Patch availability change
in [Solaris]
|
Prev: <Beginner Question> - lu /sst
Next: difference between sun cluster "/dev/did" and "/dev/global" devices
From: Richard L. Hamilton on 14 Feb 2010 02:48 In article <fb3j47-fkm.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com writes: > Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: >> On 2010-02-12 22:13:11 +0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com said: >> >>> Or in other words, set the pricing by the apparent deepness of the >>> customer's pocket. >> >> Well, I think more accurately set the pricing to correspond to some >> approximation to the "amount of computing power" the system had when it >> was new. > > Or in other words, set the pricing by the apparent deepness of the > customer's pocket. > >> (The reason for the "when it was new" is that otherwise old machines >> end up being very cheap to support which both discourges people from >> upgrading, which is bad for business, and also does not correspond to >> the cost of supporting these old systems, which generally goes up over >> time.) > > Nonsense. > > The fact that Solaris 10 patches work on SunFire V100's (likely the > cheapest SPARC machine Sun ever made), V440's, as well as the latest M9000's > doesn't add any cost. > > And, since the software support contract for an X CPU V440 is the same as > an X CPU T5120, OS support cost is irrelevant to upgrading to the end user. You're wrong, flat out. Different SPARC systems that still run Solaris 10 may include different hardware, from bus structure (maybe there's still some old Sbus stuff still out there) to CPUs (anything from UltraSPARC II on up), to support chips and peripherals. Everything that needs any extra code, including drivers, to support it adds to the total amount of code being supported. Further, if specific hardware is involved, it means keeping some of it around for testing. The OS's job includes hiding most of those differences from user-land programs, but that only means it has more to do, not less. Further, every piece of hardware no longer being sold competes for limited system programming resources with hardware currently being sold. From a standpoint of paying for what it costs to produce, the price should go _up_ for hardware no longer in production, and continue to go up until it reaches a level at which support is dropped. Mind you, as an individual, I can't afford new or current hardware, period. (well, I can't justify it, anyway) So I'd certainly be glad to be able to pay a fairly nominal fee for patches, SunSolve access, and continuing software support for my older hardware, _not_ including any specific incident support other than a way of submitting bug reports. That is, something where the cost of providing it is about the same regardless of how many people there are paying for that lowest level of support. And keeping individuals engaged is part of holding onto the commercial market. So there's probably some balance that falls short of punishing owners of older equipment to the degree that supporting them contributes to costs.
From: Richard B. Gilbert on 14 Feb 2010 10:51 Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > In article <fb3j47-fkm.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com writes: >> Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: >>> On 2010-02-12 22:13:11 +0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com said: >>> >>>> Or in other words, set the pricing by the apparent deepness of the >>>> customer's pocket. >>> Well, I think more accurately set the pricing to correspond to some >>> approximation to the "amount of computing power" the system had when it >>> was new. >> Or in other words, set the pricing by the apparent deepness of the >> customer's pocket. >> >>> (The reason for the "when it was new" is that otherwise old machines >>> end up being very cheap to support which both discourges people from >>> upgrading, which is bad for business, and also does not correspond to >>> the cost of supporting these old systems, which generally goes up over >>> time.) >> Nonsense. >> >> The fact that Solaris 10 patches work on SunFire V100's (likely the >> cheapest SPARC machine Sun ever made), V440's, as well as the latest M9000's >> doesn't add any cost. >> >> And, since the software support contract for an X CPU V440 is the same as >> an X CPU T5120, OS support cost is irrelevant to upgrading to the end user. > > You're wrong, flat out. Different SPARC systems that still run Solaris 10 > may include different hardware, from bus structure (maybe there's still some old > Sbus stuff still out there) to CPUs (anything from UltraSPARC II on up), to support > chips and peripherals. Everything that needs any extra code, including drivers, > to support it adds to the total amount of code being supported. Further, if specific > hardware is involved, it means keeping some of it around for testing. > > The OS's job includes hiding most of those differences from user-land programs, > but that only means it has more to do, not less. > > Further, every piece of hardware no longer being sold competes for limited > system programming resources with hardware currently being sold. > > From a standpoint of paying for what it costs to produce, the price should go _up_ > for hardware no longer in production, and continue to go up until it reaches a level > at which support is dropped. > > Mind you, as an individual, I can't afford new or current hardware, period. (well, > I can't justify it, anyway) So I'd certainly be glad to be able to pay a fairly > nominal fee for patches, SunSolve access, and continuing software support for my > older hardware, _not_ including any specific incident support other than a way > of submitting bug reports. That is, something where the cost of providing it is > about the same regardless of how many people there are paying for that lowest level > of support. > > And keeping individuals engaged is part of holding onto the commercial market. > > So there's probably some balance that falls short of punishing owners of older > equipment to the degree that supporting them contributes to costs. Is it really reasonable to expect Sun to support antiques? In the computer business three years is "old age". Six years entitles you to play "unwrap the mummy"! Yes, a lot of that stuff still works. I have an Ultra 5 and three Ultra 10s. Some of them still work but I'm going to have to find a source of new "timer chips" or kludge some sort of battery power supply. Support for these beasts would cost a great deal. The number of people who would pay for support for machines that old is vanishingly small! That's why support tends to vanish!
