RE: Re: hp-ux on x64?
".....Not as many proprietary vendor apps for RHEL on Itanium as HP-UX...." Yeah, companies like Oracle are just so third tier, right? Truth is hp-ux already had a large base of enterprise apps on PA-RISC hp-ux, whereas Linux was coming in from the edge solution area AKA the Windows Server space, so hp had a lot easier time getting existing app vendors to port their apps to the new Itanium flavour of hp-ux, especially as hp made it easy for them. Companies like Red Hat had to go chase those app vendors as new prospects. Now, I know hp helped RH out as I worked with an app vendor to get one of their apps working on RHEL4 on Integrity for us, and we were getting hp Labs bods helping out, so it's not like hp left RH high and dry, it's just RH were always chasing hp-ux in the enterprise space. In that case, the same app was already available and supported on hp-ux, it was just my stubborness that meant we ended up with a full RHEL stack as an option.
"....You are after all potentially the UKs biggest HP-UX fanboi ;)...." We run RAC on RHEL on Integrity, which replaced some expensive PA9000 hp-ux kit, a project I kicked off as a cost-saving exercise because I wanted to prove that RHEL was ready for prime-time mission critical tasks. I may be an hp-ux fanboi, but I'm also a RHEL fanboi too.
"....and my experience has _always_ been that when a reseller pitches an Itanium solution they _always_ pitch HP-UX unless the customer specifies otherwise...." I can't comment on the limits to your experience, just that it is at odds to my own. For example, we had a project that grew up in our old NT team as a Windows-only app with a very large SQL database. When it outgrew the x64 offerings, we decided to look at Windows on Integrity. We already had a reseller supplying us with the Windows solution who weren't BCS accredited, which means hp had to give them an exception to sell us the Integrity kit. They didn't push hp-ux, they didn't even know how to spell it!
"....I only see a tiny fraction of what's going on out there, but there are lots of big business success stories for RH...." Yes, they asked us if we could be a case study for RHEL on Integrity but our board declined. But we also have shed-loads more hp-ux on Integrity (and AIX on Power), and there was no management inclination to move away from UNIX even before RH pulled the plug on Itanium development. From what I hear talking to other companies, it looks like RH just couldn't win as often as they needed when they went up against hp-ux on Integrity.
"....You forget two things....." I'm sure I've forgotten a lot more, but not the two you mention.
".....1) RH don't have that hill to climb, they've already done it. hp-ux on x86 would have a competitor that is already in its prime....." With apps designed to compete against Windows in the traditional Windows space, not enterprise UNIX. If hp ported hp-ux to x64 they would be using x64 for those same large-scale enterprise solutions that they currently use hp-ux for, not for competing against Windows and Linux on webserving or file-and-print. RH would have to get those app vendors onboard or provide comparable offerings, and it just currently doesn't for a large number of the cases. M$ knows this, which is why they are pushing Windows up into the enterprise so hard with stacks to compete with SAP and Oracle. I know there are some comparable Linux offerings, but to the board they all seem a bit hodge-podge compared to polished offerings from SAP, Oracle or Microsoft. And to be frank, after a while you get tired of trying to beat the Linux message into their heads and just go the easy route of UNIX and Windows.
"....2) Do you seriously think any amount of marketing money is going to make a proprietary unix with the licensing costs HP-UX is encumbered with competitive with RHEL?...." Yes, for the same reason that hp-ux wasn't eaten by RHEL on Itanium and Windows hasn't been eaten on x64, even when RH could offer the same app stack at a lower price-point. In those situations, it seems many companies, like my own, simply felt more comfortable with hp-ux or Windows. I had a really hard time persuading our people that RH could offer as good support, for example. Put it down to prejudice if you like, but it's the same with M$ products - companies just think they're getting a more polished and professional product, even if that is just an illussion. It's the same reason people buy a Mercedes over a Toyota. At the end of the day, if hp ever did port hp-ux to x64, people probably would pay more because hp-ux on x64 would be coming from "that big company that also does all our PCs, servers and storage", whereas their perception of RH might be a tad less impressed.
"....So what are you arguing for then? ;)..." Your assumption that hp-ux couldn't compete with Linux. It could, it's just a fight hp doesn't want to happen, they prefer keeping them apart as much as they can in two seperate, profit-making areas.
"....There's no market or reason for that to happen in our working life time...." Maybe. I can still remember the days when people were asking why we needed to go 64-bit. The technology is hammering along at real pace with the size of memory footprints already well-beyond those we would have expected even ten years ago. The real question is whether there is the desire for the vendors when it is simply going to be cheaper for them to look at x64 scale-out. I did think for a while that Sun might be the company to try and leap ahead by going 128-bit, but they got too enrapt in the idea of CMT. I'm not sure hp or IBM have the will to go to an 128-bit UNIX - hp simply because they are winning in the x64 bizz, and IBM because an 128-bit UNIX would kill their mainframe bizz.