Aaaaah, don't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. I think you've seen too many Hollywood movies. It may help these groups on some levels, but the civilian population who gets tyrannized by religious fanatics imposing Sharia upon them seldom see them as any kind of "salvation". If the death of an innocent civilian in a drone strike can "recruite" someone, then they were already lost.
These people are so fanatic they justify murder and rape of 6-8 year old children, while murdering and mutilating any other civilian who stands in their way.
The normal population in areas terrorized by these groups often wish for increased western intervention - not the opposite. For very very obvious reasons.
Actually that is completely wrong. They may use "the Great satan USA" as justification now, but trust me, if the US withdrew and ruined that somehow, they would just find some other way of justifying what they do.
You're talking about religious fanatics but you are trying to apply common-sense-thinking into the equation. That makes no sense at all.
Religious fanatics spawn all over the globe, with and without the help of the US. And in areas where US influence is sparse or absent they happily use other excuses for their behavior.
Stop applying any kind of common-sense to these peoples reasoning. They're so fanatic and moronic they are justifying the murder and rape of 6-8 year old girls for crying out loud; as well as slaughtering and mutilating innocent civilians along the way.
Most civilian population in areas hit by extremist morons actually wish for increased western intervention - not the opposite!
Fine. The streaming client is available for Linux, and is officially supported on their own Linux distro. The streaming server is "planned" for non-windows platforms but is not available yet.
Be negative about it if you must. But from a business-perspective it makes perfect sense to make things in the order they did. And you know it.
The streaming functionality is obviously more interesting when a windows-host is involved, so one can stream a Windows-game to a Linux box (for example running SteamOS on a NUC), but Steam itself works perfectly fine on Linux as does a number of games.
The major flaw in this assumption is the simple fact that swapping tickets in order to cheat the system and use cheaper tickets is not "arbitrage" nor is it "exploiting price differences for the same asset".
The tickets ("assets") are obviously not the same when you switch them, and get away with using other tickets than you really should have.
The difference is that licenses for pharmaceuticals, driving, etc all have some benefit to the public good. Whether that be not including arsenic in your pills or knowing which side of the road to drive on, it is beneficial for society to have you be licensed (also, those licenses are almost exclusively granted or required by the GOVERNMENT and do not really enter in to the discussion). Another way of viewing this is that those license grant an expansion of rights (or a privelege) normally restricted for the common good. Software licenses do not follow this analogy.
I believe they do. They are a mechanism to facilitate (limited) sales and the economic aspects of immaterial property - which are all regulated and enforced by the laws of society. Or in other words: immaterial property, licenses, and financial transactions are the three components of "software license sales" and they are provided/enforced by society because politicians believe they provide a benefit to society.
but I sure as heck can sell the license and the 'physical' bits that go with it as long as they are transferred to the new owner (i.e. I no longer have them).
First of all the fact that you "no longer have them" is not a transfer. A transfer is only possible if the license or local law grants you the right to do so. In the case of DVDs and Sodastream canisters I am confident local law grants you the right to pass them on. But do not mistake the ability to physically transfer an object for an actual "right" to transfer any licenses.
Digital makes this all quite convoluted, but if these were physical BD/DVD/CDs, no one would bat an eyelash (cf. music CDs, console games) because the license is more obvious when accompanied by a physical item.
Yes and no. I am pretty sure the only reason BD/DVD/CDs can be transferred us because local law grants consumers that right. But that is not the case with all things. For example, if you buy a license - including a DVD and a pile of manuals - for some advanced software, then the license to use that software may not be transferable to other users. This is common with lots of software like database applications, media editing suites, software development tools, server software, etc. The fact that physical media and manuals accompany the product is not sufficient to grant you the right to transfer the license UNLESS laws specifically grant you that right.
No reason to be rude dude. English is not my first language, and in other languages it is absolutely possible to use the word "buy" and "purchase" about the services provided by a driving school.
