Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 26th Oct 2006 17:10 UTC, submitted by M-Saunders
Databases "Yesterday Oracle announced the release of their own version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, simply called Enterprise Linux or 'Unbreakable Linux'. In a remarkably similar move to such projects as CentOS, Oracle have decided to remove all Red Hat specific trademarks and brand it as their own (all quite legit, of course). They will be supplying bugfixes for this new version, and will also be synchronising it with future releases of Red Hat Enterprise Linux. We decided to take a peek at what Oracle had come up with. Read on for a first-look, and the Linux Format team's opinions." In the meantime, Mark Shuttleworth said a partnership with Oracle is no longer a matter of if, but when.
Order by: Score:
ParaMouthBalls
Member since:
2006-10-25

Their own version of Red Hat ......................future releases, bugfixes, and synchronising.

Reply Score: 2

v Boycott Oracle
by Don T. Bothers on Thu 26th Oct 2006 18:31 UTC
RE: Boycott Oracle
by Bit_Rapist on Thu 26th Oct 2006 18:38 UTC in reply to "Boycott Oracle"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Oracle is acting against the general goodwill of open source.

Oracle is operating within the licensing rights granted in the GPL.

Last thing we want is IBM, Sun, HP and everyone else to have their version of Linux.

Who exactly is *we*?

So what if IBM, HP and everyone else under the sun releases a linux distro?

If the support is good and the price(s) are right then more power to them!

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Boycott Oracle
by andrewg on Thu 26th Oct 2006 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Boycott Oracle"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

So what if IBM, HP and everyone else under the sun releases a linux distro?

If the support is good and the price(s) are right then more power to them!


Thats quite a short and narrow view. Redhat has proven to be an OSS advocate and has put a lot of their own resources into developing the 'Linux platform'. Oracle on the other hand may just take the money, which will likely be a net loss to Redhat, and not use it to develop the 'linux platform' in needed areas. Therefore 'ceteris paribus' the 'Linux platform' will have fewer resources developing it than if the money had gone to Redhat.

But there are a lot of factors and how it all ends up I don't pretend to know.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Boycott Oracle
by llanitedave on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Boycott Oracle"
llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

"Oracle on the other hand may just take the money, which will likely be a net loss to Redhat, and not use it to develop the 'linux platform' in needed areas. Therefore 'ceteris paribus' the 'Linux platform' will have fewer resources developing it than if the money had gone to Redhat."

You're assuming a zero-sum game, that overall Linux usage is stagnant. That's not the case. Linux usage is growing. If Oracle actively promotes its own version, Linux may grow even more.

Oracle is a lot more likely to bring in new customers from outside the current Linux market than it is to steal existing customers from Red Hat. There's a lot of untapped wealth out there. If Oracle can bring some of it in, it should help ALL of the Linux distributions.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Boycott Oracle
by andrewg on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Boycott Oracle"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

You're assuming a zero-sum game

Yes that is why I wrote "Ceteris Paribus" which I believe is a economics term meaning "All else being equal".

My final statement also stated that I knew it was more complicated than that, but basically Redhat is likely to be a better option for anyone who would like to see the profits from their purchase go back into the system. Oracle growing the market is irrelevant in that regard.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Boycott Oracle
by llanitedave on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Boycott Oracle"
llanitedave Member since:
2005-07-24

"My final statement also stated that I knew it was more complicated than that, but basically Redhat is likely to be a better option for anyone who would like to see the profits from their purchase go back into the system. Oracle growing the market is irrelevant in that regard."

True, but that's not the purpose for existance of either Oracle OR Red Hat. They both exist to make a profit. Giving back to the system is secondary, for Red Hat, and maybe completely irrelevant for Oracle. I have a lot of respect for Red Hat so far, and not much for Oracle. But that's irrelevent too. The bottom line is that I think ultimately this move will not harm Red Hat, and may prove positive for Linux overall.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Boycott Oracle
by andrewg on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Boycott Oracle"
andrewg Member since:
2005-07-06

Redhat or Oracles Profit motive is irrelevant to the purchaser. Purchasers have different criteria for purchase decisions. Which is one reason why companies that are focused on the customers spend a lot of money with no directly measurable return on things that generate goodwill.

