Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Business Businesses HP Red Hat Software

HP To Sell And Support Red Hat Linux 236

Posted by timothy
from the howdy-pardner dept.
Dman33 writes "Redhat Linux seems to be gaining an even stronger share in the server and workstation market as HP is announcing worldwide sales and support of the popular distro. Infoworld has a writeup on the announcement and the press release straight from HP is a good read regarding the initiative."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

HP To Sell And Support Red Hat Linux

Comments Filter:
  • yeah, but (Score:5, Funny)

    by geekoid (135745) <dadinportland @ y a hoo.com> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:15PM (#5546667) Homepage Journal
    is it big enough to hate yet? ;)
  • Big blue supports it, Dell supports it, and now HP is supporting it. More and more, sounds to me like its taking the Microsoft and Unix world by storm.

    • Of course it is, how could you go wrong with a business model that is 100% profit.

      RedHat ISOS - $0
      Charging people for CDs - $ profit
      Charging people to install OS - $ profit
      Charging for support - $ profit

      For everything else, theres Windows.
    • by gilesjuk (604902) <.giles.jones. .at. .zen.co.uk.> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:24PM (#5546755)
      This is Red Hat though, a well packaged Linux distribution.

      Not (IMHO) a technically good Linux distribution, others are leaner and meaner. But for the corperate environment it's ideal. But I do have concerns about the very short length of the security update subscription provided with Red Hat. Installing apt4rpm provides a way around this in some cases.
      • Not a problem. Advanced server offers a five-year minimum timeline for updates, and that's what they have certified - the three new flavours of Advanced server.

      • Uh...I've used Red Hat for years. I download updates when they come out via apt-get, yum, manually when advisories come up on securityfocus...and the problem is that I don't get an email from Red Hat personally?

        The subscription may be more than worth it to a business, but the consumer is hardly under any onus to purchase it.
  • by term8or (576787) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:17PM (#5546680)
    There are far too many customers using HP-UX to shut it down, but if they are supplying Linux on-the-cheap, why would any new customers buy in to HP-UX?

    Sounds like "pi*sing in the company soup"
    • by stratjakt (596332) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:22PM (#5546732) Journal
      Completely different target customers, at least for the time being.

      HP will probably ship linux on it's x86 based servers, but for the various HP3000/9000 etc big-iron servers, it'll still be HP-UX. I sincerely doubt that linux will have the punch that HP-UX carries on a bigass HP9000 N-class server.

      Eventuall HP-UX and Tru64 will no doubt follow MPE into the lands of obscurity. Although, there are still a ton of MPE users/customers out there (my company being one of them with a few dozen MPE based sites installed).
      • So you are also going through MPE/3000 end of life. :) I feel for you.

        Yup MPE is still *huge* in some places. For example if you do business with a credit union there is a very good chance that they run on a HP 3000 and are working on moving to the HP 9000. And you are right that is not going away for a very long time.
        • It was supposed to be gone by now, AFAIK, but there was enough customer backlash that HP extended support for the 3000 series for another 5 years.

          We've committed to supporting our customers for another 5 years beyond HPs cut-off date. Of course, we're just itching to sell them all unix or NT (powered by Stratus) based replacements.

          The 3000s just dont break, and for the types of systems we sell on 'em, they'd be perfectly adequate chugging along until the end of time. So luckily HP phases em out for us s
          • It was supposed to be the end of next year when I first heard about it but then it got changed to 2006. Of course I started in this business after the orginal end of life so your dates and mine could be the same just counting from two starting points. In any case yea we are selling an HPUX based HP 9000 solution and it is a *sweet* box.
    • by mrcparker (469158) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:28PM (#5546798)
      Not for what we use it for. Linux is great for smaller servers and development, but we have machines with terabytes and terabytes of data running on super stable hardware that has features the Linux people are just talking about.

      Plus, if/when Linux is ready it won't be too hard to switch as most of what we run on these machines is pretty standard, they are moving from PA-RISC to Intel Itanium, and support contracts only last a few years. Either way, HP gets our money.
      • OTOH, some people in your position would rather run on less spiffy hardware and not incur the extra costs that come with that territory. For that sort of "big iron" shop, the primary problem with Linux is the lack of Intel hardware comprable to a V880.
      • Not for what we use it for. Linux is great for smaller servers and development, but we have machines with terabytes and terabytes of data running on super stable hardware that has features the Linux people are just talking about.

        Your problem with Linux isn't really that Linux isn't up to the task, it's that you have designed your entire system around a very specific feature set. HP may port many of those features to Linux and then migrate you over, but that doesn't make those features intrinsically usef

    • by 4of12 (97621) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:28PM (#5546801) Homepage Journal

      why would any new customers buy in to HP-UX?

      Because they're willing to pay a premium for high performance PA-RISC system with loads of processors. Same market as big Sun and IBM machines. Same market that Linux won't eat yet for a couple of years. But you're right - if price is the determining decision in the purchase, Lintel is The Way to Go.

    • I think the problem here is that HP is stuck with, four distinct architectures (IA32, IA64, Alpha, and whatever HP's own CPUs are called) and some five operating systems (Windows, Linux, Tru64 Unix, OpenVMS, HP-UX). While HP is forced to support all those platforms and all possible combinations thereof for legacy reasons, it can certainly pick a direction to go for future development. I think HP's sending very mixed signals on this one, but it's possible that they view Linux as a unifying OS for all their
      • Actually the move to IA64 helps HP quite a bit on the OS side.

        From a cost justification standpoint it makes no sense to port Tru64 or VMS to IA64, therefore they have brought their supported OS's down to Windows, Linux and HP-UX. HP-UX has already been ported and the other two HP doesn't have to pay for.

        Certainly with Linux (and to a lesser extent, Windows) they may contribute to the effort (since they are co-designers of the architecture), but that really amounts to "lessons" learned from the HP-UX port,
    • HP announced long ago that they were going to be supporting the next release of Pro/Engineer on Linux and that RedHat was their distro of choice. Pro/E was recently released to the people on service contracts (like us, we have copies here) so it is probably in their best interests to fill out their product line.

      This is no doubt to make that official.
    • I can think of a couple reasons.

      It handles high-load much better than Linux.

      It handles many processors much better than Linux.

      It handles lots of memory much better than Linux.

      PA-RISC support is Linux is still kind of iffy.

      It has decent ACL and quota support.

      The last one can be solved using SGI's addition of XFS to Red Hat Linux, but there aren't that many people out there using it yet.

      In short, Linux is useful on the low- and mid-range servers, but HP-UX will still rule the roost on the PA

  • by t0qer (230538) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:19PM (#5546704) Homepage Journal
    I couldn't understand why dell dropped linux support, they don't have a UNIX product like HP does. HP with HPUX, why would they want to sell and support linux?

    I guess I could see them doing it for a number of reasons, mainly because it would be a gateway into the small/medium sized business market.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      HP-UX doesnt run on x86 architecture.

      Linux doesnt run (remotely well) on the HP3000/9000 big momma mainframes.

      Two different OS's for two different product lines.
    • by Fastball (91927) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:42PM (#5546929) Journal
      HP with HPUX, why would they want to sell and support linux?

      Answer: cheap R&D. HP can leave the development to someone else and focus its efforts on sales. HP is sure to have RedHat's ear when it wants it too. You have to figure that they see the writing on the wall: open source can do what the big boys do and sometimes can do it better. This move helps preserve their hardware sales a la Apple with OSX. Smart. Selling software anymore seems like selling ice to eskimos.

    • Though we've already had this comment and answered it, I'll throw another 2 cents in the pot...

      Because HP has a big unix and wants a small unix for different customers. As for the support, there's probably a lot of commonality between the two.
    • Dell didn't dropped linux support, I can still buy dell servers with redhat linux on them (maybe also support, never tried).
    • Because nowadays customers want Linux not HP-UX. Now, HP could pretend that this wasn't the case, but that wouldn't improve sales of HP-UX, it would just guarantee that they missed out on a piece of the Linux pie. This is the same reason that Sun will also sell you Linux devices. Sun knows that it's better to sell you their Linux server than have you go buy from a competitor.

  • I'm glad to see this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by greechneb (574646) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:20PM (#5546709) Journal
    Speaking from personal experience, my CEO is relucant to approve software with no point of support. The more support open source gets, the easier it makes my job of trying to convince him to move to more open source software.
  • Serious money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by soorma_bhopali (643472) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:23PM (#5546750)
    "HP, in Palo Alto, Calif. , generated about $2 billion in Linux-based revenue in 2002, the company said in Wednesday's statement. "

    Thats freaking huge :) Who said u cannot make money by using linux?
    • by caluml (551744) <slashdot AT spam ... OT calum DOT org> on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:35PM (#5546864) Homepage
      I want to see orders - orders, credit card number, email addresses, home addresses, before I believe that ;) Oh, and expiry dates!
    • "HP, in Palo Alto, Calif. , generated about $2 billion in Linux-based revenue in 2002, the company said in Wednesday's statement. "

      Thats freaking huge :) Who said u cannot make money by using linux?


      The problem is when HP has been asked point blank to break down the sales figures they refused.

      Without that data we don't know how well Linux is selling or what products or services they're gaining the revenue from. Is is consultants putting on sales pitches and getting their hourly rate? Is it workstations
  • by Azog (20907) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:23PM (#5546751) Homepage
    Announcements like this always say "workstations and servers". Don't they think that Linux users want portable devices?

    I just want a good quality Linux laptop with firewire, a built-in CDR, lots of RAM, and a power-efficient CPU. I don't want to pay the Windows tax and I don't want an expensive, high speed CPU.

    (Why the heck anyone needs a 2 GHz CPU in a laptop is a mystery to me. )

    The Lindows "$799" machine would have been perfect but it has no built in CD drive - a fatal deficiency, at least to me.

    • by stratjakt (596332)
      Why the heck anyone needs a 2 GHz CPU in a laptop is a mystery to me.

      Not to me, I know a few people who do graphic design, and having that kind of horsepower in a laptop is absolutely necessary to them.

      A high end laptop and a docking station is also more cost/space effective than a high end desktop and a low end laptop. There are a lot of people who need/want such a portable PC.

      The fact that you dont need or want something obviously means nothing. They sell like hotcakes and HP/Dell/Compaq/Sony rake i
    • by term8or (576787)
      In my case, so I can run Windows 2000, XP, SQL Server 2000, VB6 , .Net , The company product (tm) and Internet Explorer, all at the same time, and all at the customers site. Plus, i'd like the laptop to survive Microsoft's next Big operating System (tm).
    • Well, if you were stuck commuting on Caltrain for 2 hours a day, believe me, you'd love to be able to bust out some $CPU_HOG_GAME to pass the time. :-)

      It's nice to have!
    • by irix (22687)

      I have already said this [slashdot.org], but this announcement is not aimed at selling Linux on HP hardware to Joe consumer. They are selling/supporting the Entrerprise versions of RedHat that are aimed at corporate accounts.

      • by D'Arque Bishop (84624) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:03PM (#5547070) Homepage
        I have already said this, but this announcement is not aimed at selling Linux on HP hardware to Joe consumer. They are selling/supporting the Entrerprise versions of RedHat that are aimed at corporate accounts.

        That doesn't mean that corporate laptop users won't want to run Linux. At where I work, we're beginning a rollout to move some of our servers to Linux. Seeing as I'm often on-site at our subsidiaries doing support work, my laptop is my primary PC. However, I'm also going to be one of the primary people supporting Linux, so I'd like to have a "best of both worlds" solution where I have a laptop that runs Linux. I know my boss is trying to get approval for a new laptop for me; it'd make getting me a laptop easier if we could find a manufacturer like Dell or HP/Compaq who sells machines with Red Hat pre-installed.

        Just my $.02...
        • I run Linux on my laptop, so I know where you are coming from.

          I would imagine that RedHat Enterprise WS would run on your laptop OK, but it would take quite a bit more work (read: cost) on HPs part to support it officially. For example, RedHat 8 installs without a hitch on my older Dell, but I installed it on a new HP (Compaq) laptop for a friend and I had to patch the kernel, pass bootparms to the kernel through grub, etc. etc. to get it working.

          My guess is that if people start buying Linux workstation

      • It sure isn't. The box I looked at they wanted $200 extra to have Linux on it instead of MSWindows.

        Maybe it's directed at people who believe that if you don't pay a lot for it, it can't be worth much?

    • by Rinikusu (28164)
      (Why the heck anyone needs a 2 GHz CPU in a laptop is a mystery to me. )

      Portable Maya Machine. I currently carry my desktop to my night job so I can have the ponies for doing 3D work that my Sony Vaio 505FX just can't handle (in fact, maya doesn't even run on it). I'd like to grab a laptop because it would greatly simplify the breakdown/portability issues that carrying a mid-tower case and monitor around pose. The Alienware top-end machine would be a godsend (and yes, I plug it in at work.. I realize th
  • I can't help but think that people will start to associate HP's overall lackluster in the home pc market with linux? Hopefully this is just a server type thing because HP does make some pretty sweet servers. And we definatly don't need noobies with HP's thinking they can tackle red hat just becuase they can change the properties of a shortcut in windows.
  • by niko9 (315647)
    Wasn't HP making claims to use and support Debian?
    I remember reading articles about HP picking Debian because it was non commercial and the most stable disto out there.
    • Yes but then Carly got mad at Bruce and fired him. After that it was all downhill.

      As a huge HP reseller customer don't even get me started on what an evil bitch Carly is.
    • I believe Debian is still the distro of choice, but this is simply a second Linux offering. Previous to now HP would not provide support for Red Hat on its systems.
    • Perhaps, but their earliest Linux boxes, from about four years ago, ran Red Hat. Ran it well, I might add; one was my desktop machine when I worked there (although it performed some server-like functions because of the work I did), and it was bedrock-stable. The only times it ever crashed were when I did something stupid when mucking about with the kernel.

      Oh, and as far as Linux-vs.-HP-UX: Two entirely different animals, with entirely different market spaces. Only the PA-RISC workstations have any overl
  • Predictable (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ars-Fartsica (166957) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:26PM (#5546776)
    The corporate world is not quite ready to roll out a community based distro, and they probably never will be. While there is support for these distros as well (from third parties), most companies like getting support from the original vendor, for obvious liability reasons.

    The real issue is if this will see HP really pushing linux through its sales channels instead of just being another "we recommend Windows 2000" shill.

    • Why not? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Thud457 (234763)
      "The corporate world is not quite ready to roll out a community based distro"

      I thought the enemy of my enemy was my friend or some such. Works GREAT for U.S. foreign policy! ;-)

      Why don't IBM, HP, SUN et al just throw together a good entry-level common distro and give it away just to GUT Microsoft ? Are they afraid the DOJ will sue them for collusion?!!

      Any money to be made on Linux is all in the support.

    • No there are corporations (i work for one of them) that are seriously looking to bring linux in. HP is lining up because of this, If they are the primary support for the OS then the liability reasons go out the window.
  • by cyber_rigger (527103) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:28PM (#5546790) Homepage Journal

    Check out the site sponsor in the lower left corner.

    http://www.debian.org/ [debian.org]
  • déjà vu (Score:5, Informative)

    by gohai (554042) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:29PM (#5546805)
    HP To Sell Custom High-Security GNU/Linux Distro [slashdot.org]
    HP to give 24/7 support for Linux [slashdot.org]

    seems not to be the first time...
  • Free? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jmays (450770)
    So what price will we _pay_ for finally seeing a large consumer desktop/server seller (HP) support and sell _free_ software?
  • by onethumb (4479) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:33PM (#5546845) Homepage
    I'm a little concerned that this may lead to no x86-64 (Opteron, Althon64) support from RedHat. :(

    HP co-owns the IP for Itanium with Intel, so they have a vested interest in seeing Itanium get lots of support, and AMD x86-64 get none. RedHat has already announced Itanium versions of Advanced Server [redhat.com], but AFAIK, has been silent on the x86-64 front.

    SuSE has announced [suse.com] long ago that they'd release x86-64 versions of their distro to coincide with Opteron's release, and they seem to be actively involved [x86-64.org] with that process.

    Am I being paranoid here? Or does it look like RH might not support the most cost-effective 64bit platform going? Not all of us have deep pockets for I2. :(

    Don
    my smug mug is on smugmug [smugmug.com] ... is yours?
  • by LinuxParanoid (64467) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:34PM (#5546860) Homepage Journal
    An HP/Red Hat support partnership is sort of no big deal. It's great to see, but not a surprise.