You can (at least in other languages) also "get a drivers license from your parents" at your 18th birthday, yet nobody would interpret in a way suggesting that your parents actually issued or produced that license themselves - they just paid for your education.
For your information: I don't have a formal education, and I have fought hard for every proficiency and every job I have ever had. I have no Idea why you feel the need to bash other people like that... and as AC no less... but I believe it says more about you than it does about me.
I am pretty sure the driver of a taxi needs to have a special license to drive with passengers in a commercial capacity; not just a standard drivers license.
You may have the ability to transfer the vehicles license to be used as a taxi (which is really just a monopoly enforced by local organizations and created by lobbyists hundreds of years ago) but you can't transfer the drivers license to commercially transport passengers. He/she will need to get that by other means; separately from the vehicles license to be used for transporting passengers.:-)
It is buying a non-transferable digital copy, subject to the terms of the license.
For the record: I am against this way of licensing things, but to claim people do not understand the concept of a non-transferable license on/. is... a little silly:-)
As I said in my original post: We may not like the way this works, but that is an entirely different story.
Most people - including you I suspect - understand the concept of software licenses, and understand that when they are "buying a game" they are buying the ability to use/play that game, but not the full rights to the game itself.
When you "buy" a physical DVD in a store you also don't "buy" the movie, there are many many restrictions put on a DVD sold for private use. You can't pay 10 bucks for a DVD and then use that to legally sell 100 more.
The restrictions are not the same for downloaded software and physical DVDs but there are restrictions on both. Most people do understand that they're buying "the ability to watch the DVD in their private home", and they're certainly not calling retailers "fraudulent" because their DVD is heavily restricted.
I understand you're trying to make an argument; but your black/white definition is better used if we're discussing boolean algebra. Which we aren't...:-)
It is not fraudulent; but as I said: we may not like the way things work.
In which case the best thing to do is work to change the system by either joining political lobby groups, supporting FOSS, etc.
I don't think you can claim that anyone on/. doesn't really understand the concept of a software license. They only pretend that, in order to drive their point/post...
My apologies then. English is not my first language.
It is quite common in other languages to use the words "buy" or "purchase" in the context of the services provided by a driving school.
It is also (at least in other languages) possible for young people to "get a drivers license as a gift" at their 16th or 18th birthday; yet nobody takes this as a sign that the giver of such gift (parents usually) are actually the ones issuing the license. For example, a youngster may say "I got a drivers license from my dad for my birthday" or "my mom bought/gave me a drivers license".
Do you have no such similar sentences in English?:-)
A shame you posted as AC, I would have gladly engaged in that debate with you.:-)
I don't think those two are really mutually exclusive, because the poster I replied to by all probability already knows and understands this but chooses to ignore that knowledge. I am confident the poster is well aware of how licenses work, but actively chooses to ignore that knowledge in order to - at the same time - claim that using the words "buy" or "sell" is akin to fraudulent advertising. This creates the inner conflict and misunderstanding.
I don't think any sane person would claim that a poster on/. doesn't understand the concept of a software license - or license in general. But some may pretend to, in order to push a certain agenda or drive a specific point in an argument.:-)
You can "buy" a license to drive a car from your local driving school, but you cannot give that license to another person and by that action grant them the legal right to operate a car. They need to go get their own license, subject to many restrictions, and issued by an organization which has the "monopoly" for issuing such licenses in your regtion.
That is the nature of licenses. All licenses.
I am not saying we should like it. There is a healthy debate to be had over immaterial property and rights. But to compare the purchase of games/software with a physical product is a mistake. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to other licenses in life.:-)
Not trying to troll or anything here, but you seem to share a common misunderstanding with the rest of the world. In the hopes of not getting modded down into oblivion, let me try to explain what is going on. And let me be clear that I don't necessarily support this model, I am just the one who risks his karma and dares explain it a bit better...:-)
You do actually buy something - but not "the game" as such. You buy a license. After you have purchased that license, it is yours. You can use it, or leave it idle somewhere, or burn it, or use it as toilet paper. The license does not give you copyright of the product; but you are free to use the license as you see fit, within the restrictions and rights granted to you in that license... and subject to local laws (which in some cases may expand your rights and in some cases limit it further).
