Slashdot Log In
Oracle to Compete With Red Hat for Linux Support
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Oct 25, 2006 06:45 PM
from the and-the-consumer-wins dept.
from the and-the-consumer-wins dept.
PCM2 writes "It's not Oracle Linux, but Larry Ellison has announced that Oracle will be providing full enterprise support for Linux. This means not just phone calls but also patches, security fixes, and backports, in addition to indemnification from lawsuits like SCO's. This puts Oracle in direct competition with its erstwhile partner, Red Hat, whose entire business is based on providing similar support for its Linux distro and related software."
Related Stories
[+]
Oracle Linux Explored 167 comments
M-Saunders writes "Two days ago Slashdot reported on Oracle's move into the enterprise Linux market, and how it may challenge Red Hat. Red Hat's stock has already dropped, and there's a great deal of talk about the implications of this act. Linux Format got hold of the 'Unbreakable' distro to find out what's going on under the hood. Is it a breakthrough for Linux in the corporate market, or just another RHEL respin? See the article for all the info and screenshots — including an 'interesting' choice of GRUB colours."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
first step towards buying red hat? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:first step towards buying red hat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Meanwhile, a competitive market might actually help Red Hat. Lower prices would increase Red Hat's volume, even if some of the sales went to Oracle. The trick is to figure out the optimum price that maximizes total revenue. I suspect that magic price is somewhere south of Red Hat's current pricing. Oracle might accidentally help Red Hat find a richer price point.
For many other reasons, you are correct. Buying Red Hat means Larry gets JBOSS, which he wanted to buy before. And Oracle becomes the top Linux company overnight. That won't happen if players like Red Hat are still on the playing field. Otherwise, "Unbreakable Linux" is simply the latest Red Hat knockoff. Besides, growth via acquisition is Larry's game. Very rarely does Oracle crank up a new line of business on their own.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is Oracle we are talking about. Surely there will be strings attached. Let's see if EVERYONE gets the low price (if it's as low as they claim). Knowing Oracle as I do, I predict that the wonderful pricing will somehow apply to only those customers with Oracle support contracts for other Oracle products. I will be very surprised if they offer it as a straight-up substitute for RHEL, available in quantity 1, to everyone with a credit c
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The Linux OS (Score:5, Informative)
That should have said "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 and 4". They're not supporting every GNU/Linux distribution, nor are they supporting just the kernel.
Remember, there is no such thing as the Linux operating system. Linux is just the kernel, and the various distributions based on it are all different.
Yes yes, this whole debate again... (Score:2)
Re:Yes yes, this whole debate again... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're talking about a specific distribution (which is often the case), use the name of the distribution. If you're talking about the kernel, say "the kernel" or "the Linux kernel", and if you're talking about GNU/Linux systems in general, say "GNU/Linux", to avoid ambiguity.
``Linux distribution is a well accepted term and the practice of shortening it to Linux is well accepted.''
I agree, and I accept that usage, but, in this case, Oracle is supporting a single distro, not Linux in general. Saying that they support Linux is, at best, unclear, and I would say false.
``Without the GNU toolset (or one like it), the kernel would be essentially useless.''
I suppose you mean to suggest that we shouldn't be saying "GNU/Linux". However, I've built and seen systems based on Linux that didn't include GNU software, as well as systems that included GNU software, but not Linux. I can tell you that much of the identity of GNU/Linux comes from the GNU part, not the Linux part. That's why I prefer to use the combined term.
``If a desktop system, at least X, and generally Gnome or KDE is needed, so do you have to say Gnome/X/GNU/Linux in that case? If it's a particular config of a web server do you have to say Apache/Postgresql/PHP/GNU/Linux?''
I am not about to declare that everyone _has_ to call it a certain way, but I do like people to be clear, precise, and truthful. Konqueror is part of KDE, not Linux. Firefox runs on top of GTK, not necessarily Linux or even X. glibc is part of the GNU system, and works with various kernels besides Linux. Drivers for Linux won't work with AIX, no matter how many GNU utilities, X servers, and GNOME's you install.
In cases where it's relevant, it may make a lot of sense to describe a system as Apache/Postgresql/PHP/GNU/Linux, although the various components probably matter to different people. As a webmaster, I probably care about Postresql and PHP, and perhaps Apache, but not about GNU and Linux. As the sysadmin, I probably care about all of them.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
You know, normal people would read that as "Oracle will be providing full enterprise support for [a Linux distribution]."
If an article blurb says that Product X has been "released for Windows", would you require it to specify "XP, 2000, but not Me, 98, or 3.1"?