    What left me semi-stunned (until I regained my natural skepticism) was the following sentence:

    Today's announcement builds on our $2 billion in Linux-based revenue in 2002 and our decade of commitment to the open source and Linux communities," said Peter Blackmore, executive vice president, HP Enterprise Systems Group. (emphasis mine.)

    Where the heck does HP get this figure from? (And if VA Linux couldn't make it in the Linux hardware biz, how come HP is making $2 billion revenues just a couple years later?)

    "Sniff test" problems here... but I wouldn't mind being enlightened by someone from HP.

    --LP
    • by borroff (267566) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @04:49PM (#5546986) Journal
      Remember, HP isn't only hardware; they have a large share of the systems management software market (Openview), and a consulting group as well. If you count all the Openview agent licenses for Linux boxes (which aren't cheap), plus consulting income, plus embedded linux revenue, $2B seems within reach.
    • by McSpew (316871) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:10PM (#5547119)

      Where the heck does HP get this figure from?

      ISTR HP snagged a huge Linux deal at Dreamworks [com.com] last year. And they also scored a big Linux deal at Disney [theregister.co.uk].

      The entertainment industry (especially the movie industry) are ironically moving to Linux big-time. The visual effects industry essentially told all their tools suppliers to port to Linux or else. The tools vendors have complied. Expect to see tasks that were traditionally done on SGI or Sun machines to be done pretty much exclusively on Linux machines from now on.

      James Cameron pretty much set the tone for Linux in Hollywood with the renderfarm he used for Titanic [imdb.com]. That farm was built with Digital Alpha processors, but instead of buying DEC Unix (or Tru64 or whatever it was called then), his effects guys put Linux on the machines and saved a couple of hundred grand.

      I find it endlessly amusing that Hollywood is so staunchly in support of intellectual property rights, but is more than willing to enjoy the benefits of Linux.

      • That farm was built with Digital Alpha processors, but instead of buying DEC Unix (or Tru64 or whatever it was called then), his effects guys put Linux on the machines and saved a couple of hundred grand

        Even worse for DEC/Compaq, they weren't really DEC Alphas, but Alpha clones. Was weird to see them rave about this "Titanic made using Alpha technology", when they didn't use DEC hardware or software, just use Alpha chips from someone else. They may have got a few bucks on Alpha licensing for those clone
      • I find it endlessly amusing that Hollywood is so staunchly in support of intellectual property rights, but is more than willing to enjoy the benefits of Linux.

        Well, that's perhaps because you have a simplistic view of what Linux, open source, and the free software movement stand for.

        First of all, open source is simply an economic and practical movement: as a user, I want the source to applications I use and I want to be able to modify them. If the vendor doesn't give them to me, I just don't use their

  • by demo9orgon (156675) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @05:06PM (#5547088) Homepage
    Anyone who had to mess with the wacky 9u Compaq server hardware of a couple of years ago and wanted to run Linux on knows that Compaq (before HP) and RedHat we're holding hands a long time before this announcement. Not kissing or petting, but there was a tacit agreement that Compaq supported the RedHat distros (6.x and 7.x series) and RedHat made sure to roll their SCSI array drivers into the mix. They were good friends, and probably even exchanged a couple of "partner" trinkets over the years.

    Before this, Dell was the RedHat "Daddy". That was probably before Michael Dell and Steve Ballmer had a couple of meetings and came to the agreement that Linux was bad for Dell in the "consumer space", which somehow included their laptops, and their website. Anyone remember the "powerapp" boxen. They were good, and came with RH 6.2 and 7.0 distros. That was before "Red the Hat", decided to really mess up their distro.

    This latest announcement is a "Stock market Ad" designed to make both HP and RedHat look better than usual (warty beasts with scrabbling claws and pale lidless eyes which cannot withstand the brilliant light of full-disclosure) and to signal that server clients and channel partners can "Have RedHat, we mean Linux, with that".

