Slashdot Mirror
HP+Compaq Deal Could be Great for Linux
elliotj writes "This Business Week editorial is arguing that the HP purchase of Compaq could mean big things for Linux as the resulting monolith is forced to rationalize their multitude of operating systems. The most sensible solution may well be for them to abandon HPUX, Tru64 et al and embrace Linux as the one-and-only *nix OS. Interesting thing about the article is that it comes from Business Week...not exactly a traditional penguin cheerleader." Ah, but soon, thanks to Yet Another Corporate Merger, we'll have another defunt company icon in the topics field.
I think most of you agree that if HPaq did decide to embrace Linux it would be pretty cool. But there are quite a few potential drawbacks of this. First of all it would mean the loss of quite a few jobs in Compaq and HP. Both companies have a pretty large developement staff which would not be entirely needed. Some would need to remain behind in order to produce a flavor of linux tailored to their systems. Imagine that if all of a sudden a wave of 60 year old Unix guru's were put out onto the street...
A rabbit in the hand is worth 4 in the cage
The problem is that HP will have to lay off about 16,000 more people. I wonder how many of these will be part of the Linux project.
What are the odds that HP will do something idiotic and get rid of Linux instead of pulling it into its heart and soul?
- - -
Radio Free Nation
an alternate news site using Slash Code
"If You have a Story, We have a Soap Box"br
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
And IBM is already committed to Linux. So HP either chooses Linux to gain an equal footing or foolishly pursues it's own massive matrix of proprietary hardware/os offerings. Like the article says: "If HP continues to place equal emphasis on the various operating systems, it will likely survive. But HP could have difficulty growing in the high-end server market and in services. Fiorina's job could become one of managing decline rather than leading growth."
Services will not pull them out of this one and training a new/larger field service group in a plethora of new technologies will not be cheap. My money says they will not succeed. Only a simplification and rationalization of offerings will. Linux looks like an excellent choice as it is beginning to make a buzz in boardrooms.
I think that this merger will obviously cause some downsizing of OSes but this will have bad side effects. One, it could hurt corperate culture and cause alot of internal stability problems. No good programmer is going to want to give up his or her job and baby (their flavor of UNIX). It will cause them to leave or cause competing UNIXes within HP (everyone remember at Apple - Mac people had buttons "we are the future" and the Apple people had "we are the cash"). This is obviously a great risk that came with aquiring Compaq.
:-)
Second, the decentralized nature of Linux posses a problem for big wigs in the mega companies today. Beside HP, who just made their "distro," who is behind Linux besides all of the individuals? Where is their ticker symbol? I do realize that HP made HPUX, but was its success really that great? I'm all for Linux, but are most people on the board of directors going to prefer an OS which they can fallback on (like Microsoft), or one which has a rebellious "nature" and following.
Granted, Linux is nice and all, and it will get a boost from this merger, but I'm not sure that it will quite get the boost that this article is talking about. I just can't think of any more points right now.
And you STILL don't have an HP icon. Actually, the official strategy from HP, at least before all of this merger business, is the "Three OS Strategy" Windows, HP-UX, Linux. HP-UX at some point is going to be binary compatible with Linux and be the HP Big Iron version of "Linux"
You Like Science?
You Like bottomquark.
"Yet another corporate merger." I'm not insuating that remark was made in this way -- but so many people say that phrase with a sense of bitterness, and I just don't get it. It's the nature of the markets. Companies merge, so what?
:-)
Often people get layed off -- but if the companies don't merge, trust me, MORE people could get layed off (clearly in this case.. Compaq's been in BIG trouble for some time)
Call me a Capitalist Pig, but this is the way it goes, and it's not so horrible. I don't like Compaq, I don't like HP much... but I'm not cursing them because they're merging -- it's best for the market, and could turn out pretty good.
It's funny that (especially those from the 60's) despise corporations, and somehow fail to realize corporations provide us with jobs, health coverage, a place in which to feel pride, et cetera. Companies aren't evil.
If you want something to bitch about, bitch about the 50% divorce rates. Now THERE are some "comporate mergers / layoffs" in itself.
