Why doesn't HP implement more commonly used utilities?

[Tim Malnati]

There are a variety of utilities that any SA worth anything installs and uses fairly frequently. Things like lsof, less, crack, emacs, wdiff, etc. My question is why hasn't HP chosen to add these to the baseline os? There is certainly enough flexibility in the GNU license to include them without any problem that I can see. I can't imagine support being much of an issue either. So, why not?

[Rick Garland]

I am thinking that support could be an issue. with the inclusion of new utilities means a broader knowledge base for these utilities. The more you put in it, the more you have to support.

Another reason could be the cost of the SW. Let's face it, this stuff ain't cheap. If they put it in, doesn't that mean they can charge more for the license to use? I don't believe some shops are going to pop for the extra expense when they know the stuff is available almost everywhere else. You are right, a decent SA in the right kind of shop would make good use of these tools.

And lastly, doesn't that defeat the purpose of GNU? I mean, software available to the masses? Not so with HP.

[Anthony Goonetilleke]

Very interesting thread...

Interestingly enough HP have a GNU Src bundle on their apps CD. There is also good sites where you can get GNU binaries for HPUX i.e http://hpux.cs.utah.edu/

But like the previous post I think HP's issue would eb support rather than anything else. Imagine they bundled gcc with their OS and sold it with their V-Class machines. If a major client had a problem with the compiler HP would be responsible to fix it. Usually GNU bugs are fixed by a colaboration of people but as HP sold it they would be responsible to the client... not a good situation to be in :-)

[Shannon Petry]

I disagree with the liability, and think that this is a commonly used 'cop out'!
Solaris 8 includes tons of GNU tools (GPL'd tools for those who care). Yes, "less, xdiff, samba, bind8, etc..." are all installed by default. Iris has always shipped all of these tools as well. The two hold-outs have been IBM/AIX and HP-UX.
Solaris and Irix DO NOT SUPPORT these tools, but ship them for a matter of convienience. The only thing not shipped is gcc, which of course is a money issue. SUN and SGI don't want competition for their purchased compilers.

It would not be hard to make a disclaimer stating that they do not support the GNU tools, but ship all that they can.

Instead, even the support staff at HP will point you to the porting center..

For shame!

[Tim Malnati]

Basically, I was hoping that some HP internal people 'in the know' would offer their two cents. For the rest of us that would like it handled similarly to much of the rest of the unix world, your comments could help to get HP off the dime, so to speak (if they do anything as result or even watch the trends on this forum?).

I'm well aware of where to get them, etc. I just think it is somewhat pathetic to think that HP can't do as well as Solaris in this regard. I totally agree with Sun's point of view with things such as gcc. But I have real trouble believing that some of it should not be included 'unsupported' (like emacs), and that some of it should get fully incorporated into the os. In my mind utilities like lsof are too important not to have. HP did their own version of rdist didn't they?

I also have trouble with the support cost story. Your talking about stuff that's already developed here. How much does it cost to include in in a distribution? Is it so expensive for HP to download a utility, do some minimal testing, include it in a fileset, and watch GNU periodally for updates? To me it seems somewhat unproductive for thousands of SA's to do the same thing. I don't particularly buy the Response Center training cost arguement either where most of the techs know the important ones already. I'm well aware of how GNU software as developed and enhanced. So then why can HP support Linux but not GNU?

Please don't be offended by low point awards, I don't want the rabbit to get out of the hat and people think it's a fully answered thread.

[Paul Gold]

Tim

I read your comments with interest, have you ever worked at HP (or any other software support major player). If so you would realise that if you supply something on a CD or DAT to a customer it doesnt matter how many times you state 'not supported' you will still get many calls on it, you will also be called to task by people with the immortal line 'you supplied it so therefore you are liable to support it'

I have been working on both sides of the fence for many years now (and no I am not currently at HP) and opinions are as divided about which software should be included, many SA's have their own favourites, and you could probably write a thesis on what everyoen says is best.

Also imagine this scenario, a utility is included which HP have not written and do not support, 6 months later it is found that it creates a security breach and XYZ bank have lost 20 gazillion dollars through it, who is liable ? Now this may not seem much of a problem in the UK but HP ship worldwide, some other countries have different laws, and now guess who is liable?

just my tuppence hapenny worth

Paul Gold
CAST systems

[Berlene Herren]

Okay, now my two cents.

The utilities that are not supported at HP are usually pubic domain software. The supported software has been tested with the HP OS and usually compiled for it. With public domain, anyone can get the code and compile the way they want. That gets pretty hard to support.

There is a cd with many of these unsupported utilities available at http://www.interex.org/index/fastCD110.html

Berlene

[Andy Monks]

As someone who does work at HP Support, I'd have to agree with Rick and Paul on this (btw, I used to work 50 ft from Paul).

The amount of calls that come into the response centres on gzip, kermit and pfs* which hp does supply is far too many.

SD-UX (software distributor) at 10.X uses gzip/gunzip, but if it can't find them, it just uses it's own builtin version (thus not requiring a customer to have gzip on their machine) (at 11 the default it to use the buildit versions I think).

I agree, I'd love to lsof and a bunch of other utils shipped as standard. Even better from my point of view, is to get hp internal tools shipped on the media. However, you'd have the problem of updates. Take q4 which is shipped. At 10.20, if you have a PA8000 machine, the default version won't work (and until recently, q4 wasn't available as a patch to upgrade it). So, even our internal tools cause us problems. If every customer was on the internet and could download tools in 30seconds it would be less of a problem (at least for internal stuff).

[Dave Wherry]

Andy,
Too many calls into the RC? Tell me you're kidding. Not every SA is a guru. I'm no guru and I'm not a novice either, but, if I haven't used something for a long time or used it ever, I may need some help and I'm paying a LOT of money to HP for this service.
You provide a ton of great help here in the forums, basically at no charge. Paying customers going to the RC simply can't ask too many questions.

Any way, back to the original topic. I'm not sure HP should provide non-supported utilties. As was said it can create too many irate users when the RC has to turn them away. I think Berlene is going in the right direction suggesting that Interex is the better source. All of those utilities are readily available. Sometimes it's a treasure hunt to find them. Interex would be a great central repository.

As for points. This is a discussion thread. I don't think points are necesary. IMHO there are too many people out here putting up posts begging for points. It's not a competition, it's sharing knowledge and experiences.