Slashdot Log In
Oracle Linux Explored
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Oct 27, 2006 07:27 AM
from the new-kid-on-the-block dept.
from the new-kid-on-the-block dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Oracle to Compete With Red Hat for Linux Support 221 comments
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."
[+]
Oracle's Take On Red Hat Linux 165 comments
darthcamaro writes "For nearly three years, Oracle has had its own version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, claiming the two versions are essentially the same thing. But are they really? As it turns out, there are a few things on which Oracle and Red Hat do not see eye-to-eye, including file systems and virtualization. The article quotes Wim Coekaerts, Oracle's director of Linux engineering, saying, 'A lot of people think Oracle is doing Enterprise Linux as just basically a rip off of Red Hat but that's not what this is about. ... This is about a support program, and wanting to offer quality Linux OS support to customers that need it. The Linux distribution part is there just to make sure people can get a freely available Linux operating system that is fully supported.'"
This discussion has been archived.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.
Its the support costs that are interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Unusually, Oracle are claiming that they will support your operating system indefinitely as part of the Premier Support package which works out at $1199 and $1999.
These lifetime models get pretty interesting - you don't know if they are financially viable until a few years have gone by.
But I've seen a few health clubs, airlines and government pension plans so on, suffer on the weight of their liabilities such as lifetime memberships, lifetime frequent flyer points, a unfunded retirement pensions.
That is actually a big risk over a 10 year period..
Michael
Re:Its the support costs that are interesting (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.oracle.com/technologies/linux/ubl-ds.p
That's $1199/$1999 *annually*, and "Lifetime" is defined as 5-8 years.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Its the support costs that are interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Installing Oracle on linux (Score:4, Insightful)
I would be more than satisfied if they come with an easy solution for installing Oracle flawlessly on most linux flavors!
--
Superb hosting [tinyurl.com] 200GB Storage, 2_TB_ bandwidth, php, mysql, ssh, $7.95
Re:Installing Oracle on linux (Score:5, Insightful)
This may be a more practical alternative. Anybody who's installed Oracle on Linux knows that, compared to the open source databases popular on Linux, it's a true PITA. Furthermore, in most cases where you'd want to use Oracle instead of the open source choices, it's running on a dedicated machine. So why not give customers complete support all the way down to the iron?
I see this distro as making sense on database appliances, or servers that are for practial purposes database appliances, although those servers may be massive.
Personally, I don't see customers going with Oracle Linux for general purpose servers that run a mainly open source applicaiton stack.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
From the times I've installed Oracle the database, and various other Oracle products, I'd have to agree. Total PITA.
And other products, like IAS or Oracle reports when you need a $DISPLAY to run? Heck, I can even recall Oracle Reports needing a WINDOW MANAGER running on that $DISPLAY. On a server product?
"Personally, I don't see customers going with Oracle Linux for general purpose servers"
Personally, I have a hard time seeing anyone going with Oracle Linux for any purpose
Re:Installing Oracle on linux (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be nice, but how about if instead of a full-fledged distro, they put out a barebones Linux+Oracle, all set up and configured, that is then run in a virtual machine. Sort of an "Oracle Appliance". Saves the hassles of supporting various distros, and even saves the hassle of supporting an entire single distro (since people will install other things than Oracle on their "Unbreakable Linux"es).
I haven't used Oracle products in several years. Anyone know why they aren't doing this (or are they, and I am just ignorant)?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Installing Oracle on linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the whole reason they're doing this is because they're pissed off with Redhat for buying JBoss when Oracle wanted it.
I kid you not. Search Google for comments from Larry just after Redhat made the purchase and you'll see why.
This is just continuing that. Oracle at the time said they were considering their own Linux distro in an attempt to compete with Redhat. To paraphrase Ellison...
This isn't going to make any real difference to Redhat in the long term. Oracle would be smart to position their distro as the best possible platform for their own primary products (such as the databases, ERP software and so on.) However, the chances of that are pretty slim.
Given Oracle just recently release a mammoth patch for their 9i and 11i products that, while containing more than 100 bug fixes, didn't manage to fix all known bugs, I seriously doubt they're in any way prepared to take on the responsibility of a full fledged Enterprise ready Operating System. This is going to kick them hard.
Parent
Re:Installing Oracle on linux (Score:5, Insightful)
By assembling their own distro, they gain the ability to offer a complete virtualized environment - which is where the data centers are trending. This allows them to move from supporting *whatever*, into supporting a single environment.
Go look at the VMware Appliances [vmware.com] to get an idea of what I am talking about. The devices are complex, but the consistency is identical from VM to VM, regardless of hardware or underlying operating system.
Their support costs will plummet once they start moving their customers over to an "Oracle Appliance". Of course, this savings will be passed along to their shareholders.