The word "Linux" is used to refer to an entire distribution. The Linux kernel is usually referred to as just that, almost never simply as "Linux". And finally, there is no way t
I understand.... (Score:5, Interesting)
But why not use established systems with guaranteed update mechanisms? Something like Debian with the stable branch comes to mind.
Re: (Score:2)
I've thought Debian stable would be a very good target for proprietary software. By Debian's policy, package versions are kept the same, with only security fixes and major bug fixes being applied. There can be years between subsequent realeases. This means Debian stable is a very stable (hence the name) platform to target. Compared to that, many other distributions must be a
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle Linux is basically RHEL4 and Oracle's Unbreakable Linux Network is basically up2date; these seem like established systems to me.
Extended warranty? (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA says RedHat doesn't sell the 'OS', but that's bullocks. You cannot legally get RHEL without paying for it (some of the copyrighted artwork and name), hence the whole point of the existence of projects like CentOS. Their fundamental business is built on support, but it changes not the fact that they do not give away the distro they sell anymore.
Re:Extended warranty? (Score:5, Interesting)
Really, this is Crazy Larry being pissed off that Red Hat bought JBoss. He's going to stick it to Red Hat the only way he can, run his own Linux support business, at a loss, in order to grab marketshare from Red Hat. Once Red Hat is anemic enough, or belly up, and his own customer base is large enough, he'll jack up the rate to something that's profitable. In Economic terms, this is known as "dumping". Flooding the market with low cost goods in order to gain market share. Then when all the competitors go out of business, you have a monopoly. And we all know what happens when someone has a monopoly...
-Runz
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, this will be interesting to watch. More options in market, more alternatives to Microsoft combo - I love that. And free software proves what it is worth.
Yay. (Score:4, Interesting)
Oracle seems to support Oracle - like ocfs2, which so far as I can tell, is the only substantial Oracle contribution in mainline.
grep -r oracle.com
grep -r redhat.com
RedHat has invested in major contributors by putting them on staff. Oracle? Not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
Oracle gains nothing by making the Linux kernel better, people can use Oracle on Windows or other Unix for all they care. Red Hat needs the Linux kernel to be better, Oracle, till now, has had little interest in Linux aside from ocfs2 and related Oracle products.
Maybe now they will start submitting fixes to the kernel since they now are selling a Linux kernel based product.
Re:Yay. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Mod parent up. (Score:2)
grep -ri oracle
9 72 805
grep -ri redhat
905 6543 84527
So? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)
anytime i reported an issue with our several thousand dollar implimentation, they either already had a patch that fixed it, or had one shortly thereafter.
so i guess everyone can mod both of these 'my individual experience' posts down, and call it even?
Parent
It's about the value chain (Score:4, Interesting)
My guess is that Oracle isn't really targeting Red Hat, they're targeting IBM and eventually Microsoft. Larry E. isn't noted for humility and, if he takes out Red Hat, it's just a way station on the road to a greater goal.
RMS exonerated? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, there are several vendors who support their own distro of Linux, but are there previous instances where a third party (Oracle) is competing with a vendor who itself does support (RedHat)?
Trademark infringment? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Good news but for unexpected reasons. (Score:5, Interesting)
RedHat is stagnant. I have to admit a degree of ignorance here, but as far as I can tell, they are not really doing anything to excite interest in their market. They offer support and their own distribution (apart from Fedora Core) at outrageously high prices. (Even Windows server solutions are cheaper than RedHat.) Sure they gobbled up JBoss, but I do not think there is as much market overlap as one might suspect.
I might even go so far as to say RedHat has done a fair amount of damage to Linux adoption: they create high costs and little value or innovation likely because they face no direct competition.
With Oracle entering the picture, RedHat will be compelled to move quickly—to at least do something. I am not even quite sure what that is, but one way or another, this is adds choice for the market and that is always good, whether it results in a better RedHat or no RedHat.
It turns out my information was outdated. (Score:5, Interesting)
I have not checked the prices of comparable RedHat and Microsoft server offerings. It turns out that RedHat is still cheaper, but by a trivial amount. Compare the RedHat Store [redhat.com] (see: Server Operating System Products) and Windows Server 2003 R2 Pricing [microsoft.com]. (Wouldn't it be nice if Slashdot support post annotation or editing?)