My ranting is done.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Dont get me wrong I have been using Linux for about 8 Years now and I like working with. But I also like working with Unix systems (Solaris, *BSD, etc). And I found that every OS has its atvantages and Disatvantages. And I dont think Hpaq will do a big switch to all Linux any time soon. Although it would be great if they use Linux for the systems that Linux is good, for Low-Mid size servers (1-2 Processors) where the server is set up and let it do its job. But I found the Triditional Unixes and even the old VMS has its place as well in today market and I dont see them dieing out anytime soon (Mabey VMS). Those Evil Closed sourse Unix Systems (Some with over 20 years of development on them) are better tuned to do their jobs on their own systems. Linux by contrasted is developed to work more like a leathermen tool of the OS. (Windows is like a cheap pockit knife). Although they are greate for most taskes there are time that you need to get a real screwdriver or pliers to get the job done. I found the Unix systems Open or Closed source work very well. And True64 and HPUX still have their place. They do the serving on the higher scailable systems that Linux dosent handle as well plus I found that the latest versions of the UNIX's are more stable then Linux is. Mostly because they are designed around a fixed archecture, While linux and windows tries to run on it all.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
And supposedly IBM will do this as well, along with making AIX "100% Linux compatible". Trouble is, I've been hearing this for years - and AIX still ships without a C compiler and behaves erratically when you try to install GCC, Perl, etc from anything other than pre-compiled binaries. And where is SMIT for Linux? I'm having a hard time finding evidence of IBM's billion dollar commitment.
It would be a great move for all these companies to get behind Linux - maybe Sun will go the same way if it finally happens. It would be awfully nice to use the same tools to admin RS/6000s as you do to HP or Sun servers, not to mention your Intel boxes at home. Trouble is, all we've seen yet is lip service paid to Linux.
So HP, if you're listening, hopefully you won't drag your feet like IBM has. You're not that far behind, because so far IBM has done very little.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
of defeat for these two large proprietary-Unix vendors. Not that I think they'll ever do this, but it sounds like a good idea to me. A very good idea.
For decades, proprietary-Unix vendors sold awkward, mutually incompatible versions of the OS on the premise that this somehow "differentiated" their products and "locked-in" their customers. All this really accomplished was waste lots of money on software development and maintenance - money that could have been better spent on basic hardware R&D and product development. Maybe they'll learn and embrace the commodity open-source OS concept, but I'm not holding my breath.
HP and Compaq are in for a rough ride (and the stock market has figured this out - HP's down about 20%). Since they've given up designing their own processor architectures, they're destined to become garden variety Intel box-makers. And Dell's got them beat at this. Moving to Linux might help.
Hahahaha. Why would HP abandon HP/UX?
Certainly I can understand why Compaq's Unix (aka Tru64, Ultrix, OSF1, DigitalUnix) would be KILLED. After all, Digital never let it grow to be a competitor with VMS. The market was never really developed.
HP/UX isn't the most popular Unix, but it is popular and mature and has it's following.
So there is no need to "rectify" HP/UX with Compaq's UNIX, other than to kill Compaq's efforts.
Killing HP/UX would just help Linux succeed, and HP has no financial reason to be interested in that.
After all, HP doesn't want to get out of the lucrative HP/UX hardware business, and supporting Linux will just convince people to go with lower-cost hardware.
Business Week should only publish stuff written by people with a clue.
HP/C can't, even if they wanted to. Period. VMS and others (think tru64, and maybe hpux) have a government contract which requires them to support the systems for something like 10 years or more. Plus, many banks use VMS, and rely on Alphas. (No, geeks aren't the only ones who like them.) The problem hp-compaq-dec is going to have is that they are by contract forced to support these operating systems, whether they want to or not.
If you truly believe this, then you know little of Linux, and the hacker culture.
Linux (the kernel) exists because Linus thought it would be cool to write it. Other people also thought it was cool, and they decided to help out.
The first Linux distributions were originally created because hackers wanted them. Not because they hated M$, but because they wanted something good to work on, tinker with, and do development in.
Fast forward to today, and we have a lot of people, even suits, who are starting to recognize the benefits of Open Source / Free Software.
Hah, like we're all that together now! Remember, cooperation is good and competition is good. We need both.