This is in line with pretty much every other "license" in life; including licenses not related to software. A license is society's way of grating you certain rights in a limited fashion and it is used for a gazillion things other than software. You can be "licensed" to produce pharmaceuticals. Or fly an airplane in public airspace. Or recycle waste subject to strict environmental laws.Or carry a firearm. Or drive a car!
Since car analogies are the big thing in IT lets stick to that:-) You can "buy" a drivers license from a local driving school, but you are unable to "resell" that to another person, and you are bound by the terms of the license. You can't drive however you please either. You must follow certain ruled and protocols while driving (restricting the use of your car when operating it). If you loose its physical representation (the drivers license plastic/paper card itself) you are still considered to be "licensed" by the issuing state or country. You may get a small ticket for not being able to produce the little card, but that is not the same as "driving without having a drivers license". A drivers license is in many ways (but not all obviously) a good analogy for a software license. Both grant you certain rights but subject to a number of restrictions. Both are "personal" and cannot simply be passed on to other people. Neither of them are "physical"; they are both tied to your person in an immaterial fashion. Any physical object representing them merely serve as easy/convenient proof that you hold a license - the physical object is not the license.
While you have "purchased" your drivers license from the local driving school, that have not engaged in "fraudulent advertising" if they have used the words "buy" or "purchase" or "OMG get your licenze here for peanutz". But roughly the same condition apply to your drivers license as to a software license. There are many restrictions on how you can use the license, and if you give it to another person that does not in fact grant them "a license" to do anything. You are really just handing the proof that you hold a license - the license itself is not transferred. All the other licenses mentioned above follow this pattern as well.
In this sense Valve does not engage in "fraudulent advertising" because it is well understood that they sell licenses, not complete copyrights for software products. Or in other words: You buy a right to use the software in a limited way, you do not buy the complete copyright and full intellectual property. And giving your license to someone is really noting more than handing them proof that you are the rightful user of said license. The license itself is not transferred.
We may not like the way these things work, but that is an entirely different story.
I'll say it again the same people that blasted everyone that hated Windows UnGreat, for changes to the OS, called those people morons for being afraid of change, including the people that modded up those comments.
Now they're the ones crying and moaning over/. change.
Ahemm... nope. They're crying and moaning over poorly designed change. And with good reason.
They'll find another way to make revenue off of ads, considering the majority of users use a blockad, losing users isn't going to hurt them anyway
Some of us pay for Slashdot. And don't disable the ads, since they're a pretty good way of keeping tabs on market trends. So speak for your self.
I use old HP servers for fun, development, and test sandbox work. I get most of them for free (salvaged from customers who replace them) and upgrade them with parts from eBay. So having to pay for firmware updates is certainly something that will annoy me on a personal level.
Having said that however, I don't understand why you would make such an obviously emotional decision. If you really want to ditch HP (and I am not a stockholder so I am not protecting them) you should do an actual TCO calculation to see if the new support arrangement actually has any real consequence for you. If you already buy servers "by the ton" then odds are you already have a support agreement which will provide you with full access to the entire HP repository of updates.
I don't find it problematic that HP want's to charge prices for firmwares. In fact, I wished more companies did so. In reality you already paid for "lifetime updates" when you purchased, say, a G7 server. So let me just mention the possible benefits of a functional post-warranty market for updates:
1.) Over time, paid firmware update will decrease the price of the new server and/or its initial support contract. Rather than paying for "lifetime updates" the initial owner gets to pay only for his/her actual usage of updates.
2.) A functional post-warranty firmware market (with a culture where paying for this service was widely accepted) would mean more vendors would support their hardware for longer. Simply because customers would be willing to pay for updates. I have often wished it was possible to update the firmware for stuff, like network printers, small routers, older laptops, graphics cards, as well as servers. Have you never been in a situation where you wished you could throw 20 bucks at Asus to get a recent formware for ?
