3 ms·

actually an internal source that I contacted told me that Cisco and others have been doing the same for years, and also that after registration you'll be able t

by Ecio78 13y ago

actually an internal source that I contacted told me that Cisco and others have been doing the same for years, and also that after registration you'll be able to get most of the firmware and software for consumer and servers, but not for storage (or network). But just to be sure I downloaded today the latest stuff for my N54L..

gtirloni 13y ago
Oracle has also started doing this a while ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1320436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1320436). It hardly impacts the customers these big corporations focus on (mostly other big corporations). I won't go into all the arguments pro and con this change but, suffice it to say, companies that have HPUX/AIX/Solaris/etc servers and cannot afford a support contract anymore are probably better served by other offerings (Linux, BSD, etc) running on less expensive hardware. People will probably say "HP server division will die now because of this". While it's likely HP/Oracle/IBM's server divisions are not cash cows anymore, this is unlikely to happen. Just as with mainframe, it's part of IT optimization and using the right tool for the right job. Mainframes aren't gone, just hidden away in very specific areas. These proprietary Unix behemoths will go the same away... and the hidden areas they will be used at can afford the support contracts. Overall, nothing new happening here. We are just going to repeat all the arguments again for why it's such a good/bad idea.
- cones688 13y ago
  > proprietary Unix behemoths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_System_z http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_System_z > just hidden away in very specific areas Like every single Financial Institutions on the globe... Horses for Courses... asking a steeplechaser to do a flat race would be foolish, but each is exceptional for the task they have been bread for.
  - gtirloni 13y ago
    I think you're exemplifying my point. Any company that has enough resources to buy a System z mainframe, can also afford to have a support contract and thus won't be bothered by HP/IBM/Oracle's decision to hide firmware updates behind a pay-wall. Perhaps I should have phrased it "RISC machines" instead of specifying the OS they run. One fault in my argument is that HP sells smaller x86 machines, not only RISC behemoths. So the small customer that bought an HP server a while ago, ran off the warranty period and cannot afford a support contract, is royally screwed. Even here, this go back to my argument: these people are not who HP/IBM/Oracle are focusing on so they couldn't care less.
    - cones688 13y ago
      Totally agree with you, the low margin x86 servers whose focus is SMB or even personal (in the case of N40L) are the ones who are most affected by. Even most of the Proliant range comes with 3yrs service/support/warranty so its only really the microservers which are really affected.
    - Aloha 13y ago
      System Z is just about the polar opposite of RISC - but point taken.
lsc 13y ago
Cisco has been doing this for years, yes... but cisco is very dominant in the network hardware space. HP is not nearly as dominant in the server space, and it's not just market share HP server kit and Dell server kit is interchangeable in ways that cisco networking kit and juniper networking kit is not.

by Ecio78 13y ago

gtirloni 13y ago

Oracle has also started doing this a while ago (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1320436 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1320436). It hardly impacts the customers these big corporations focus on (mostly other big corporations). I won't go into all the arguments pro and con this change but, suffice it to say, companies that have HPUX/AIX/Solaris/etc servers and cannot afford a support contract anymore are probably better served by other offerings (Linux, BSD, etc) running on less expensive hardware. People will probably say "HP server division will die now because of this". While it's likely HP/Oracle/IBM's server divisions are not cash cows anymore, this is unlikely to happen. Just as with mainframe, it's part of IT optimization and using the right tool for the right job. Mainframes aren't gone, just hidden away in very specific areas. These proprietary Unix behemoths will go the same away... and the hidden areas they will be used at can afford the support contracts. Overall, nothing new happening here. We are just going to repeat all the arguments again for why it's such a good/bad idea.

cones688 13y ago
> proprietary Unix behemoths http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_System_z http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_on_System_z > just hidden away in very specific areas Like every single Financial Institutions on the globe... Horses for Courses... asking a steeplechaser to do a flat race would be foolish, but each is exceptional for the task they have been bread for.
- gtirloni 13y ago
  I think you're exemplifying my point. Any company that has enough resources to buy a System z mainframe, can also afford to have a support contract and thus won't be bothered by HP/IBM/Oracle's decision to hide firmware updates behind a pay-wall. Perhaps I should have phrased it "RISC machines" instead of specifying the OS they run. One fault in my argument is that HP sells smaller x86 machines, not only RISC behemoths. So the small customer that bought an HP server a while ago, ran off the warranty period and cannot afford a support contract, is royally screwed. Even here, this go back to my argument: these people are not who HP/IBM/Oracle are focusing on so they couldn't care less.
  - cones688 13y ago
    Totally agree with you, the low margin x86 servers whose focus is SMB or even personal (in the case of N40L) are the ones who are most affected by. Even most of the Proliant range comes with 3yrs service/support/warranty so its only really the microservers which are really affected.
  - Aloha 13y ago
    System Z is just about the polar opposite of RISC - but point taken.

lsc 13y ago

Cisco has been doing this for years, yes... but cisco is very dominant in the network hardware space. HP is not nearly as dominant in the server space, and it's not just market share HP server kit and Dell server kit is interchangeable in ways that cisco networking kit and juniper networking kit is not.