From: Volker Borchert on 14 Feb 2010 11:45 Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Yes, a lot of that stuff still works. I have an Ultra 5 and three Ultra > 10s. Fancy new-fangled stuff, that is. > The number of people who > would pay for support for machines that old is vanishingly small! Depends on the amount requested and availability of CDs/DVDs. -- "I'm a doctor, not a mechanic." Dr Leonard McCoy <mccoy(a)ncc1701.starfleet.fed> "I'm a mechanic, not a doctor." Volker Borchert <v_borchert(a)despammed.com>
From: jimp on 14 Feb 2010 11:58 Richard L. Hamilton <rlhamil(a)smart.net> wrote: > In article <fb3j47-fkm.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com>, > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com writes: >> Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> wrote: >>> On 2010-02-12 22:13:11 +0000, jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com said: >>> >>>> Or in other words, set the pricing by the apparent deepness of the >>>> customer's pocket. >>> >>> Well, I think more accurately set the pricing to correspond to some >>> approximation to the "amount of computing power" the system had when it >>> was new. >> >> Or in other words, set the pricing by the apparent deepness of the >> customer's pocket. >> >>> (The reason for the "when it was new" is that otherwise old machines >>> end up being very cheap to support which both discourges people from >>> upgrading, which is bad for business, and also does not correspond to >>> the cost of supporting these old systems, which generally goes up over >>> time.) >> >> Nonsense. >> >> The fact that Solaris 10 patches work on SunFire V100's (likely the >> cheapest SPARC machine Sun ever made), V440's, as well as the latest M9000's >> doesn't add any cost. >> >> And, since the software support contract for an X CPU V440 is the same as >> an X CPU T5120, OS support cost is irrelevant to upgrading to the end user. > > You're wrong, flat out. Different SPARC systems that still run Solaris 10 > may include different hardware, from bus structure (maybe there's still some old > Sbus stuff still out there) to CPUs (anything from UltraSPARC II on up), to support > chips and peripherals. Everything that needs any extra code, including drivers, > to support it adds to the total amount of code being supported. Further, if specific > hardware is involved, it means keeping some of it around for testing. > > The OS's job includes hiding most of those differences from user-land programs, > but that only means it has more to do, not less. > > Further, every piece of hardware no longer being sold competes for limited > system programming resources with hardware currently being sold. > > From a standpoint of paying for what it costs to produce, the price should go _up_ > for hardware no longer in production, and continue to go up until it reaches a level > at which support is dropped. > > Mind you, as an individual, I can't afford new or current hardware, period. (well, > I can't justify it, anyway) So I'd certainly be glad to be able to pay a fairly > nominal fee for patches, SunSolve access, and continuing software support for my > older hardware, _not_ including any specific incident support other than a way > of submitting bug reports. That is, something where the cost of providing it is > about the same regardless of how many people there are paying for that lowest level > of support. > > And keeping individuals engaged is part of holding onto the commercial market. > > So there's probably some balance that falls short of punishing owners of older > equipment to the degree that supporting them contributes to costs. What part of the term "EOL" is it that you don't understand? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 14 Feb 2010 12:03
Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Is it really reasonable to expect Sun to support antiques? In the > computer business three years is "old age". Six years entitles you to > play "unwrap the mummy"! > > Yes, a lot of that stuff still works. I have an Ultra 5 and three Ultra > 10s. Some of them still work but I'm going to have to find a source of > new "timer chips" or kludge some sort of battery power supply. Support > for these beasts would cost a great deal. The number of people who > would pay for support for machines that old is vanishingly small! > That's why support tends to vanish! Hardware support, or the lack of it, is a much bigger driving factor for upgrading old systems than software support. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |