Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 19th Jun 2007 10:29 UTC, submitted by binarycrusader
Oracle and SUN Simon Phipps of Sun has responded to the recent criticism of Sun's openness, pointing out that even releasing information that they may already have costs a lot of money. "Jonathan asked me to look into this, to ensure we're pursuing an open path across all of Sun, not simply the software group. We take all input seriously, and we can't solve all problems for all parties, but we're committed to doing our best to faithfully engage with all the communities we serve, in the same spirit as the existing Open Source Ombudsman Scheme. With the support of my team and others in the community I'll try to build a new scheme that is fair and transparent."
Thread beginning with comment 248922
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
delewis
Member since:
2007-03-09

No, its the same situation (most likely). Good ol' citizen Theo didn't explain to you *why* OpenSolaris doesn't have the sources necessary for the v215/v245. The problem is the mpt(7D) SCSI controller is still closed and part of the "ON-closed-bins". This is a tarball that contains binaries of various drivers and executables that haven't been opened. Now because mpt(7D) hasn't been opened yet, does not mean OpenSolaris won't *run* on a v215 or v245, even if you don't want to use the currently closed mpt(7D) driver. You *could* netboot it (Solaris is great for such things) of throw a different controller in there, say a fibre HBA and hook it up to some external storage.

Now why Sun hasn't opened mpt(7D) is a bit of a mystery. mpt(7D) is used for various LSI SAS disk controllers. Should LSI not want the code released, Sun would be bound be legally bound by that decision until a suitable "open" replacement for mpt(7D) comes around.

No, Theo didn't tell you this, because in this case generalization was better for him in this situation. I hope you see what he's done.

Edited 2007-06-19 12:45

Reply Parent Score: 5

delewis Member since:
2007-03-09

So you're saying that Sun should risk litigation to open up the mpt(7D) code that might possibly limit their ability or interest in opening up farther aspects of their software and hardware?

I hope not all of Theo's followers are as short-sighted as you are.

Edited 2007-06-19 13:54

Reply Parent Score: 5

tsedlmeyer Member since:
2005-07-07

According to his own words webmink thinks I/O chip manufacturers have a "moral duty" to provide complete documentation.

"Unlike those companies which sell I/O chips for a living, and thus have a moral duty to provide complete, externally presentable documentation for their chips,"

If it is a case of LSI blocking release of the documentation, then I would encourage Sun in the future to consider non availability of "complete, externally presentable documentation" as a dis qualifier when choosing either 3rd party components or licensing technology for Sun produced components.

Reply Parent Score: 3

delewis Member since:
2007-03-09

Sorry, but I'm not sure I understand how this situation is different from any other peecee vendor that chooses to use an LSI SAS disk controller. I'm sure IBM, Dell, and HP, and so fourth all sell systems that at the very least have LSI products. You aren't bugging them about it, and most importantly (and ironically), neither is Theo, why?

You should be going to the root of the problem, and that's simply not Sun.

Reply Parent Score: 5