[Info-vax] OT(?): Linux: developed by corporates. *NOT* developed by unpaid volunteers.

[johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk]

On Saturday, 28 March 2015 20:12:33 UTC, JF Mezei  wrote:
> On 15-03-28 15:46, johnwallace4 at yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> 
> > One well known name not showing on that list: HP. There is a category
> > for "unknown", at 3%.
> 
> This in interesting in light of the fact that HP's enterprise strategy
> is to move away from HP-UX to Linux/Windows.
> 
> On the other hand perhaps not surprising.  HP's strategy may be to port
> its enterprise "portfolio" of technologies to proprietary products on
> Linux, so HP can monetize selling Linux with plenty of HP-only bells and
> whistles.
> 
> This would result in HP making minimal  open-source contribitions to
> standard Linux, but providing many middleware/layered products that run
> on Linux.
> 
> As well, consider that since HP laid off most of its OS engineering
> staff, it has less ability to contribute.  As well, its R&D arm, which
> as severely cut under Hurd would have a hard time justifying budgets for
> Linux cvontributions which have 0 chance (by design) of contributing to
> HP's revenus.
> 
> The money folks like IBM spend to contribute to Linux have intangible
> benefits, mostly good PR, as well as providing some steering of Linux to
> better serve IBM's customers. But for this to count, you need a CEO with
> vision that is not bean-counter driver with short term profit requirements.

JF wrote
"HP making minimal open-source contribitions to standard Linux, but
providing many middleware/layered products that run on Linux."

You might possibly think that. I couldn't possibly comment [1]. 

What I will say is that if Linux doesn't run (well) on Proliant, that
would presumably be a rather shortsighted move on HP's part. Unless
their goal is to shift all the server hardware sales from Proliant to
Foxconn/Cloudline. 

[1] Not a comment, a question: What HP-unique middleware/LPs is there
(for x86-64) these days anyway? Some HP-UX derived stuff, maybe?