Parent
Oracle certified on most linuxes.... (Score:2)
They certify that Oracle products will install trouble free on Red Hat and SUSE Linux Enterprise level distributions (Fedora and OpenSUSE not included) and all the installations I have done one these Linux distributions have indeed gone without a hitch. I have also tried to install Oracle on Fedora and it usually goes trouble free but not by any means always. If you really desperately don
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in the day, even proprietary software used to be semi-open source. You actually got the source to compile (almost no two computers were similar enough to be binary-compatible, which was why C was invented in the first place)
Re:Installing Oracle on linux (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Redhat: "UnFakeable Linux" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Until Oracle actually issues an update that didn't come from Red Hat first Oracle will be 100% compatible. Once Oracle does that they will still have a window of opportunity to issue a second patch to bring Unbreakable Linux back in line with RHEL if RHEL updates suitably (from Oracles perspective).
Even if Oracle do that and become uncertified (with Red Hat) they are mostly
Screenshot Walkthrough (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Do these people even know what "Enterprise" mea (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm Unix administrator in Fortune 200 company so I guess I should know what Enterprise class is. Did you happen to see the list of other partners who joined the Unbreakable Linux program? Have a look [yahoo.com]. Hmm.. let's see. HP, IBM, EMC, BMC..etc.
Linux with EMC Symmetrix high end fibre channel storage support, Linux with HP Service Guard mission critical high availability cluster management software, Lin
Too expensive? I know why (Score:3, Funny)
Too expensive? I know why. Larry buys too big boats, too often. And, above all, he never invited me... (Now is your chance, Larry!)
They're building an applicance (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At that point Red Hat can start using the patches that Oracle is forced to write.
Plan for Linux Domination (Score:2, Insightful)
2. Remove all vendor identity
3. Explain how your's is somehow "better"
4. Profit and repeat
Re:Plan for Linux Domination (Score:5, Insightful)
By the way, calling Unbreakable Linux a separate distro is not really accurate at this point. Trying to disparage it by calling it "just another Red Hat respin" is really missing the point. Ellison already said it's a Red Hat respin, that's the idea. The idea is to basically piggyback on the one name in Linux that has any real street cred among executives in large companies, that being Red Hat. Oracle is basically trying to take Red Hat's primary revenue stream away from them by offering better service for the same code at a better price. If they are successful, I would imagine the end game here would be for Oracle to either buy Red Hat on the cheap or, more likely, hire Red Hat's best talent away and let the company itself fade into oblivion.
Parent
First Oracle Bug Fix (Score:3, Funny)
Who pays for this stuff? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not trying to troll here. I'm just thinking that for the cost of several Oracle installations and experienced Oracle DBAs you could get a much cheaper (or outright free) database and some really top notch talent.
Re:Who pays for this stuff? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Who pays for this stuff? (Score:4, Informative)
Take a look at this [techtarget.com] for an allegedly unbiased opinion (but who knows what is shilling and what is real these days?!).
J.
Parent
Oracle Prices Are Negotiable (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, all those numbers are from my rather fragile memory. YMMV.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
At the moment for large complex db applications yes. I won't go through the complete list of features as oracle [oracle.com] are more than willing to telling you in great detail.
I run postgresql, mysql and oracle in production and there are heaps of things that postgres and mysql can't do that oracle can and I use on a daily basis.
As to whether they are worth the big $$ well that really depends on features, reliability and speed to production your db/applications needs. A simple web app, like slashdot, can ge
Re:Who pays for this stuff? (Score:5, Informative)
Remember that we are talking list price for one server.
I can speak from experience that Oracle's architecture is better than DB2, substantially better than SQL Server, and completely blows Sybase out of the water. Oracle 7 or 8 years ago was handling concurrency and large transactions better than Sybase does today. The CBO is much better than everyone's except maybe DB2. The hardware support is broader than just about everyone else with the exception of DB2. Locking is better handled. Indexes are efficient even on columns that aren't integers. VARCHAR support is clean. PL/SQL is quirky but less quirky than the alternatives. The trigger support is richer.
What generally happens is that a customer will go with Oracle for a handful of critical apps that justify the high price. Then once Oracle has their foot in the door, they'll come back and offer an expanded deal to host the databases that could run perfectly fine in any db, and do it all at a discount. The end cost is going to be substantially less than one would suppose by scaling up the quoted numbers.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Anyhow, $160k for a four cpu license does sound expensive. In db2-land that would probably be around $120 for the top-end product, but either oracle or db2 could als
This will help others adopt Linux (Score:5, Interesting)
There is a wrong perception that large companies don't adopt Linux because they prefer commercial offerings. This is only half right. It's not that they like commercial software per se, or that they don't know or understand the benefits of open-source software. The real issue for the lack of adoption is the perceived legal exposures of running software and becoming liable for it (SCO, anyone?). These large companies would be happy to bring Linux in-house as long as a larger company offers some kind of indemnification clause in their contracts.