3.) Most hardware today is changed because of lack of support - not because of actual failure (or even the prospect of failure). Which is likely why HP seeks to make an actual business out of their post-warranty support. Paid updates could, if prices are reasonable, prolong the lifespan of gear - reducing e-waste and spent man-hours. There is no reason a server witrh the build-quality of a HP G7 or a BL c7000 should last only 3 years. It will easily last 8 if maintained properly, and if support options are available and fair.
Hell, I just fired up an old HP c3000 with 6 servers, 40 Xeon cores and 92 gigs of RAM. It uses a bit more power than new servers - sure - but the hardware was acquired for free, using it means delaying e-waste, and it gets the job done with no problems at all. But I am sure it would all have been a nightmare if updates were not available. New ILO2 firmwares, updated RAID controller firmwares, new version of LightsOut... I would happily have paid a bit of money for that.
You should stop making decisions when you're emotional about something.
Calculate your TCO, including support and quality. Then decide if you should ditch HP or not.
If HP (and others) jkeep the price for these updates fair, I see no problem with this. In fact I welcome it, hoping it will gain attention from smaller vendors in the consumer space as well.
Slashdot Mirror
Best recruiting strategy?
Aaaaah, don't be so quick to jump to that conclusion. I think you've seen too many Hollywood movies. It may help these groups on some levels, but the civilian population who gets tyrannized by religious fanatics imposing Sharia upon them seldom see them as any kind of "salvation". If the death of an innocent civilian in a drone strike can "recruite" someone, then they were already lost.
These people are so fanatic they justify murder and rape of 6-8 year old children, while murdering and mutilating any other civilian who stands in their way.
The normal population in areas terrorized by these groups often wish for increased western intervention - not the opposite. For very very obvious reasons.
Actually that is completely wrong. They may use "the Great satan USA" as justification now, but trust me, if the US withdrew and ruined that somehow, they would just find some other way of justifying what they do.
You're talking about religious fanatics but you are trying to apply common-sense-thinking into the equation. That makes no sense at all.
Religious fanatics spawn all over the globe, with and without the help of the US. And in areas where US influence is sparse or absent they happily use other excuses for their behavior.
Stop applying any kind of common-sense to these peoples reasoning. They're so fanatic and moronic they are justifying the murder and rape of 6-8 year old girls for crying out loud; as well as slaughtering and mutilating innocent civilians along the way.
Most civilian population in areas hit by extremist morons actually wish for increased western intervention - not the opposite!
Not at all. Not if the smaller groups are less organized, struggle for funding, and have internal powerplays for leadership positions.
Fine. The streaming client is available for Linux, and is officially supported on their own Linux distro. The streaming server is "planned" for non-windows platforms but is not available yet.
Be negative about it if you must. But from a business-perspective it makes perfect sense to make things in the order they did. And you know it.
This would require working video decoding equipment for DRM protected content in an open architecture (PC) on an open operating system (Linux).
In other words: Won't happen; sadly.
They (Valve) could have included a DVD player and DLNA player though. I am quite surprised they didn't.
That has slightly more latency than actual Ethernet though ...
What are you talking about?
The streaming functionality is obviously more interesting when a windows-host is involved, so one can stream a Windows-game to a Linux box (for example running SteamOS on a NUC), but Steam itself works perfectly fine on Linux as does a number of games.
What "trick" are you talking about?
OK, so "there has been no significant correlation between successful strikes and a reduction in al-Qaeda attacks".
Am I the only one thinking things might have been much worse if no terrorist leaders had been taken out at all?
I can't believe this claim.
I bet they did this a decade ago, and this article is just a way to make people believe it hasn't actually happened yet ...
- Jesper
The major flaw in this assumption is the simple fact that swapping tickets in order to cheat the system and use cheaper tickets is not "arbitrage" nor is it "exploiting price differences for the same asset".