At any rate, Windows might still be a superior server platform thanks to the effectiveness of ActiveDirectory, fine-grained ACL, and so on. I am no Windows apologist (on the contrary, quite the advocate of open source solutions), but I fear Microsoft may be leaping far ahead of their competition in this space.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Playing devils advocate. (Score:2)
PostgreSQL and MySQL run just as fine on Windows as they do on Linux, as does Apache and anything else you might need to build applications. Windows offers LAMP without the L. Compilers and development environments are even more prolific with Cygwin and just about every Java development tool and application platform running just as well. I cannot speak about the artificial number of connections (I am not even sure what you mean), but it is not sufficient to say Linux has an edge because it has more softw
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If support and updates are unimportant to you and you're willing to run things like Cygwin and Apache on your Windows server to avoid paying for Red Hat, its a lot more likely you're jus
Accounting for edits. (Score:2)
Perhaps edits to the content forfeit moderation whereas annotations leave it unaffected?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent, ad hominem.
This is what open source proponents and contributors fail to get: it is not about what RedHat give to the community or any other charitable work they do. Potential customers do not look at RedHat offerings and buy their product because they enhanced the kernel or fixed bugs in this project or another.
Yes, it is important, but it does not drive their business nor does it drive adoption. What matters is value. Does RedHat offer everything Microsoft does? No. Is the comparable fu
A fundamental problem with open source (Score:3, Interesting)
Company A develops linux distribution, supports it.
Company B simply compies Company A's work, supports it as well.
My question is this, what is company A's incentive to develop a distribution? Because the development costs are 0 to company B and substantial to company A, company B can easily undercut the price of company A. It would seem like you'd have to be a fool to develop a distribution, since the GPL forces you to surrender your work to competitors who can easily undercut your price.
My Experience with Third-party Support for RHEL (Score:2)
Ex-Oracle OSS strategy guy's view (Score:4, Interesting)
An interesting point from Dave:
And this quote made me laugh:
Consider the target market. (Score:3, Insightful)
So, now Larry is telling me I can stop paying RH for support, and I can pay Oracle. My cost will be about 1/3 what I'm paying now to RH. When I call for support on one of my Oracle apps, I don't have to worry about whether it is a bug in the app, the DBMS or the OS - the support call is the same and they need to help me figure it out.
Where's the downside for me? If you aren't currently an Oracle customer - fine, keep paying RHAT for support. If you are an Oracle customer, it's a no-brainer.
RH Response (Score:5, Informative)
Oracle offers SCOmnification .. (Score:3, Interesting)
"Red Hat has a separate indemnification [linux.com] policy. In Red Hat's case, this policy is called the Open Source Assurance program."
Presumably if Larry really believed the SCO case had any validity he wouldn't even consider using RHEL. And in relation to RHEL and the GPL what's stopping anyone buying a single copy of Oracle Linux and repackage it and selling it with support contracts. Presumably if Larry doesn't allow this then Oracle is in breach of the license.
"We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy [redhat.com], distribute and/or modify the software"
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Informative)
All a RedHat client has to do to move to Oracle support for their RedHat install is to stop using RedHat's update servers and start using Oracle's. Oracle will provide patches, and will backport those patches to earlier revisions than RedHat does in order to keep enterprise-level clients from having to upgrade all of their systems too often.
So, as it stands now, Oracle will basically be offering a higher level of support than RedHat for the same exact software for a lot less money. RedHat is going to be forced to drastically reduce their prices just to compete.
I would think that over the longterm Oracle's Unbreakable Linux will fork off, especially if this ends up seriously damaging RedHat, but for now Unbreakable Linux is nothing more than a re-branded copy of RedHat.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dystopian future: because Unbreakable Linux is built off RHEL (like CentOS is), Red Hat lose (some/half/all) of their support customers to Unbreakable, can't afford to keep producing RHEL, and Oracle base future versions of Unbreakable on what, now?
Re:I'm confused... (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
"The distro's just fantastic, that is really what I thinks, oh, by the way: Vista stinks..."
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Ah yep: [infoworld.com]
Parent
Re:I'm confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
really. think about it.
i should say; what does oracle get by buying red hat that would still be worth anything after the purchase? after the employees flee their proprietary overlords and the red hat brand has been subsumed in the giant sucking sound of oracle's corporate engine?
the death or purchase (same thing, really) of red hat does not benefit oracle in any way. and it's going to be interesting to see if oracle can actually deliver linux support that an
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
GOOD! (Score:2)
They have been WAY overcharging for the support they currently provide. Not to mention that both AS and ES versions came with bluetooth(!) enabled on a server install. Stuff like that is just plain stupid.
When they went enterprise-only support after RH9, they shot themselves in the foot because, at the time, people who would have genuinely considered switching to RH (or any other distro for that matter, but RH was THE