Many large companies offer Linux distributions and absorb the indemnification. It's no wonder then that superior distributions like Ubuntu aren't on the enterprise shopping list: there is little or no viable indemnification offered. Red Hat is a big fish among open-source vendors but not large enough to convince many large enterprises to take the plunge. That's why IBM has made a good play in this arena: their Linux offerings are rather crappy, but they offer the magic word: INDEMNIFICATION. This has opened many doors for them that remained shut to other vendors.
An Oracle offering brings the same "large company support" that will let the pussies in legal departments and the dumbass middle managers sleep well at night. Oracle is already known to work well with Linux; couple that that with Red Hat functionality and Oracle support (especially if other Oracle products are involved) and that makes a very attractive proposition for all the parties involved. If Oracle plays this right they can start by offering Red Hat dressed in Oracle garb as they came out of the gate, and then provide a migration path toward Ubuntu or another Linux distribution with better tools.
Oracle didn't get that big by being idiots. They are smart and they are aggressive. I think that this is overall a good thing. It creates more competition for IBM, who perhaps now will actually push for real Linux offerings that work, for Novell with SuSe, for Sun and Solaris, and it opens the door for upstarts like Canonical who are well-positioned to make Ubuntu a household name. Last, it will open doors to Linux that would otherwise remain shut. Oracle Linux marks the maturity phase of the first round of consolidation and is the harbinger of the next distribution wars. The next five years will be very interesting.
Cheers,
Eugene Ciurana
Re: (Score:2)
OT, but I always wondered why such people get called "pussies".
Perhaps they're soft, warm, moist and surrounded by hair. Or they're soft, warm, hairy and go "Meow".
5000 dead lawyers at the bottom of the ocean (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think people ever bought software while thinking about the possibility of getting sued over third party IP claims, not because of some indemnificatio
Not a convincing argument to me (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there ARE sonme segments of the market that is still enamoured with all things Microsoft. Yes, when compared to many alternatives Microsoft is garbage but that doesn't matter. Microsoft solutions are typically like McDonalds food...fast and easy, and when you are hungry and don't have much extra cash it tastes good. Also like McDonalds food, if you only have Microsoft y
Dunno about anyone else... (Score:2, Informative)
What about old Cygnus? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, can anyone in the know comment on how much of Red Hat's business is Linux, as compared to what used to be Cygnus?
Recant. (Score:4, Informative)
Yesterday I suggested [slashdot.org] Oracle entering the game would be good for the market by increasing competion among Linux vendors. Looking at this offering, I have to say: what a joke. I was completely wrong.
Oracle are pulling nothing more than a publicity stunt with this. I expect I would be correct in the speculation that some marketing executive asked some developers to slap together an “Oracle branded distribution”. They then took a release of Fedora Core and changed graphics and colors. Boom! Instant industry player.
Re: (Score:2)
They are proving that RedHat has no fundamental value in that they are selling freely available open source software. As we know, Centos is just as good as RedHat except for the support (which is provided by Google just as well as Redhat IMHO). Non-geeks though don't seem to know about Centos. They will (and have judging by Redhats stock tumble) understand about Oracle.
Oracle can take Redhat's business by resell
Always have to start from scratch. (Score:2)
They are not adding any value, which brings me back to a point I drilled in my previous post. That is all that matters to the market. Just rebranding it and offering essentially the same product does not accomplish this. If they did not want to innovate or offer anything fundamentally superior to RedHat, it would have been better for all parties involved (the two companies and their customers) if they created a partnership. I think it is not hard to see the benefits of that. Instead of a single outstan
As usual with Oracle... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Our biggest competitors are our customers (Score:2, Interesting)
Companies don't NEED Red Hat support. All the documentation they need is freely available. They could provide all their own Linux support. The reason companies buy support from Red Hat is because it is cheaper and more reliable than doing it in-house.
Companies do need to buy support from Oracle because it is closed source. On the other hand, the open source databases are getting better. Oracle ha
Open Oracle Linux .. (Score:2)
3 No's for Oracle (Score:2)
2) If I use a database on Linux it is MySQL. I use Oracle on Solaris exclusively. I know it is a technical fallacy but I have to say it, "they go together".
3) If companies have to tweak the OS for their software to run then I tend to shy away from the software.
Oracle may be losing relevance (Score:4, Interesting)
For me, Oracle is a non-starter. It's big, expensive, and reportedly has a high management overhead. So why would I bother?
So far, I've seen massive growth easily and handily supported by PostgreSQL [postresql.org]. It's been rock-solid, very stable, secure, and installation consisted of typing two commands:
yum install postgresql-server;
service postgresql start;
We're experimenting with Slony PG clustering, with the intention of rolling that out over Christmas break. (when nobody's looking) Currently, we're snapshotting and mirroring databases hourly, but we want real-time failover...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
you often wouldn't for a start-up - assuming modest data volumes postgresql is a great choice
But let's say that you've got a 200 gbyte table, and your query is doing table scans because the selection criteria identifies more than 5% of the data in the table. Ok, on db2 or oracle with partitioning, parallelism and very good query optimization that might take you, say, 2-5 seconds o