HP clampdown on 'unauthorised' server fixing to start in January

Re: legal? We shall see

Limiting free fixes to products in-warranty or in a service contract is probably OK.

You could argue that the firmware update is fixing a flaw in manufacturing and so is equivalent to a product recall - but you would have a job claiming that the server wasn't fit for purpose if you had used it for its entire warranty period.

It is definitely illegal to prevent other people servicing your equipment or offering replacement parts. But the plug-compatible laws are a bit out of date when it comes to your firmware.

I imagine Europe's car makers are watching the case with interest. If HP are allowed to block replacement parts which aren't recognised by HP firmware - yet you aren't allowed to modify HP's firmware - then I'm sure BMW/MB/VW are going to find a reason why their oil filters need to talk to their engine management system.

Re: legal?

"Hail to the Microsoft of hardware."

Surely you mean the Oracle of hardware? Last time I checked, anyone can download Microsoft updates and service packs.

Re: I should say so!

Out of the frying pan and into the fire

It’s a policy that’s already been introduced by Cisco Systems, IBM, Dell and Oracle – a fact highlighted by HP as an attempt to pass off the change as nothing extraordinary.

So jumping to Dell isn't going to help much.

Going to make it interesting to see what they do about just using rsync to mirror the SDR.

Re: I should say so!

Lower limbs? I suspect they haven't quite realized their aim is a bit higher than that, maybe even much higher.

On the bright side, since El Reg got a copy of the secret memo before the policy is officially announced, maybe someone will be able to point out their mistake to them before they pull the trigger on this one.

Re: Yet another stunning decision...

At the present rate of progress, in 20 years the sauce will be the only HP branded product left. But by then it will probably be made in a cheap offshore operation of a Chinese company - in UKIP England.

Re: There is established case law on this...

Apologies for not having the legal citation, however I worked in the 3rd party maintainer biz in California a couple of decades back (Abtech Systems) and it was a story told to all new employees (back when paper was the preferred medium of communication) about how HP tried to freeze out 3rd party maintainers, how the maintainers went to court and won big time all down the line.

This legal decision is reflected in the "HP Americas Self-Maintainer Program"

http://h20375.www2.hp.com/portal/site/publicpartner-portal/?page=General+Document+Display+Public+NA&javax.portlet.tpst=GeneralContentDisplayPortletPublicNA&javax.portlet.prp_GeneralContentDisplayPortletPublicNA_wsrp-navigationalState=rO0ABXNyABFqYXZhLnV0aWwuSGFzaE1hcAUH2sHDFmDRAwACRgAKbG9hZEZhY3RvckkACXRocmVzaG9sZHhwP0AAAAAAAAx3CAAAABAAAAABdAADZG9jdXIAE1tMamF2YS5sYW5nLlN0cmluZzut0lbn6R17RwIAAHhwAAAAAXQABzEyODQxMzl4&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken

Which is the latest version of the implementation of that legal decision from 2 to 3 decades ago.

Perhaps a lawyer (or a 3rd party maintainer) with a long institutional memory has a California legal citation?

Re: Go throw your tanty somewhere else please

I down voted both of you because you both sound like whiny douche bags.

Re: better, how?

Over the past year we've inherited a lot of HP kit, and we're mainly a Dell shop. So I've got to see things from both sides. We have 3rd party hardware support, so I can't comment on any differences there.

We run a mish-mash of RHEL/CentOS and both Dell and HP provide firrmware updates for (Enterprise) Linux distros. I would say that HP's SPP/MCP is probably a bit more distro-friendly than Dell's OMSA, but they will both do RHEL and SUSE based distros.

From a firmware point of view getting hold it it (via the web) is easier for the Dell kit, as getting any info out of HPs website can be hit and miss. I also prefer the Dell OMSA method of getting a running server to update itself, rather than HP's SUM (I think) where you have to register a server and push it out. On a brief play with the latest version of SUM I found it to be quite dumbed-down and not as forthcoming with information on what you're pushing out to where.

For a one-off (ISO) boot firmware update I much prefer HP's Smart Update DVD than anything from Dell. Mainly as the HP method actually manages to update the lights out card you're probably using, whereas the Dell versions don't.

Which brings me on to lights out cards. Dell's DRAC offerings have improved quite a bit over the years, and iDRAC7 is pretty good. They must have been looking at HP, as now for the 'Enterprise' version where you can use the dedicated LOM port, a license is needed. Though I'm pretty sure you can still use the console, unlike HP's iLO3 where that's what you need the license for. With the iDRAC7 I'll say that it seems to have a better awareness of the other hardware in the server. So before you might have to run up the OMSA front end to see what was going on, but this (or a lot of it) now seems to be integrated into the DRAC, whereas as far as I know you'd have to fire up HP SMH separately.

One thing that HP iLO is still better than Dell iDRAC is the actual console. They both use Java to do all the hard work, but the iLO console is pretty rock solid. The iDRAC is still very flakey and will freeze/dropout at the most inopportune of times, usually on CentOS when the kernel selection screen kicks in...

On reflection, I think I slightly prefer HP kit but Dell isn't that far behind.