I would favour Redhat over Oracle as a Linux support vendor because I perceive their commitment to Linux and expertise to be better than Oracle.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Boycott Oracle
by Bit_Rapist on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Boycott Oracle"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Thats quite a short and narrow view. Redhat has proven to be an OSS advocate and has put a lot of their own resources into developing the 'Linux platform'. Oracle on the other hand may just take the money, which will likely be a net loss to Redhat, and not use it to develop the 'linux platform' in needed areas. Therefore 'ceteris paribus' the 'Linux platform' will have fewer resources developing it than if the money had gone to Redhat.

Any company that is going to get serious about enterprise linux and sell the operating system is going to end up being an advocate of OSS on some level, there is no way to avoid it once you start making money and people are calling you for support.

If a company never gives back or devotes any resources to making the product better (even a free product they rebadged) then I doubt they will be there for the long haul.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Boycott Oracle
by twenex on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Boycott Oracle"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Thats quite a short and narrow view. Redhat has proven to be an OSS advocate and has put a lot of their own resources into developing the 'Linux platform'. Oracle on the other hand may just take the money, which will likely be a net loss to Redhat, and not use it to develop the 'linux platform' in needed areas. Therefore 'ceteris paribus' the 'Linux platform' will have fewer resources developing it than if the money had gone to Redhat.

Any company that makes a serious effort at selling a FOSS product is going to be "an open source advocate"; if it doesn't, their FOSS efforts will be ignored. I'm all for truth in advertising, but no company is going to sell a FOSS product and be anti-FOSS; that'd be like saying "Don't buy this, it's crap; in fact don't buy from us, because we sell crap". No company is or should be doing that.

EDIT: Well, ok, apart from SCO. But we're not talking about pathological cases, here. Normally the inmates don't run the asylum.

Edited 2006-10-26 21:49

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Boycott Oracle
by ctl_alt_del on Thu 26th Oct 2006 18:52 UTC in reply to "Boycott Oracle"
ctl_alt_del Member since:
2006-05-14

What a bunch of utter nonsense . . . .
Oracle is acting against the general goodwill of open source.
And what goodwill are they against?

They have way too much money to be doing this.
How does money factor into this?

I propose that any techhead out there considering a database for Linux only consider AIX, Sybase or PostgreSQL.
Good luck with that "AIX" database?!?

Last thing we want is IBM, Sun, HP and everyone else to have their version of Linux.
So what if they do, as long as they play by the GPL. Competition is good isn't it?

Reply Score: 4

v RE: Boycott Oracle
by bryanv on Thu 26th Oct 2006 20:42 UTC in reply to "Boycott Oracle"
RE: Boycott Oracle
by twenex on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:42 UTC in reply to "Boycott Oracle"
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

If IBM, Sun, HP and everyone else has their own version of Linux, they may no longer see the need to preload Windows, or at least not on every PC.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Boycott Oracle
by Sphinx on Thu 26th Oct 2006 23:19 UTC in reply to "Boycott Oracle"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

Want a Redhat only world? Boycotting Ubuntu for forking debian too? Xorg for XFree? Draw some kind of line somewhere?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Boycott Oracle
by Sphinx on Thu 26th Oct 2006 23:23 UTC in reply to "Boycott Oracle"
Sphinx Member since:
2005-07-09

any techhead out there considering a database for Linux only consider AIX, Sybase or PostgreSQL.

AIX is an operating system.

Reply Score: 2

great article - Not for Desktop YET!
by bullethead on Thu 26th Oct 2006 18:49 UTC
bullethead
Member since:
2005-07-10

I downloaded it last night, thanks for the article, I won't install it now. FC6 will get installed instead. Having said that I don't think Oracle Linux is for desktops yet, I am sure all of the Oracle specific hooks are there and work nicely however.

