IBM

"Starting on November 13, 2011, Fix Central downloads are available only for to IBM clients or relations with hardware or software under warranty, maintenance contracts, or subscription and support."

IBM was the last commercial Unix vendor to introduce this restriction.

Download AIX patches while you can.

"There is a planned server outage on Sat, 12 Nov 2011 from 6:00 p.m. to Sun, 13 Nov 2:45 a.m. Central Standard Time (CST). Fix Central may be unavailable during this time."

Well, this "accepted industry practice" rings a bell: http://forums.nekochan.net/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=16724127

I think the "industry" is killing its own propietary hardware and software using these "practices".

... In related news Miscrosoft shares rose 0.01%

PymbleSoftware Pty Ltd is an official IBM reseller so see how that pans out.

R.

I think SGI (per their last official published policy) and OldSun had the right idea. Security patches always available, but restrict the other patches for a time to paying customers only. SGI of course had the "N-3" rule on overlays (later ignored), and Sun "offered" the patches to everyone the next time that Solaris was reved.

It kind of throws the argument for high-grade systems. Before it was "yes, you pay more up front, but then your ongoing costs are lower". Now that you have to pay many $$/year for "service" to get required updates everything needs to be recalculated. On a personal note I certainly haven't brought up things you can do with Solaris to anyone since Oracle changed to their $1k+/yr policy, which for a small business makes MS software cheaper after only a couple of years (though to be completely honest no one took me up on Solaris before - they were a bit leery of being stuck with something that required a "UNIX admin" to run rather than just the administrative assistant).

i could not care less about, since before all the open source zealots creeped out of their sh*tholes and expected everything for free, it was well known practice that one have to pay for support.

open source <> no cost software
free patches <> free support

No plan.

That's a very poor predicate.

On the contrary, people have been very conditioned to abysmal quality in software and even firmware. Patches are due diligence by the manufacturer to correct their original negligence. There's no basis whatsoever for additional charges for patch access. I can't believe you are defending paying for bugs. Constructing a paywall to corrections of negligence is unethical. Patches aren't "support", they are admissions of error to the original contract. You get your money ethically on upgrades or real support (i.e. phone time, case engineer assignment, consulting, etc).

But I guess even mighty IBM no more believes in it. Sad . IBM was for the longest while the exception. If you had the gear, you're in the clear. You could phone up and get AIX for a $50 media charge.

These antics are precisely why businesses have moved to Linux in droves and the commercial UNIX space is a small niche for large corporations that have big enough necks to not get strangled. What they inadvertently do is hurt small and medium businesses that placed trust in the vendor and don't want to be pissed on time and again just to have to pay more money to get what they originally thought they purchased. They also hurt communities like this one that add value to platforms at no cost (for example the best Firefox build on AIX is done by a hobbyist).

To start things off we need to be realistic. A build of Firefox, no matter how fantastic, adds little or no value to AIX for IBM. They sell servers, and servers don't really run Firefox. Case in point - how many "P"s have you bought direct from IBM? You care, sure, but most AIX users don't. And as far as "propping up the value of used POWER equipment and thus making them more attractive investments" - it doesn't work. IBM (along with most manufacturers) wouldn't mind in the least if the used equipment marketplace disappeared. To them it's only competition.

On the other hand there is a happy median. Look at MS - why do they give away so much software? Two reasons: first, if it's a market they're trying to move into or maintain a stranglehold on, and we can discount that. Neither IBM, nor Sun, nor HP Enterprise Systems are looking into moving into the hobbyist sector - there's no money in it. The second reason, the reason they've become so good about patch support (as well as the reason for MS Security Essentials), is because they have discovered that it looks really bad if they have lots of machines with bugs and exploits hanging around, providing fodder for bad news. It's this that so many "Enterprise" companies are forgetting. The chance of a major AIX botnet is small, but it does look bad. Provide security and "showstopper bug" patches free and you look good. I'm not sure about the medium-to-large business segment that IBM targets, but with the small companies I've worked with they tend to get service contracts for the essential software if they're affordable. Why? It's because they want to have someone to call up if there's a problem who can fix it. If they reserve other patches and the right to submit patch requests (provided they follow up on them) to paid service customers and then provide a sound pricing scheme they will get customers. They just need to show value.

damn... that's really bad!

I just downloaded AIX 7 TL1SP1. I don't really see the restriction...

Maybe they thought better of it.

it seems they only postponed it

This is just another indication of how small-minded the idiot MBA's running our society truly are. Eventually their obssession with squeezing every centime possble out of anyone who comes within grabbing distance destroys the company. Goose, golden egg, all that.

As for those who claim it doesn't matter, real customers will not be inconvenienced and no one cares about hobbyists, verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

it really doesn't matter for IBM

I don't think anyone here necessarily thinks "it doesn't matter," indeed many points on this thread have been about how it may matter. IBM doesn't care, true, and that certainly is a offshoot of the short-term business focus now. Get as much as you can from those who are "locked in", then retire with a bonus. Heck, you don't even need to retire - companies are apparently leaping on you if you've failed at the likes of HP, IBM, or any other big-name outfit.

I actually don't see, how any of this might have any impact on IBMs customership, because IBM isn't interested in the small fishes, that's not where the big money is coming from (which is why IBM dropped its thinkpads). Larger customers simply have a support contract, which is why it doesn't matter to their customer base.

so it is not the case, that IBM will charge an additional cost for accessing their patches, it only locks out the small fishes, that don't bring any money to them anyway (which is sad for us hobbyists, but totally understandable from a business point of view)

I understand what you are saying but we have verifiable proof that it does matter, even for IBM. In fact, especially for IBM. After their history they should be the very last company to do this. The IBM example is the one that should be up on the wall for all to contemplate. Technocrats snivel about "foo-foo classes at University" but in fact, more of those business d00ds should have some literature jammed down their throats. If they'd read any Greek tragedy they might not make these stupid stupid mistakes. HUBRIS !!

IBM invented the peecee, you know. No, not the "personal computer" but the IBM-compatible peecee that is a gazillion-dollar business today.

IBM also had the world's worst three-losing-quarters in a row and almost lost the entire company as soon as people had a viable alternative to their slimy arrogant "fuck the world, we're IBM" attitude. When clones came out people could not get away from IBM fast enough. Do you want to bet your company that there will never be an alternative to your crap behavior ?*

This short-term greedy stupidity will have consequences down the road. Oedipus did fine for a long long time but in the end his initial errors destroyed him. That was the point.

Lesson One : consequences are inevitable. That foo-foo feel-good literature crap is more relevant than our modern-day MBA's will accept**. People are still people, no matter how modern we are.

The "business point of view" will do nothing over the long run except destroy companies (and societies). Period. That's the point of Greek tragedy.



* A major problem with the US today is that CEO's could care less about the company. If they can get enough cash out in one or two years to make themselves wealthy the company can go directly to Hell, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Yet we idolize these worthless bastards. Americans are incredibly stoopid.

**Actually, MBA's are too retarded to understand the meaning of literature - if they had an IQ over thirty they'd get a real degree, but that's another subject.

that's one nice and long paragraph, that you have written, which boils down to "IBM lost the PC-business, because of clones"...yes, that's how the PC-business works, it's made that way, that's not the case for mainframes or i or AIX (yes it is a unix, but it's probably the most different unix in current existence, so porting should be everything but trivial). there simply will be no easy alternative

and to repeat the essence of my previous posting: none of the customers relevant to IBM will notice any difference, they don't have to pay more, because they already have a support contract

There is no hope for the world.

It's all gonna end next year anyway