Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!unh.cs.cmu.edu!agn From: agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu (Andreas Nowatzyk) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Re: Sun's Competitive Strategy (Was: Re: P1754 Message-ID: <11182@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Date: 24 Nov 90 03:29:58 GMT References: <1990Nov16.225515.494@zoo.toronto.edu> <6749@uceng.UC.EDU> <1990Nov21.174938.7861@zoo.toronto.edu> <6769@uceng.UC.EDU> <1990Nov23.181851.26588@zoo.toronto.edu> Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI Lines: 30 In article <1990Nov23.181851.26588@zoo.toronto.edu> (Henry Spencer) writes: > So why haven't they changed Sun's policies regarding its older systems? > As I've asked (rhetorically) before: what possible end can be served by > the continuing secrecy regarding the insides of the Sun 2? One would > expect secrecy about new systems but a more relaxed attitude about old > ones. From Sun, if anything we are getting the reverse! This is why > I suggest devious scheming or sheer irrationality as an explanation. This is plain BS. The Arcons project here at CMU had SUN's schematics for the SUN-2 boards. This was necessary to modify the boards for real-time OS experiments. You just have to talk to the right people. This is much less an issue of secrecy rather an issue of documentation cost. It takes time and money to document things to the point that some outsider can make use of it. Since there aren't too many customers that are interested in this, SUN has better things to do than to produce document kits for obsolete hardware (just like most other companies). On Sbus and Sparc: >They won't junk it; they will pull an Intel, announcing a new standard that >is a superset of the old one, rendering all the competitors' machines out >of date without requiring a total software rewrite. Sparc International's reference machine is not build by SUN... -- -- Andreas Nowatzyk (DC5ZV) Carnegie-Mellon University agn@unh.cs.cmu.edu Computer Science Department (412) 268-3617