    And after RedHat's 8.x they can eat their distro one mylar shard at a time...I'll be nice and let them choose which end they want it in, because it's never going to see my servers again. Ever.
    • And after RedHat's 8.x they can eat their distro one mylar shard at a time...I'll be nice and let them choose which end they want it in, because it's never going to see my servers again. Ever.

      What are you doing with 8.x on your servers? Red Hat 8.0 is meant for personal use-- there is very little bare-bones support for it. If you want a supportable enviornment for your server, then you need Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS (a.k.a. Advanced Server).
  • In our company, HP is also aggressively trying to get us to switch our support for our SUN E class from sun to HP. We are suspicious, and asking lots of questions like when the blame game begins, but so far all their answers are sharp and quick, and their price is better than Sun's. Our management is seriously considering this switch, so a move to support linux would be seen as a good thing for companies trying to get over this "open source" support model.
  • HP outsourced support to India. This saved them some money, but the level of support plummeted. Gee, who knew a clear understanding of English was important in tech support?

    Apparently, complaints about support have skyrocketed 50% in ONE QUARTER!

    Register story [theregister.co.uk]

    • Dell does it too. Stupid dot heads can suck my ball sack.

      [Me]
      "My network card is broken. Please send me a new one"

      [dot head]
      "I am not being understanding what it is the issues are being having, have you tried to reinstalling Windows?"

      [Me]
      "I'm running Linux"

      [dot head]
      "Oh, I am being very sorry that we are not supporting Linux on the system you are having"


  • I think even SGI did this, roll out Linux along their own OS for servers. No complaints from us but, I wonder why dont they offer BSD as well, just for more diversity in their offerings? They shouldnt make much money from Linux as an OS, so they could do that.


  • Actually, HP has been offering RedHat AS for their Itanium boxes for quite a while now, along with HP-UX and Windows 64-bit Enterprise Server (the price difference between HP-UX and Linux has always been negligable, but Windows adds substancially to the final system price). The only thing new here was the same Linux software and support is now being offered for the 32-bit Intel hardware.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Because one of HP's biggest clients is getting ready to start using Linux in a big way. NDA prevents me from saying who I work for.
    The project thats working on it has been trying to get info from Red Hat concerning their High availability product but has been stonewalled rumor is that RH is afraid of the support commitment.
    The only down side to us using linux is that I'm 99% sure that any developments that we make in house would not be given back to the Linux project. I only give them 1% credit because the
  • by Shamanin (561998)
    Would be nice to have an iPAQ that ships with Opie / Familiar (minimal Linux distributions with GUI specifically for PDAs) rather than have to burn it in ourself. Take a bit from Pocket PCs pocket...
  • Before this, HP was supposed to be offering their own Linux distribution, which seemed stupid to me. Why incur all that extra development and support cost, when you're never going to be the next Redhat anyway? Companies like HP should have been on the Linux bandwagon years ago, but they stalled only because they couldn't figure out how to stamp their own brand on it. This is asinine, but typical of corporate dinosaurs like HP. Shareholders should be very upset. It's high time HP just grabbed a good dis
  • HP Not So Great (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nuintari (47926) on Wednesday March 19, 2003 @09:33PM (#5549263) Homepage
    Saw HP at a trade show a few months back, IBM was also present. They both were doing blade servers, and let me tell you, HP's look like crap compared to what IBM offers for a similar price. IBM's will share the console fully digitally, whereas HP's comes with a piece of hardware that has to be snapped into place on the front of the blade, and moved around to share the console. And its too big to just buy a ton of them and put one on each blade, so you can't even go buy a phat kvm to save your sanity.

    Did I mention that IBM brought a full rack of working blades with redhat, windows 2k, openbsd, freebsd, suse, and a few other linux distros, and showed off the awesome power? HP brought two broken blade servers and pointed at the Xeon's inside and said, "Intel! Intel!"

    Not saying its bad to see Red Hat get exposure, but HP doesn't rate high in my book, and I know a lot of other people who feel the same way. This might give Red Hat a bad name.

    If my HP sales rep is reading, this is why everytime you send me a new offer, I go right to my customers and say, "IBM! Pro Micro!"

...when fits of creativity run strong, more than one programmer or writer has been known to abandon the desktop for the more spacious floor. - Fred Brooks, Jr.

Working...