Submitted by IBM is not ready to guarantee that its computer programs are compatible with Oracle’s recently launched version of the Linux operating system, an IBM spokesman said on Friday. This means that if IBM software programs turn out to be incompatible with Oracle Enterprise Linux, then it will be up to Oracle – and not IBM – to resolve the issue, said IBM spokesman Matthew McMahon.
“shit on your fingers…you sure got a mess on your hands”
Oracle builds their stuff right from Redhat’s sources.
I think there should be ONLY one person or organization “certifying” linux – either Linus or FSF.
It’s not IBM saying that Unbreakable is/isin’t Linux. It’s IBM saying they haven’t tested their apps enough on Unbreakable to know if they work as expected or not. It could be IBM just refusing to support anything running on it, or they might just not have got around to testing it yet. I’ve never heard Oracle come out and say that Unbreakable is 100% compatible with RHEL.
I think there should be ONLY one person or organization “certifying” linux – either Linus or FSF.
You’re so wrong. Anyone providing software, support, and assorted services must be able to certify what they do and do not support. This is plainly obvious.
There are many reasons why IBM does not currently certify their products and services on Unbreakable Linux. First, there’s not much demand for Unbreakable, and certification is an expensive and time-consuming process. Second, IBM already certifies their Linux offerings on Red Hat and Novell. Third, IBM supports Oracle on both of these Linux platforms in addition to AIX and (gasp) Windows. Finally, even if Oracle thinks that providing its own Linux platform will enable it to better support their customers, how does this help IBM provide better support for Oracle customers?
Edited 2007-02-24 02:12
This is just posturing between big companies with big wallets. I love the phrase abput waiting for Oracle Linux to “gain traction in the market place.” There’s some serious hot air for you!
Nonsense. Their sales model is what’s not compatible with Oracle’s RHEL. IBM wants to be in every layer of everyone’s pockets: server, os, database, middleware, front-end. Letting someone else take the database and now os (ala Oracle) doesn’t make them a happy camper. Someday IBM will realise that Linux has not killed MS, Sun, or HP for various reasons. Then they’ll go back to promoting AIX.
It’s not “Oracle’s RHEL”, it is based on it. What tweaks did they have to do to improve it over RHEL if any? I am a bit leery about it since I know RH has lots of devs that have worked on Linux, can Oracle match their experience and skill with the OS? Will Oracle certify their database for CentOS?
Not quite the case. IBM does not significantly profit from a Linux sale on new hardware. All they do is bundle the CDs and the first year of support from Red Hat or Suse.
Really what this is about is support channels. IBM is saying that they will not officially support their product lines (DB2, WebSphere, Tivoli, etc…) on a platform that they have not done testing on. Unbreakable is an exact clone of RHEL. Will it always be?
IBM is very conservative on supporting flavors of Linux. I would really love for the to support any deb based distro, but do not see it happening unless Mr. Shuttleworth pulls it off.
RHEL and SLES has always been a tough sell for me. When you factor in the support contracts I find them to be more expensive than Windows. Centos is a decent route if you want to run IBM software, but it will of course be unsupported there as well.
Edited 2007-02-24 21:11
By linux compatible… I’ve built a few oracle servers on linux and while I think now could do it with any distro but you have to groom everything to fit oracle, there’s no just switching oracle around to fit the distro.
Would I call oracle linux_compatible, well, no, there is a lot of conversion and modification required. I haven’t seen any other app that won’t work with a linux modified to run oracle on the other hand either.
and quit bitching about everybody else’s Linux. But they really don’t have the balls.
Edited 2007-02-24 06:14
IBM is too conceded of their AIX UNIX platform to ever do that.
Why would IBM spend more money with its own Linux when it can get money by just supporting the others ?
> Why would IBM spend more money with its own Linux when it can get money by just supporting the others ?
But the article is that they are NOT supporting others like Oracle.
– Redhat’s too dangerous for IBM – they compete with IBM on Websphere/JBoss/etc
– Oracle’s a direct competitor in the dBase space
– Novell’s in bed with Microsoft (that after taking 50Mill from IBM)
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2007/02/13/ibm_open_client/
Since when was it up the OS “maker” to make sure that third party applications run properly on the OS?
Isn’t it supposed to be the application maker that should make sure their program isn’t filled with bugs that make it run only on certain configurations?
It is not the responsibility of the OS “maker” to ensure support. However IBM can not support the 32 flavors and then some that constitute all of the distros out there.
I dislike IBMs limited supported platforms for Linux, however it is not practical for them to officially support their applications on every flavor of Linux. Most open source projects do not even do this. Variations on gcc, kernel version, package manager, file system layout, etc, prevents it.
For that matter IBM has to be able to support the product, they can’t have knowledgeable staff for every distro out there.
(It should be noted, that while still supported on a very limited set of platforms, Domino will run on just about any Linux distro. Unfortunately it is the oddball and the rest of IBMs software stack seems to be entrenched in RPM land.)
Obviously I can see why they can’t officially support all flavors of Linux, but from the article summary IBM says that it’s up to Oracle to ensure that IBM’s programs work on Oracle’s distro, and that is what I have an issue with.