To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
"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.
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.





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.