However, companies are amoral. Publically traded companies are the most amoral of all. Corporations have to make short term decisions that maximize profits for their shareholders or they can be sued. If it means buying politicians, offensively using patents, indefinetly extending copyrights, balkanizing scientific disciplines with walls of IP, or polluting the environment as much as legally possible then so be it.
Public relations departments aside, corporations don't have consciences. So yes, it's true. They can employ people and fill needs but it is not pristine good with no downside whatsover. The positive things they do are not an excuse to turn a blind eye to the horrible things they often do. Their actions bear watching and sometimes correcting. And no, "the market" does not automagically bring right and light to the world. The market IS a system with some homeostasis but these mechanisms are themselves amoral with no regard for the welfare of either corporations or individuals.
HP-UX is far to powerful for linux to take its place just yet. HP makes a ton of cash from big telcos and banking companies selling HP-UX, HP 9000 hardware, Omniback, etc. It may be a niche market, but it is a highly profitable one. It's the lousy printers and PC junk that is dragging HP down.
As much as I love linux it is not yet able to replace HP-UX in its niche, which is by far the best commercial implementaion of unix ever.
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
The EU has already said they will block the merger. Yes, they have a say in it, they stopped the GE-Semmins? merger. Then I'm not sure the U.S. will allow it. Sure IBM will still be bigger, but it really will throw the market out of kilter for Dell, Gateway, and rest. Then the customer bases of the companies aren't excited about this merger. As to Linux both companies have talked more than they have actually done.
one of the big questions in C'paqs buying Digital was what to do with DECUnix?
this problem caused major problems for the Paq management team, as did the question of what to do with the Alpha chip...i (and numerous others) predicted at the time that Paq would try to bump off the Alpha chip because of their, uh, close relationship the Redmond Krewe, they did try, the G told them, "No, noo, can't do that"
also Paq had a major (by corporate standards) revolt in the Alpha devel teams....lost mucho development talent because of the merger...
HP will face similar probs...
the high margin folk at HP only know of HPUX, and the "lure" of Linux will probably not be very great for them and their developers, Linux SMP/scalability is at least 2 years behind HPUX....
Paq has been one of M$' dependable Ben Dovers since the day, they know from nothing but WinOS and lousy customer support...any attempt to shove Linux down their throats will result in massive problems with the "True Believers" on the Compaq devel teams...
Linux WILL get a boost from this, SURE, but H'Paq will have to decide to row the boat with Blue or with M$
...for Carly it won't be an easy decision, as picking the wrong partner will prob ensure the acquisition or demise of America's Most Admired Engineering company...
OT: i still have my HP 35/45/55/67/97/41c/x/v calculators and let's not forget my fave, the 16C,they all still work like new, though a few of them be lookin real uglee and they been around the world...Good Luck, HP!
Ten quid, she's so easy to blind. And not a word is spoken...
And how is that different from today? The number of non-geek people I know that have even HEARD of Linux, let alone use it, is ZERO.
Linux can be a great, powerful tool. But don't delude yourself into thinking that "it was a geek toy, and now it's for everyone." It is still very much a geek toy, a geek thing to do.
I want very much to have an alternative to Windows to recommend to my parents, girlfriend, non-tech coworkers, etc. But look - I'm pretty geeky, and Linux still confuses the hell out of me.
That is part ignorance on my part, and part bad UI on the part of Linux. Regardless, the progress being made with Gnome and KDE is the BEGINNING of what needs to be done to bring Linux up to the user friendliness level of Macintosh, and to a lesser extent, Windows.
Building a good GUI is great! But the ENTIRE OS needs consistency in look and feel, consistency in documentation.
Example: I've been using Linux for a few weeks now. I still can't figure out how to use Gnome to install software via .rpm (need to be root). Is that something I can remedy by reading man pages or usenet?
Most likely yes. However, the point is, you shouldn't have to read the documentation, and that thinking needs to be applied to the whole "OS" (kernel + associated programs and utilities)
How about having balls and develop and MARKET a true 64 bits processor, I.e. the alpha!?
Compaq had all the ammos to fight intel and microsoft... but they didn't have the balls.
I guess HP won't do it neither since they're in bed with Intel.
