Change to Patch services effective September 18, 2010

[Doug Phillips]

> reporting broken links

It seems odd to me that every link I can find to licensing information is "broken." The "broken" page does not display a 404 but says "we're very sorry" and offers links to Software License Manager pages. Sorry, indeed.

If I thought I was the only one to discover that the licensing documents were no longer accessible and that no one at HP knew, I might report it. There is software available that checks for broken links, but the links are not "broken" because they point to a valid page.

I keep asking this, but does anyone have a working link to an official document that details the change in patching policy and how the public can continue to get security patches? I still only find brief blurbs that just say that access to HP's patch distribution service has been restricted.

[Ian Miller.]

The FAQ is still the only public document

http://www.itrc.hp.com/service/cki/docDisplay.do?docLocale=en&docId=emr_na-c02476621

and as far as I can tell all patches including security patches are subject to the same access policy.

If you want official answers then contact HP officially.

[Doug Phillips]

Re the FAQ: Those aren't the questions most frequently asked here or any other place where this policy change is being discussed.
And, the Answer to "Why is HP making this change?" is pure mumble with little basis in fact.

>> If you want official answers then contact HP officially. [Operators are standing by!]

Cost of publishing an official policy statement: $

Cost of answering who knows how many phone inquiries and pissing off customers because the person who answers the phone has no clue about what your asking: $$$

On a scale of 0 - 10, 10 being highest:

My need for patches: 10
My need for any other OpenVMS support: 0
My satisfaction with past experiences contacting HP about anything OpenVMS without having a support agreement number to reference: 0
My confidence that HP understands or cares about the needs of OpenVMS' small users: 0

[Steven Schweda]

> Steven, have you looked at the HP Open
> Source porting systems which are now
> available?

Other than looking at that openvms.org story,
no.

> If you have and they do not meet your
> requirements then perhaps something could
> be done about that.

I have not formally determined my
requirements. Until the withdrawal of patch
access, my requirements were being met by my
own systems, so there was no need to assemble
such a list. From my memory of using the
TestDrive systems, the typical shortcomings
included:

Missing freeware (MMK, Zip+UnZip, gzip,
bzip2, cURL, m[un]pack, VMSTAR, wget, GNU bc,
diff, patch, ... ). Typically, multiple
versions of those. Setting this all up on
some remote system would be a big job. (A
whole lot of work, just to get back to what I
already have where I am.)

Missing privileges.

Missing e-mail access.

Limited network access.

Missing peripheral hardware. It's hard to do
any testing of a program like cdrecord on a
remote system which lacks a CD/DVD-writing
drive (and a helpful operator with a ready
supply of discs).

Missing multiple OS and compiler versions.

No VAX hardware.


Perhaps I have an inflated sense of
self-importance, but I'd've figured that my
contributions to the VMS ecosystem were worth
enough to justify my continued access to OS
updates and patches for the systems where
I've been doing the work. It's not entirely
clear to me why I would want to bother
jumping through a variety of hoops -- new
hoops -- to continue to do what I have been
doing. I don't deny getting some benefit
from the Hobbyist license program, but,
really, who's doing whom a favor here?

[Steven Schweda]

> And, the Answer to "Why is HP making this
> change?" is pure mumble with little basis
> in fact.

I suspect that there's a secret school
somewhere where marketing people are taught
how to write an effective (that is,
content-free, but euphonious) "to serve you
better" explanation. Like, for example, "For
your convenience, we've trimmed those bulky
4.5-inch wide bathroom tissue [toilet paper]
rolls down to a more convenient four-inch
width." It's probably the same place where
people are taught to substitute "issue" for
"problem", or "guest" for "customer".

It does lead one to wonder how low an opinion
the authors have of the intelligence of the
target audience. Perhaps they believe that
if they can fool themselves, then they can
fool anyone else the same way. There is some
evidence that they're not entirely wrong.

[Ian Miller.]

Steven,
do contact openvms.program @ hp about getting access to the current systems so you can have a look.

Who have you contacted in HP regarding access to patches?

[Ian Miller.]

To contact HP Services sales about software support including access to patches then

http://www.hp.com/large/contact/enterprise/index.html?key=1-1D8NV&mcc=DNTZ

or if in USA call: 800-277-8988

[Steven Schweda]

> do contact openvms.program @ hp about
> getting access to the current systems so
> you can have a look.

It's hard to imagine how any small collection
of remote systems would be close to as useful
as my current local junk collection.

(Some of those projected CRTL enhancements
did sound interesting. Shared memory and
UNIX sockets were among the big impediments
when I looked at BOINC a few years ago.
Remember SETI@home? Whether I'll still care
by the time they arrive is an open question.)

> Who have you contacted in HP regarding
> access to patches?

I replied to the message quoted above (Mon,
18 Oct 2010 04:04:10 -0500 (CDT)), expressing
my disappointment, and asking about cost.
I'm still waiting for a reply.

That conversation actually started back
around 20-AUG-2010, when I submitted a
complaint about MMS V3.9-00 to the
black-hole "HP OpenVMS product business
feedback" Web form, followed a few days later
by e-mail to OpenVMS.Programs to see if that
would work any better than the Web form.
(I also offered some suggestions involving
kit packaging, and the benefits of using less
obsolete Info-ZIP software. And a complaint
about some very badly formatted (and/or
content-free) ".txt" files in the FTP patch
collection. Naturally, those lame ".txt"
files don't bother me much now.)

Around 24-AUG-2010, I started trying to learn
if there would be any way to gain
"Non-Commercial/Hobbyist access to VMS
product and patch kits (and those for Tru64
and HP-UX, too)". After sending a What's-up?
message on 5-OCT-2010, I got that
above-quoted response. I can forward to you
the whole dreary e-mail trail, if think that
your mood is currently too cheery.

[Keith Cayemberg]

>> reporting broken links

>I keep asking this, but does anyone have a
>working link to an official document that
>details the change in patching policy and
>how the public can continue to get security
>patches? I still only find brief blurbs that
>just say that access to HP's patch
>distribution service has been restricted.

Hi Doug,

I do find the blocked historic license content in the Internet Archive...

<>

Cheers!

Keith Cayemberg

[Ian Miller.]

Steven, I did email sms at antinode so you should have my email address.