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

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <3b7faa0c-9fb7-44ea-9538-3deb62080fbc at k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, Doug Phillips <dphill46 at netscape.net> writes:
>On Aug 19, 6:02=A0pm, John Wallace <johnwalla... at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Aug 19, 11:35=A0pm, Rich Jordan <jor... at ccs4vms.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Aug 19, 1:08=A0pm, Neil Rieck <n.ri... at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Aug 19, 11:46=A0am, Rich Jordan <jor... at ccs4vms.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Aug 19, 7:57=A0am, Neil Rieck <n.ri... at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > BTW, Solaris has recently gone down this route as well. I wonde=
>r 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 a=
>re
>> > > > > grumbling because Solaris used to be free but now the support fee=
>s
>> > > > > will come out of their own local budgets. What is really odd is w=
>hy
>> > > > > people working for a large corporation would ever expect another =
>large
>> > > > > corporation to continue doing something for free. We all knew tha=
>t 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 t=
>hey
>> > > > > 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 sup=
>port
>> > > > > with each new machine but then require a support contract after t=
>hat.
>>
>> > > > > On a related note, I wonder if recent actions taken by Oracle (ow=
>ners
>> > > > > of SUN/Solaris) and HP will stimulate the next big wave of open-s=
>ource
>> > > > > 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. =A0The hobbyist program really does=
>n't
>> > > > figure into this either since the license is restricted to non-
>> > > > commercial use (I believe the free Solaris and IBM software were le=
>ss,
>> > > > 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. =A0A couple of=
> our
>> > > > customers still do, but mostly they are hardware support only, runn=
>ing
>> > > > the most recent VMS version they had when they let software support
>> > > > lapse. =A0Especially now, there is NO way in hell they could afford=
> to
>> > > > re-up support just in case HP ever releases an important ECO for th=
>eir
>> > > > VMS version. =A0Hobbyist 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 rec=
>ent
>> > > > 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 'pressur=
>e'
>> > > > to move off of VMS, especially for the much despised and ignored sm=
>all
>> > > > customers still hanging on to it. =A0Not an immediate drop dead iss=
>ue,
>> > > > (unless some really nasty glaring exploitable issue is found), just
>> > > > one more thing that HP is throwing at customers to make VMS less
>> > > > desirable. =A0It is already damned hard to sell now and HP just mad=
>e 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. =A0Call 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. =A0I'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. =A0Especially 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). =A0None 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. =A0And so they take that
>> > additional step to conforming to industry mediocre norms... and less
>> > like the storied HP (and Digital) of old. =A0(yeah that sounds like ros=
>e
>> > 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.
>
>
>The legal and ethical way would be for HP to spilt the patches into
>two data bases:
>
>a) Updates - patches for new features and new hardware support:
>require a support agreement.
>
>b) Fixes - patches to correct non-specification conformance and
>security problems: publicly available.
>
>As I commented over in ITRC,
>
>
>"...given two competing software support models to choose from:
>
>1) The model used by the most successful software company to ever
>exist and those successfully competing with that company.
>
>2) The model used by organizations who have failed to compete with
>those following model #1.
>
>HP chooses the model proven by history to be unsuccessful."
>
>Dumb. Really dumb.

HP -- Hopeless and Pathetic. ;)

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

All your spirit rack abuses, come to haunt you back by day.
All your Byzantine excuses, given time, given you away.