The only thing that pisses me off is to see money winning again over technology, Intel's release in a year from now will be what alpha would have been a YEAR ago if it would have kept the same pace than pre-compaq. Intel really doesn't deserve ANY credits for "innovation". Maybe in 4 years from now they'll "innovate" enough to catch up with the theorical bar that alpha would have been at in the same timeframe, then again, not without stealing some alpha technology. (I mean.. licensing probably for peanuts, as we know compaq).
I remember when they had a speech with Digital Domain (special effects house) people at the Alpha Workstation launch party 2 years ago, they were claiming all the speed performance this and that, BUT NEVER would compare it to an Intel workstation (everybody knew it was HEAPLOAD faster with native apps and relatively equal speed with FX32 recompiling). They NEVER DARED touching intel's marketshare.
Anyways, no more compaq. That name brought shame and destruction to another "amiga" platform, a platform that was too much in advance for it's time, and will be copied and ripped to death for some years to come.
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
Who, after all, have been reduced to similar standards, recently ...
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
What? AFAIK, I can sell all the Linux licenses I want. (You'd be a fool to buy my 'licenses', but that doesn't stop me from selling them)
About every cab and bus -- as well as a large number of billboards -- in the greater Boston area has a Peace/Love/Linux ad. And that's not even counting the infamous sidewalk graffiti.
Actually, it would seem it's the other way around.
I was just browsing through a new HP-UX 11i guide, looking at info about CIFS/9000 which is based in large part on Samba. Since it's based on open-source software CIFS/9000 is free to download, but note that it only runs on HP-UX 11.x.
And that seems to be a good system for them: Develop tools based off the work of open-source projects (so the ground work is already done for you), but tailor them to only run on HP-UX. That way re-releasing the new tools for free doesn't hurt you, because the only way for someone to use them is if they are a paying HP-UX customer.
They've got the best of both worlds. The grunt work and benifits of open-source developers, AND they get to keep charging huge ammounts of money for the OS.
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Sun, Compaq, IBM, and all the rest in one article or another said for them Linux is just a tool to get people off Windows and over to some from of Unix. Then once they have customers moved to Linux they will then start to convince them now they need to move up a their commericial Unix with enterprise features and real support. So Linux is going to move people off Windows, but then same user will be moved over to Solaris, AIX, HP/UX, Tru64.
If antagonism of microsoft was the only goal of the linux community then macintoshes would have done the job. Well until Gates got his hands in it anyway.
Ahh those silly mac zealots. Of course Gates' hand was in it all along. Microsoft was the first software company to support the Mac, and it was the birthplace of Excel and Office.
"(Man) tries to live his own life as if he were telling a story. But you have to choose: live or tell." --Sartre
Now don't get me wrong, I love Linux, Open Source and the like as much as the next guy, however if I had money in HP or Compaq I'd sure hope they'd ditch some of these projects. Right now they need to concentrate on what will bring in the most money the fastest. That's PCs with Windows, peripherals and their scientific equipment (which has huge mark-ups). Supporting Linux at this time IMHO is not the best use of their limited resources. They need to have clear goals (one, maybe two things), and strive to meet them. Being big is not enough.
And speaking of big. A lot is being said about HP now being number 2 behind IBM. As much as people might hope that this makes HP a threat, I just don't think so. IBM has remained pretty strong over this past year. It has a many diverse products, most of which are doing fairly well. With the time it takes HP to work out all the details of this merger and get to facing those goals IBM will have been going strong for another 3-6 months. In the mean time it will be able to corner the Linux desktop market (another reason for HP to bail).
And all this is fine with IBM. IBM is happy to support Linux because it's a sound strategy. Linux works like their mainframe OSs (well much more so than Windows does). IBM develops a lot of software to run on their "big iron", but people and companies are moving away from big machines and onto smaller servers and work stations. For this Linux is a sound choice for IBM. They don't have to spend a lot of money to port their OS to a PC architecure, it's more or less been done for them. Any enhancements they might make to help their Apps can be made through Open Source projects. JFS, Java devel, kernel devel have all come out of IBM. Not because they're being nice, but because it helps their database or some other high price App. run better. This is very sound business and has worked very well for them. I'm sure they'll continue to support Linux, as well as produce desktop PCs that compete with HP. However they have a much more sound business model, they have much more money, and when it's all said and done, I don't think they have much to worry about from HP's latest merger.