I wish uncle Larry well in his new quest.

Reply Score: 2

ChiliJ Member since:
2005-08-12

Naturally. Oracle is not really in the business of selling desktop applications.

Reply Score: 1

I'm a little confused...
by jasutton on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:09 UTC
jasutton
Member since:
2006-03-28

Oracle is about to partner with Ubuntu, but they just started a distro based on RHEL? Am I missing some key element to this news story, or what?

Reply Score: 2

RE: I'm a little confused...
by aent on Fri 27th Oct 2006 15:24 UTC in reply to "I'm a little confused..."
aent Member since:
2006-01-25

They're about to support Ubuntu so people can purcahse their software and use it on Ubuntu with ease, but they have not had plans to recommend Ubuntu, just if someone wants it, it would be a supported platform.

They are going to encourage people to use Unbreakable Linux so they will be the one stop vendor for all issues on the computer. As it is, right now, if you have a problem on a server running Oracle, Oracle may go say its a Red Hat issue and Red Hat may say its an Oracle issue.

Since they figured they have to setup the entire infrastucture to support the distrubiton, they figured they might as well go all the way and offer it for everyone, since they could do it cheaper with the infrastructure they already had.

Reply Score: 1

after having read this...
by eantoranz on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:46 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

After reading http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=..., I'm wondering if all they want to do is multiply tenfold vulnerability counts in secunia for linux so that Windows looks much better. :-D

Reply Score: 1

remember sun linux?
by macisaac on Thu 26th Oct 2006 19:59 UTC
macisaac
Member since:
2005-08-28

and no, I'm not talking about that java desktop thing they had. for those of you who may have used a sun lx50 it had a sun linux 5.0 distro on it, which like this, wasn't much more than a re-branding of redhat 7.2 with some sun foo dropped in along with slightly updated pacakges.

well, suffice it to say, it kind of tanked. one must wonder if oracle's repeat of this will go the same route....

Reply Score: 1

RE: remember sun linux?
by haugland on Thu 26th Oct 2006 20:44 UTC in reply to "remember sun linux?"
haugland Member since:
2005-07-07

Sun did not have many good reasons for having their own Linux version. Oracle however, can use their Linux distro to be totally free from the OS vendors. They will no longer depend on the goodwill of MS, Sun etc.

I could imagine having an Oracle database much like a Google Search Appliance ( http://www.google.com/enterprise/gsa/ ). Plug in the power cord, and your database is running.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: remember sun linux?
by NotParker on Thu 26th Oct 2006 20:54 UTC in reply to "RE: remember sun linux?"
NotParker Member since:
2006-06-01

Plug in the power cord, and your database is running.

More like:

1) Plug in the cord
2) Deposit 50,000$ in the coin slot
3) Your database is running.

Reply Score: 5

They're doing this for one reason....
by mbpark on Thu 26th Oct 2006 21:34 UTC
mbpark
Member since:
2005-11-17

Oracle is doing this for one reason (besides making money).

They want to be able to offer a complete stack to run your database, application servers, and ERP platforms on. They already have all three (Oracle Database, Oracle Application Server, and Peoplesoft, JDEdwards, Siebel, and their own products).

I've used Oracle on Linux. They only support a small number of distributions (Red Hat, SUSE, and possibly Ubuntu). If a distro has a major change, like Red Hat did between 6.2 and 7, then it can mess up how Oracle operates.

If Oracle controls what goes into the distribution, then they can:

1. Only include the apps you need for running Oracle and applications.
2. Tune the kernel for Oracle, and include features such as OCFS enabled in it.
3. Include Oracle's version of Apache instead of the vanilla Apache.
4. Issue OS patches which directly correlate to Oracle patches as part of the quarterly Critical Patch Updates.
5. Build management extensions so that you can manage Oracle Linux servers directly from Oracle Enterprise Manager/Grid Control. In other words, deploy and manage Oracle and Linux from the same console.
6. Extend the Oracle Enterprise Manager-based patch management that's now in 10g Release 2 to include the OS.
7. Possibly include a "jumpstart" like Debian has where you can plug in new servers, netboot them, and automatically have Linux and Oracle installed, configured, and added to your grid in a specific role.