The tickets ("assets") are obviously not the same when you switch them, and get away with using other tickets than you really should have.
- Jesper
The difference is that licenses for pharmaceuticals, driving, etc all have some benefit to the public good. Whether that be not including arsenic in your pills or knowing which side of the road to drive on, it is beneficial for society to have you be licensed (also, those licenses are almost exclusively granted or required by the GOVERNMENT and do not really enter in to the discussion). Another way of viewing this is that those license grant an expansion of rights (or a privelege) normally restricted for the common good. Software licenses do not follow this analogy.
I believe they do. They are a mechanism to facilitate (limited) sales and the economic aspects of immaterial property - which are all regulated and enforced by the laws of society. Or in other words: immaterial property, licenses, and financial transactions are the three components of "software license sales" and they are provided/enforced by society because politicians believe they provide a benefit to society.
but I sure as heck can sell the license and the 'physical' bits that go with it as long as they are transferred to the new owner (i.e. I no longer have them).
First of all the fact that you "no longer have them" is not a transfer. A transfer is only possible if the license or local law grants you the right to do so. In the case of DVDs and Sodastream canisters I am confident local law grants you the right to pass them on. But do not mistake the ability to physically transfer an object for an actual "right" to transfer any licenses.
Digital makes this all quite convoluted, but if these were physical BD/DVD/CDs, no one would bat an eyelash (cf. music CDs, console games) because the license is more obvious when accompanied by a physical item.
Yes and no. I am pretty sure the only reason BD/DVD/CDs can be transferred us because local law grants consumers that right. But that is not the case with all things. For example, if you buy a license - including a DVD and a pile of manuals - for some advanced software, then the license to use that software may not be transferable to other users. This is common with lots of software like database applications, media editing suites, software development tools, server software, etc. The fact that physical media and manuals accompany the product is not sufficient to grant you the right to transfer the license UNLESS laws specifically grant you that right.
- Jesper
No reason to be rude dude. English is not my first language, and in other languages it is absolutely possible to use the word "buy" and "purchase" about the services provided by a driving school.
You can (at least in other languages) also "get a drivers license from your parents" at your 18th birthday, yet nobody would interpret in a way suggesting that your parents actually issued or produced that license themselves - they just paid for your education.
For your information: I don't have a formal education, and I have fought hard for every proficiency and every job I have ever had. I have no Idea why you feel the need to bash other people like that ... and as AC no less ... but I believe it says more about you than it does about me.
- Jesper
I specifically stated that understanding these things and liking them are two completely different things. So no, you guessed wrong. :-)
- Jesper
Thanks man :-)
But for the record: FUCK BETA!
So ... not quite "pro-redesigner" I suppose ... ;-)
- Jesper
I am pretty sure the driver of a taxi needs to have a special license to drive with passengers in a commercial capacity; not just a standard drivers license.
You may have the ability to transfer the vehicles license to be used as a taxi (which is really just a monopoly enforced by local organizations and created by lobbyists hundreds of years ago) but you can't transfer the drivers license to commercially transport passengers. He/she will need to get that by other means; separately from the vehicles license to be used for transporting passengers. :-)
- Jesper
It is buying a non-transferable digital copy, subject to the terms of the license.
For the record: I am against this way of licensing things, but to claim people do not understand the concept of a non-transferable license on /. is ... a little silly :-)
As I said in my original post: We may not like the way this works, but that is an entirely different story.
- Jesper
Most people - including you I suspect - understand the concept of software licenses, and understand that when they are "buying a game" they are buying the ability to use/play that game, but not the full rights to the game itself.
When you "buy" a physical DVD in a store you also don't "buy" the movie, there are many many restrictions put on a DVD sold for private use. You can't pay 10 bucks for a DVD and then use that to legally sell 100 more.
The restrictions are not the same for downloaded software and physical DVDs but there are restrictions on both. Most people do understand that they're buying "the ability to watch the DVD in their private home", and they're certainly not calling retailers "fraudulent" because their DVD is heavily restricted.
