor line?

      From what I've read, the Fujitsu implementations are genuine mainframe-class UNIX boxes. Even more so than the Sun Fire/Blade machines. I'm not sure that many people could afford them (not like individuals can afford UltraSPARC III boxes, anyway). However, there does appear to be a secondary market for SPARC64 (Google search [google.com]) with prices that are in reach.
  • There can be only one BSD!

    Sun could benefit from people using their hardware. I'd use an outdated ultraprac if I could keep the system up-to-date. I guess they don't want to lose the support revenue.

  • More pressing issues for Sun (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NDPTAL85 ( 260093 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @10:13AM (#5173905)
    I think Sun has a few more important concerns right now than helping a rather obscure version of BSD run on their proprietary hardware.

    I think they may be trying to regain profitability right now and OpenBSD compatability just isn't going to help in that regard.

    • Re:More pressing issues for Sun (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Or hurt either. If you read the article and the posts, it is hard to see how this could possible affect Sun's business in any way. Thus it doesn't (in any particularly obvious way) seem to make sense. It is certainly poor business and bad PR.

    • Re:More pressing issues for Sun (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Arandir ( 19206 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @03:21PM (#5176236) Homepage Journal
      I think Sun has a few more important concerns right now than helping a rather obscure version of BSD run on their proprietary hardware.

      What I find funny about this whole article is the underlying hypocrisy. I'm not pointing at you necessarily, but I am pointing at a bunch of two faced Linux advocates posting here.

      If this story was about GNU not getting the docs for use with Hurd, there would be a major hue and cry. If it was about Linus and Alan having to sign a proprietary contract before getting Sparc docs, Sun hardware the world over would be burning in bonfires. But it's OpenBSD, so they don't care. Linux people are telling Theo to "suck it up" and sign an NDA. Hey wake up you nimwits! Non-Disclosure Agreements are the very antithesis of Free Software. You cannot be an honest Free Software advocate while arguing that OpenBSD needs to sign an NDA. You cannot say that freedom is for Linux users but not for anyone else. You cannot say that it's wrong to dominate and subjugate Linux users, but that it's okay to shackle OpenBSD users under onerous restrictions.

  • DITCH SUN (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rorre ( 628427 )
    It's really that easy.. most sun people run solaris, and those who really want BSD can choose other hardware. Sun don't care, why should we.
  • Let's look at this from a business standpoint:

    I am a business.

    I want to make money.

    I make money with every machine I sell.

    I want to sell lots of machines.

    I don't want to help someone who could help me sell more machines.

    Where oh where has all the logic gone? Is this a new MBA course they're teaching? Internet Business Thinking - How to make money by not selling anything. ?!?!!?!?

    ---
    Non-Reciprocal Laws of Expectations:
    Negative expectations yield negative results.
    Positive expectations yield negative results.

  • What exactly do they need... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by georgewilliamherbert ( 211790 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2003 @02:48PM (#5176023)
    ...beyond what is found in, for example;

    [warning 5+mb download]
    [sun.com]
    http://www.sun.com/processors/manuals/usIII_um.p df
    ?

    If that's not good enough, fine, what areas need
    more info? What exactly are they looking for?
  • Don't sue them for access to the documentation, that'd get tossed on a preliminary motion.

    Sue them for false advertising and ask for an injunction against using the phrase "Open Architecture" WRT UltraSparc machines. This would probably have to be done on the behalf of someone who had put out good money based on the open architecture PR, and then found them stoewallwed on the question of documentation. The worst case would be that the case goes to court and they are forced to remove the claims to be open. The best case would be that they start supplying the needed documentation and make the suit moot.

    (IANAL, btw)

Slashdot Top Deals

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Close