[Info-vax] : Welcome to lockdown - HP limiting access to patches

[John Wallace]

On Aug 19, 11:35 pm, Rich Jordan <jor... at ccs4vms.com> wrote:
> On Aug 19, 1:08 pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri... at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Aug 19, 11:46 am, Rich Jordan <jor... at ccs4vms.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Aug 19, 7:57 am, Neil Rieck <n.ri... at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonder if that
> > > > > is where HP got this idea from.
>
> > > > > Simon.
>
> > > > It is funny you mentioned this because my employer owns hundreds of
> > > > Solaris boxes which need patches and/or upgrades. Many managers are
> > > > grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fees
> > > > will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is why
> > > > people working for a large corporation would ever expect another large
> > > > corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew that SUN
> > > > offered free software only to keep their hardware business alive (just
> > > > as IBM has a line of free software for the same reason although they
> > > > also have a line of not-free software) but free can only take you so
> > > > far. Perhaps SUN should have given away free 12-month Solaris support
> > > > with each new machine but then require a support contract after that.
>
> > > > On a related note, I wonder if recent actions taken by Oracle (owners
> > > > of SUN/Solaris) and HP will stimulate the next big wave of open-source
> > > > operating system software. Linux anyone?
>
> > > > Neil Rieck
> > > > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
> > > You'd have a totally valid point if VMS itself was free, but it isn't;
> > > in fact its one of the most expensive OS's out there, especially if
> > > you start tacking on nice features like more user licenses or
> > > clustering/rms journaling, etc.  The hobbyist program really doesn't
> > > figure into this either since the license is restricted to non-
> > > commercial use (I believe the free Solaris and IBM software were less,
> > > or even unrestricted), and HP certainly doesn't make it easy to get
> > > the media for current versions.
>
> > > This is HP trying to squeeze blood from a turnip... those who can
> > > afford software service contracts already have them.  A couple of our
> > > customers still do, but mostly they are hardware support only, running
> > > the most recent VMS version they had when they let software support
> > > lapse.  Especially now, there is NO way in hell they could afford to
> > > re-up support just in case HP ever releases an important ECO for their
> > > VMS version.  Hobbyist users (I saw no mention of the program in the
> > > FAQ) are screwed for any network-facing usage (firewall or not) if
> > > they can't be sure that there aren't major problems with their base
> > > unpatched releases.
>
> > > And now with V8.4 coming out with numerous issues that make it feel a
> > > bit more like a .0 release than it should have been, plus a few recent
> > > patches also coming out with flaws and problems... an "interesting"
> > > time to make such a change.
>
> > > The net result of this decision, I think, will be one more 'pressure'
> > > to move off of VMS, especially for the much despised and ignored small
> > > customers still hanging on to it.  Not an immediate drop dead issue,
> > > (unless some really nasty glaring exploitable issue is found), just
> > > one more thing that HP is throwing at customers to make VMS less
> > > desirable.  It is already damned hard to sell now and HP just made it
> > > harder.
>
> > > I sent my message about this to the interim CEO.
>
> > You are correct about that. OpenVMS is so expensive that HP should
> > provide perpetual no-charge support. Since they (HP) apparently feel
> > no sense of guilt (see my previous posts on uber-capitalism) then I
> > guess this decision is more like "hey, let's copy Oracle". The only
> > problem with the Oracle decision is that they are so rich that they
> > can afford to walk away from Solaris if customers aren't prepared to
> > support it. Is HP prepared to do the same thing with OpenVMS? (just
> > food for thought)
>
> > Neil Rieck
> > Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
>
> I'm not implying they should provide perpetual support, though
> something better than 90 days (I think thats still current) given the
> premium pricing would certainly be reasonoable.  Call in, handholding,
> engineering access, specific problems, programming and configuration
> questions, are completely understandable as being a pay-for benefit.
> Same with software version upgrades; I don't expect to get v8.4 for
> free if I stopped paying for upgrades last year.  I'd go so far as
> saying ECOs whose sole purpose is to support newer/different hardware
> could be reserved without causing any real grief here or for our
> customers.
>
> But the ECOs that fix bugs, problems, make systems work the way they
> are supposed to, and especially correct security issues... HP pulling
> those is an extremely hostile action.  Especially to the smaller
> customers (like ours) who may only upgrade when they actually upgrade
> their box (or make an architecture jump; our last VAX customer is
> probably moving to Alpha soon, and we've had three sites do the Alpha
> to Itanium).  None of them paid software support on their current
> boxes prior to purchasing the new one (proper fees were paid on the
> new architecture...) yet they could still maintain their systems in a
> secure and workable state, with reasonable reassurance that any
> significant problems could be dealt with.
>
> That assurance has just been revoked by HP.  And so they take that
> additional step to conforming to industry mediocre norms... and less
> like the storied HP (and Digital) of old.  (yeah that sounds like rose
> colored lenses looking back, but support, as well as concern for their
> products, and the perception of those products, really was better in
> many ways...)
>
> Still need to put on my shareholder hat and write to the board...
>
> Of course I have no doubt they'd trip all over themselves helping us
> sell proliants with win2008, exchange, and sql server into any and all
> of those small customer sites.

Is there much wrong with Proliants that couldn't be fixed by the
installation of a decent OS and the blanking out of the HP logo? After
all, now that Xeon and IA64 are both based around similar Quickpath
infrastructure, inspired by AMD's Hypertransport (which in turn was
inspired by... oh I forget, something called Alpha?) how much
distinction can there be at the hardware level, and how long can HP
afford to run two duplicate hardware engineering+support teams when
they seem to think they need insane penny-pinching like this patch
download thing?

Back to patches: what's the legal situation here? Under what licence
are the patches made available, is that licence enforceable, what
stops someone other than HP redistributing the patches? Software used
to be warranted to conform to the SPD at a minimum; is that still the
case? If so, and if patches are need to provide fixes to ensure that
conformance to SPD happens, how can providing "conformance to SPD" be
a chargeable service? IANAL etc.