I understand you're trying to make an argument; but your black/white definition is better used if we're discussing boolean algebra. Which we aren't ... :-)
- Jesper
It is not fraudulent; but as I said: we may not like the way things work.
In which case the best thing to do is work to change the system by either joining political lobby groups, supporting FOSS, etc.
I don't think you can claim that anyone on /. doesn't really understand the concept of a software license. They only pretend that, in order to drive their point/post...
- Jesper
My apologies then. English is not my first language.
It is quite common in other languages to use the words "buy" or "purchase" in the context of the services provided by a driving school.
It is also (at least in other languages) possible for young people to "get a drivers license as a gift" at their 16th or 18th birthday; yet nobody takes this as a sign that the giver of such gift (parents usually) are actually the ones issuing the license. For example, a youngster may say "I got a drivers license from my dad for my birthday" or "my mom bought/gave me a drivers license".
Do you have no such similar sentences in English? :-)
- Jesper
A shame you posted as AC, I would have gladly engaged in that debate with you. :-)
I don't think those two are really mutually exclusive, because the poster I replied to by all probability already knows and understands this but chooses to ignore that knowledge. I am confident the poster is well aware of how licenses work, but actively chooses to ignore that knowledge in order to - at the same time - claim that using the words "buy" or "sell" is akin to fraudulent advertising. This creates the inner conflict and misunderstanding.
I don't think any sane person would claim that a poster on /. doesn't understand the concept of a software license - or license in general. But some may pretend to, in order to push a certain agenda or drive a specific point in an argument. :-)
- Jesper
No. But you can do that with a drivers license ;-)
You can "buy" a license to drive a car from your local driving school, but you cannot give that license to another person and by that action grant them the legal right to operate a car. They need to go get their own license, subject to many restrictions, and issued by an organization which has the "monopoly" for issuing such licenses in your regtion.
That is the nature of licenses. All licenses.
I am not saying we should like it. There is a healthy debate to be had over immaterial property and rights. But to compare the purchase of games/software with a physical product is a mistake. If you want to compare it to something, compare it to other licenses in life. :-)
- Jesper
Actually it isn't "fraudelent advertising".
Not trying to troll or anything here, but you seem to share a common misunderstanding with the rest of the world. In the hopes of not getting modded down into oblivion, let me try to explain what is going on. And let me be clear that I don't necessarily support this model, I am just the one who risks his karma and dares explain it a bit better... :-)
You do actually buy something - but not "the game" as such. You buy a license. After you have purchased that license, it is yours. You can use it, or leave it idle somewhere, or burn it, or use it as toilet paper. The license does not give you copyright of the product; but you are free to use the license as you see fit, within the restrictions and rights granted to you in that license... and subject to local laws (which in some cases may expand your rights and in some cases limit it further).
This is in line with pretty much every other "license" in life; including licenses not related to software. A license is society's way of grating you certain rights in a limited fashion and it is used for a gazillion things other than software. You can be "licensed" to produce pharmaceuticals. Or fly an airplane in public airspace. Or recycle waste subject to strict environmental laws.Or carry a firearm. Or drive a car!
Since car analogies are the big thing in IT lets stick to that :-) You can "buy" a drivers license from a local driving school, but you are unable to "resell" that to another person, and you are bound by the terms of the license. You can't drive however you please either. You must follow certain ruled and protocols while driving (restricting the use of your car when operating it). If you loose its physical representation (the drivers license plastic/paper card itself) you are still considered to be "licensed" by the issuing state or country. You may get a small ticket for not being able to produce the little card, but that is not the same as "driving without having a drivers license". A drivers license is in many ways (but not all obviously) a good analogy for a software license. Both grant you certain rights but subject to a number of restrictions. Both are "personal" and cannot simply be passed on to other people. Neither of them are "physical"; they are both tied to your person in an immaterial fashion. Any physical object representing them merely serve as easy/convenient proof that you hold a license - the physical object is not the license.