A coat? In Texas? Are you insane?
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
What happens if you are a customer who was sold a system with one of those "other" operating systems. You'd scream bloody murder if the OS running your systems was going to be trashed in favor of something else.
If that happens you can be sure that Microsoft is going to try and sweep in to pick through the carnage...
I don't think the BizWeek guy is suggesting they drop support for their Unices tommorrow. (BizWeek cheering on Linux??? What is this world coming to?)
They're all Unix flavors, all conforming to POSIX to some degree or another. If your inhouse developers followed the POSIX standard closely, (which they should have, as that gives you the flexibility to switch unix flavors), tranistioning to Linux is an order of magnitude easier than switching to NT/2K. And training an HPUX staff to use Linux is substantially easier than teaching them the MS way. Running to Microsoft would be even more difficult.
Have you taken a look at the AIX toolbox(aka the additive that transforms AIX 4.3.3 to AIX5L)? This includes the official IBM blessed version of rpm as an lpp, and once rpm is installed, you can install GCC rpm's from the GNUPro directory.
Of course, since the IBM patches to gcc havent yet been rolled into the main source tree of GCC, the compilers are available as-is. But still this is a vast improvement from the Bull supplied lpp's that had to be installed in /usr/local/bin. Try it - you'll most probably be pleasantly surprised.
I havent tried building those rpm's from source, but the source is also provided (hurrah for the GPL!)
There is no such thing as luck. Luck is nothing but an absence of bad luck.
Get your facts straight. DEC didn't lose the lawsuit with Intel, it was the other way around: Intel settled on terms favorable to DEC (buying Alpha facilities and the like for much more than DEC could have gotten otherwise). Compaq abandoned the Alpha because, like DEC before them, they could never figure out how successfully market it's technology. I guess the only consolation is that some of that tech lives on in the Athlon.
The new HPaq building a strategy around Linux would be a bold and inspiring move, and might mean that they could salvage something out of this train-wreck of a merger. But it will never happen. The Beast in Redmond wouldn't like it, and a struggling PC OEM simply can't risk making the Beast angry. No, the Beast wants HPaq to generate chaos and confusion around Tru64, HP-UX, Linux and the rest and what the Beast wants, the Beast gets.
Just to clarify, I certainly know how to do it on the command line. My point is that if the GUI tool doesn't work (it seems not to), then there is no way for the clueless newbie to install software.
HP ever since has been shouting at the top of its voice that there will be complete binary compatibility between PA-RISC and IA-64 using technology such as Aries. They have to in order to retain any customers. Binary compatibility is simply non-negotiable.
Thus HP gave away its two crown jewels, processor architecture and compiler technology, to Intel for precisely one reason--binary compatibility with what was perceived to be the potential industry-standard processor of the future. It would be to say the least rather strange for HP to walk away from this to embrace either Linux or Tru64. To do this would be to admit that HP gave away its crown jewels to Intel for nothing. (Which is actually the case since anyone from IBM to Dell etc. will be allowed to be resellers for IA-64.)
My question for those who would have HP abandon HU-UX--what's left? What exactly would HP have left as crown jewels that would distinguish its Unix offerings from the competition?
I've said this before, it was the decision to not fab the next generation of PA-RISC that decided everything for HP and nothing else. Once HP surrendered any hope of competing against Intel there was nowhere to go for increasing higher margin sales. Who exactly was going to embrace HP's future offerings when more than five years ago it was common knowledge they were transitioning to a new processor fabbed by Intel? That was the reason HP had no answer to Sun during the boom of the 1990s. Instead HP was stuck with trying to sell NT workstations and then a completely desperate move to go into selling home PCs in a bid to raise cash by any means possible. Sun on the other hand, relatively free from having to worry about what either Intel or Microsoft thought, was able to create a software business from scratch with Java. By keeping control of Java, Sun was able to leverage IBM into helping it storm into corporate business software. And all this could be done without sacrificing Solaris for Linux or any other such preposterous nonsolution.