They're not going to make money on having their own version of Linux.

They're going to make money by charging for the Oracle Enterprise Manager licenses for each Oracle Linux server. They can get a lot more for the O.E.M. licenses than they can for Linux itself.

Linux is notorious for not having easy to use patch management (yes, I know Linux has it, but it's not on the same point and click level as Windows Update Services for basic admins).

Oracle has it in 10g Release 2. They can extend what they have for grid management down to the OS level, and make systems management that much easier.

Reply Score: 3

When-never
by Sphinx on Thu 26th Oct 2006 23:13 UTC
Sphinx
Member since:
2005-07-09

Oracle needs Ubuntu like a fish needs a bicycle.

Reply Score: 1

As some comments mentioned IBM...
by cptnapalm on Fri 27th Oct 2006 02:55 UTC
cptnapalm
Member since:
2006-08-09

IBM did apparently think about making their own Linux distro, but decided against it because the Linux using community might split into pro and anti camps when the 800 lb gorilla made its FOSS debut.

Reply Score: 1

It's only change
by moleskine on Fri 27th Oct 2006 14:16 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Hmmn, I suspect this is all just as much about shifting Linux into more big names - and brand names. Outfits like Oracle, IBM, HP, Sun can talk on an equal footing to company managers who will actually have heard of them. And the big boys can offer cast-iron support and, er hem, indemnity against pesky lawsuits, thus taking a lot of the risk out of using Linux.

The only established Linux company that can remotely approach that kind of muscle and brand identity is Red Hat and they are very small potatoes compared to, say, IBM. Working it the other way, Ubuntu doing a deal with Oracle would give Ubuntu the certification, support rep and indemnity it might otherwise take years to obtain.

I don't think there is much point boycotting anyone, frankly. The big boys have looked over Linux and decided how they are going to work with it. This is how, more or less. Traditional distros are being choked off and turned into mere suppliers of product while the power and the real money lies in the sales and support divisions of giant combines.

A golden light that continues to shine in the gloom is that your favourite local greedmonster cannot and never will get his hands on Debian.

Reply Score: 2

Buyer beware
by JeffS on Fri 27th Oct 2006 16:59 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

Statisitics/history/anecdotal evidence has shown that getting support from Oracle is a bit like the turtle giving the scorpian a ride across the river. Sure, the scorpian promises he won't sting the turtle - why would he?- he needs to get across the river. But he does anyway, because it's in his nature.

In case it's not completely obvious here, Larry Ellison is the scorpian.

Here's proof ( a well said statement from Linspire CEO Kevin Carmony, with CIO value survey's to back it up):

http://www.linux-watch.com/news/NS8026824348.html

On the other hand, Kevin Carmony, Linspire Inc.'s CEO thinks the market is over-reacting to Oracle's move. After all, Carmony said, "Since when has Oracle been interested in saving IT departments' money? Since when has Oracle been known for offering quality support? This news is a bit like Hershey's saying they are going into the health food business. Buyer beware."

Carmony then backed up his claims with some facts. "For the last two years, Red Hat has topped the CIO Insight [vendor value] Survey," he said. "Where is Oracle? This year they were at #39! This is even worse than Microsoft at #31. Oracle's 39th spot is down from their previously sad showings at #28 and #30, for the prior two years. You'd think for the kind of money Oracle charges, they'd be at least in the top ten. Just think what kind of support you'll get with this loss leader pricing. Oracle was, however, ranked high on one of the charts, coming in at #2 in 'Companies With Highest Percentage of POOR RATINGS.'"

'nuff said.

Edited 2006-10-27 17:01

Reply Score: 2