While you have "purchased" your drivers license from the local driving school, that have not engaged in "fraudulent advertising" if they have used the words "buy" or "purchase" or "OMG get your licenze here for peanutz". But roughly the same condition apply to your drivers license as to a software license. There are many restrictions on how you can use the license, and if you give it to another person that does not in fact grant them "a license" to do anything. You are really just handing the proof that you hold a license - the license itself is not transferred. All the other licenses mentioned above follow this pattern as well.
In this sense Valve does not engage in "fraudulent advertising" because it is well understood that they sell licenses, not complete copyrights for software products. Or in other words: You buy a right to use the software in a limited way, you do not buy the complete copyright and full intellectual property. And giving your license to someone is really noting more than handing them proof that you are the rightful user of said license. The license itself is not transferred.
We may not like the way these things work, but that is an entirely different story.
- Jesper
Priceless! I have 4 colleagues looking at me now, wondering wtf I am laughing about ...
I'll say it again the same people that blasted everyone that hated Windows UnGreat, for changes to the OS, called those people morons for being afraid of change, including the people that modded up those comments.
Now they're the ones crying and moaning over /. change.
Ahemm ... nope. They're crying and moaning over poorly designed change. And with good reason.
They'll find another way to make revenue off of ads, considering the majority of users use a blockad, losing users isn't going to hurt them anyway
Some of us pay for Slashdot. And don't disable the ads, since they're a pretty good way of keeping tabs on market trends. So speak for your self.
P.S. Beta sucks!
- Jesper
I use old HP servers for fun, development, and test sandbox work. I get most of them for free (salvaged from customers who replace them) and upgrade them with parts from eBay. So having to pay for firmware updates is certainly something that will annoy me on a personal level.
Having said that however, I don't understand why you would make such an obviously emotional decision. If you really want to ditch HP (and I am not a stockholder so I am not protecting them) you should do an actual TCO calculation to see if the new support arrangement actually has any real consequence for you. If you already buy servers "by the ton" then odds are you already have a support agreement which will provide you with full access to the entire HP repository of updates.
I don't find it problematic that HP want's to charge prices for firmwares. In fact, I wished more companies did so. In reality you already paid for "lifetime updates" when you purchased, say, a G7 server. So let me just mention the possible benefits of a functional post-warranty market for updates:
1.) Over time, paid firmware update will decrease the price of the new server and/or its initial support contract. Rather than paying for "lifetime updates" the initial owner gets to pay only for his/her actual usage of updates.
2.) A functional post-warranty firmware market (with a culture where paying for this service was widely accepted) would mean more vendors would support their hardware for longer. Simply because customers would be willing to pay for updates. I have often wished it was possible to update the firmware for stuff, like network printers, small routers, older laptops, graphics cards, as well as servers. Have you never been in a situation where you wished you could throw 20 bucks at Asus to get a recent formware for ?
3.) Most hardware today is changed because of lack of support - not because of actual failure (or even the prospect of failure). Which is likely why HP seeks to make an actual business out of their post-warranty support. Paid updates could, if prices are reasonable, prolong the lifespan of gear - reducing e-waste and spent man-hours. There is no reason a server witrh the build-quality of a HP G7 or a BL c7000 should last only 3 years. It will easily last 8 if maintained properly, and if support options are available and fair.
Hell, I just fired up an old HP c3000 with 6 servers, 40 Xeon cores and 92 gigs of RAM. It uses a bit more power than new servers - sure - but the hardware was acquired for free, using it means delaying e-waste, and it gets the job done with no problems at all. But I am sure it would all have been a nightmare if updates were not available. New ILO2 firmwares, updated RAID controller firmwares, new version of LightsOut ... I would happily have paid a bit of money for that.
You should stop making decisions when you're emotional about something.
Calculate your TCO, including support and quality. Then decide if you should ditch HP or not.
If HP (and others) jkeep the price for these updates fair, I see no problem with this. In fact I welcome it, hoping it will gain attention from smaller vendors in the consumer space as well.
- Jesper