I think HP's executives simply made a series of shocking miscalculations. In this analysis there is only mention of X86 and Power PC. There is nothing said about Sun which doesn't fab their own chips, they have instead a 13+ year partnership with Texas Instruments. Last I saw Texas Instruments' market cap was larger than either HP or Compaq, considered separately. I think it was also a miscalculation that Intel would be the only place to go for a foundry, what about IBM? (I have to wonder with the Asian nations pouring so many resources into semiconductors whether we aren't entering a rather long period of plenty of surplus manufacturing capacity. The only obstacle I see is the US government's intervention in not wanting to potentially see technology shipped abroad. At least this applies to China which the US wants to keep one or two generations behind in wafer fabrication technology.)
Lastly for those who want HP to standardize on Linux...uh, standardize on what? What exactly do you think will be the winner in say filesystems? ReiserFS, Ext3, JFS, XFS? And at least three of of those four alternatives are technology controlled by other companies. How about KDE vs. Gnome, RPM vs other packaging alternatives, PostgreSQL vs MySQL? Notice that IBM has good in-house solutions they will offer for many of these basic questions, what does HP have? I think it's going to be a hard sell to argue that the complexity of HP-UX will be easier than having to potentially support all of these alternatives.
I just find it shocking that a company the size of HP/Compaq will not think it can find the funds to either fab its own chips or pay someone other than Intel to do so. At that size IBM is able to do everything from hardware to software as well as fund a massive R&D patent-producing machine. Wny is it so hard to understand that in a world where IP is king, you better own your own stuff?
Did anyone else see the bizarre juxtaposition from the writeup: embrace Linux as the one-and-only *nix OS.
If Linux should be the "only" one, why the wildcard asterisk? Sorta reminds you that there's diversity out there, while you're trying to homogenize the image, if not the marketplace.
HPUX, Linux, Unix, BSD, IRIX, Solaris, ... they all have their reasons, their histories, their strengths, their weaknesses, their lack of support and their communities.
[
HP wants to be in the consumer PC business, then you're probably right. They should dump all the overhead and follow Dell. But it's a tough business and Dell is a tough competitor.
If HP wants to be in the high end, high margin consulting business, then Linux makes a lot of sense. There's no point supporting Digital Unix, Tru64, and HP-UX, especially since _none_ of these offer any real competitive advantage. (Being a little faster on certain classes of hardware or having a slightly better clusting system compared to AIX/Solaris doesn't count except in very limited markets). It makes a lot more sense to improve Linux where needed and gain access to the larger Linux market.
On the other hand, while adopting Linux across the board makes a lot of sense, it still doesn't offer a real compelling reason to use HP products. It doesn't hurt, but it doesn't help much either.
In the end that's the real challenge for the new HP. Finding something that they really can do better than Dell and IBM. The only thing that comes immediately to mind is printers, but that's not going to support such a massive company.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Be sure to see Robert X. Cringely's column Resetting the Shot Clock: Why Hewlett Packard Buying Compaq is a Very Bad Idea, But Will Happen Anyway
Cringely's theory (and mine) is that HP CEO Carly Fiorina (Carleton S. Fiorina) realizes she is near to being fired, and she is using a merger to buy time.
Both HP and Compaq have made some monumentally stupid decisions. For example, Compaq bought Tandem, bud didn't use Tandem's sales force, even though the Tandem product required a huge amount of special service.
The biggest problem in technology is managers who don't understand what they are managing. There is a theory that a manager of a technology company does not need to have a thorough technical understanding. Decisions made based on that theory have destroyed many companies. But the problem is very poorly reported, because the reporters don't have technical understanding either.
My understanding is that Carly Fiorina is responsible for the terrible financial state of Lucent Technologies, her former company.
Bush's education improvements were
They haven't a larks chance in hell of making that sort of transition. The PA-RISC port of Linux is best classified as immature, and is highly incomplete (i.e. it doesn't support the full gamut of bus types found in HP 9000s, such as GSC or HP-PB; there's absolutely no support for the high end machines like the V-class or Superdome, etc).
I can't even begin to imagine home much work they'd have to do in order to make Linux run at all, much less reliably and quick, on the Superdome (each node can be a 64-way PA-8600, 128GB memory, up to 192 PCI slots, all hot swappable, with hardware/software parititioning).
And HP/UX is only ONE of the operating systems in question here - you've also got OpenVMS, Tru64, Nonstop-UX, and MPE/IX. All of which have very large legacy installtions, run on hardware that Linux can't yet, and have capabilities that are well beyond what Linux can do.
I'm a huge fan of Linux, and have been using it since around '94, but have also used and supported HP/UX, Solaris, Openserver, Unixware, Nonstop Clusters, BSDI, OpenBSD and FreeBSD. (With some exposure to Tru64, MPE/IX, OpenVMS and Vax/VMS).
Unfortunately migration is a per customer, per application issue. Some might be simple (i.e. moving a webserver or a database), but there is a HUGE amount of custom code or niche applications running out there that aren't nearly that simple, particularly when talking about the non UX platforms (e.g. MPE/IX) where you don't even have the benefit of a mostly similar API to ease porting. And even porting to and from Unixes is no piece of cake, particularly when they're based on different branches of the great Unix tree (e.g. HP/UX is heavily modified SVR3, Tru64 is branched off OSF/1, etc).
So getting back to the original point - they couldn't really drop anything without screwing their customers. So its much more likely that they'd move what they could into maintainance (i.e. no updates save bugfixes.)
Matt
No, you're not. It gets on my tits as well. However, I suspect that the reason the author used this phrase has more to do with gramatical ignorance than deliberate malice.
"so-called" means (or used to mean) that the subject of the sentence is, in the opinion of the author, often incorrectly described. For example, when describing some 3rd world dictatorship you might write "..the so-called Democratic Republic of Umbongo" meaning that it is not realy democratic at all. However, I have noticed several occasions recently where authors have used "so-called" in relation to phrases which are accurate but unfamiliar either to themselves or their perceived readers.
So, either the author believes that Linux is not open-source but just called so (in which case he is ignorant) or he doesn't know the proper meaning of the phrase "so-called" (in which case he is also ignorant).
OTOH, many Slashdoters don't understand how to use a shift key or what the apostrophe is for, so perhaps we shouldn't complain too much.
There are many applications that do not and cannot run on Posix. A lot of Digital customers were running code for real time control systems that requires features that Posix simply does not provide.
Nobody is going to switch an aplication to Linux just for kicks. Legacy UNIX systems will endure for the same reason that many companies still run obsolete O/S like MVS (and their idiot sysadmins will still maintain that it is the acme of progress rather than the acne).
More likely would be that HP/UX and Tru64 were made open source.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
*Maybe* the sale is good for Linux, but I have to believe this is a bad thing for all other OS'es NOT Linux or MS. For many reasons Linux is NOT up to the corporate snuff that HP/UX or Tru64 is, and if they did get dropped many corporate users are either going to be screwed or will move to Solaris. Yesterday there were posts about how the appearance of a (largely irrelevant) MenuetOs was a Good Thing; now we see posts about how the possible disappearances of highly important OSes is (implicitly) also a Good Thing. Come on, let's see some consistency and rationality here: does "news for nerds" always have to mean "news mostly about Linux" ?
From the Inq:
The Clearest Statement that HP has made this week about the future of Tru64 Unix (D/UX), Open VMS, and the Itanic platform has appeared on a news forum at tru64.org.
based on this posting by an inforworld reporter on Tru64.org.
BOSTON SUCKS!
To crush your enemies! See them driven before you! Hear the lamentations of their women!
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
I love Linux and I think it's got a great future. But for HPaq to abandon Tru64, VMS, HP-UX and the legacy systems would be folly.
Those systems have an installed base of users that are willing to pay money to have working systems keep working.
Linux, OTOH, is characterized by a slew of small VC funded company carcasses that failed to grasp how to make money off this nascent OS.
If nimble little companies have failed to do so, what makes you think that a behemoth like HPaq will be able to do so?
No, the right move is for them to contribute to the growth of Linux and become recognized as a key player in that area (IBM strategy). Then, when the installed base of Linux creeps upward enough, they can sell services and specialized add-on products that will be recognized for adding value instead of adding hype and cool.
Linux is too small and growing too fast to be able to predict with any certainty which markets it will figure into most dominantly. Servers? Yes, but don't discount what random thing can come of the ferment that is the embedded market. Any Linux company (not just HPaq) should cultivate internal expertise in Linux so that they can be ready to jump when it starts to become obvious where the market is leading.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
You make all this sound like it's somehow a bad thing...
Actually, I like some of those ideas, since I'm a bit of a retrocomputing enthusiast myself. And an ELKS port to the PDP-11 is probably doable, especially with those ancient DEC techies kicking around.
Porting ITS to modern hardware, though... go look through the ITS tech reference. I thought of doing it to learn a little about OS hacking. It frightened me.
/Brian
All you have to do is look at HP's comitment to OpenMail and you have a pretty grim outlook. HP has not qualms about killing a project that could be a compeditor to a MS product. I've been to the UK debelopment centre, I've talked to Unix Developers, they all see the writing on the wall. HP does not want to do anything that could upset MS. The enconomics of scale make selling 100 NT/2000 servers to do the job of one V Class HP-9000 Unix box far more profitable.
``TECO debs and rpms are made (if this has already happened, I don't want to know).''
Well not yet. But there are versions of TECO written in C. Any bets on whether I could get it to run under Linux in my copious spare time? Would RPMs by Christmas do?
``Somebody writes a kernel module to accept input (through serial I'd guess, not that I'm advocating this) from handmade front panel switches...''
This'd mean I could actually find something neat to do with the PDP/8 and 11/70 front panels I have down in the basement!
``Two words: PDP port. (tech sidenote: yeah yeah, I know)''
Sort of like getting back to one's roots, eh?
``Termcap gets an entry for "asr33".''
I've seen this already (on a SVR4.2 for the PC and, if memory serves, on Coherent) but not on a Linux box.
``The man page for ed(1) gets updated.''
You mean people are still making tweaks to ed?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Greetings,
HP-UX comes in two different varieties and does some things that Linux can't yet afaik. So I doubt that they'll drop it. They might drop Tru-64, and I can't think of a reason to do so.
In the past I've worked on a CMW version of HP-UX which later became VVOS. This is a highly secure (Military grade security) Operating system with capabilities and privileges and labelling of data and... I can't see HP just ditching it in favour of a version of Linux with none of those features. Can you?
HP already support some Linux development with hardware donations, so why they wouldn't continue I don't know. I would imagine that they would continue to develop and sell HP-UX. They will probably add some sort of Linux support, and I would imagine that they will ditch Tru-64...
But, I don't work for HP or Compaq, and I don't make their decisions for them. I'm probably wrong.
Z.
-- Under/Overrated is meta-moderation, and therefore is Redundant.
As for Linux dominating the *NIX world? Perish the thought. We do not need a monoculture; that's one of the biggest problems with Windows.
--Brett Glass
I still think the whole Linux-on-PDA idea is horribly misguided -- maybe ELKS, but not a full-blown Linux.
Maybe that's what we'll get out of this deal though...
/Brian
A bunch of people have mentioned IBM, which is good, because I wanted to mention it myself. But one question to ponder: is it really a good idea to go against $1 Billion of marketing, even if it's for the same OS? If you've seen Times Square, you'll know what HP-Compaq would be up against (think apartment building-sized Linux ad).
...in ASCII. :) Come on, you know someone has done it.
Ooops, meant to qualify the lark comment with "in the near future". :)
:) as well as a huge amount of rewriting to get around licenced parts of the code.
However, much as I appreciate your optimism, I still feel its misguided, regardless of who you work for and what you do for them. Yes, HP has solved all these issues before, with about 15 years worth of development, complete control over the codebase, and licencing liberal amounts of code from third parties.
The difference in capability between Linux and HP/UX is gigantic, and many of the changes would require signifigant rearchitecture of low-level sections of the kernel (which would never make it into the current stable branch
One major problem would be that people who have previously worked on the kernel might not be legally able to work on a lot of the reimplementation necessary due to NDAs, trade secrets, etc.
And given the scope of the changes that would be necessary, it would take years of incremental releases with huge bugtest/beta periods to get it working RIGHT.
So yes, a transition is possible, possibly even inevitable, but I seriously doubt you'll see Linux on hardware like the Superdome. Alphaserver SC, or Himilaya in less than 4-5 years. And even then, it will likely have to fork before it could happen, since all of the different operating systems are using highly variant clustering and scaling techniques.
Matt