IBM Refuses To Certify Oracle Linux

Andrew writes "IBM has thrown a spanner in the Oracle Linux works by refusing to certify that IBM's software portfolio will run and be supported on Oracle Unbreakable Linux. If IBM applications turn out to be incompatible with Oracle Linux, then it will be up to Oracle to resolve any issues. This conservative stance of IBM's is unlikely to help Oracle sell Linux subscriptions to businesses that use any of IBM's large software portfolio."

Oh no!

Now that Oracle has added "Unbreakable" in front of the word "Linux"... Linux is finally going to become insecure :(

Note to Linux developers: remember to add all your SVN commits as cron jobs, and forward date them all 2 years, or 3 years if they're critical security patches.

To whom is Oracle selling?!?

Oracle isn't selling to IT people; they're selling to IT peoples' managers.

CentOS too

They don't certify CentOS works either, but I can tell you for sure that Tivoli Storage Manager Extended edition works just fine on CentOS 4.4

If Oracle Linux is from the same mold as CentOS then it is a fear factor rather than anything serious. Personally if I where Oracle I would hire as many of the CentOS developers as possible and get them to do a spin of CentOS as Oracle Linux.

Re:CentOS too

but big enterprise doesn't think that way, they want certified compatibility and adherence to the letter of support contracts. Good luck calling EMC or Hitachi and saying your CentOS has problems accessing your 20TB disk array with a given HBA and switch. You'd void your warranty right then and there. As an aside, CentOS lags RedHat in patches, and also has to rewrite parts of the redhat admin system, it isn't 100% the same.

Re:CentOS too

You have perfectly summed up it !! I had a DB cluster setup on HP DL-385 and had to migrate to RHEL just to get support for Hardware issues from HP. They blindly refuse to support telling that "we don't support anything other than RHEL". The fact is that vendors are looking for an excuse to say no to support and RHEL/CentOS is enough for them

Re:CentOS too

worth mentioning that HP does support RedHat, SuSE and Debian.

Re:CentOS too

No offense, but as a hardware vendor I'd do this too. Because otherwise, where do you stop? "Yeah, we're running on this custom-compiled Gentoo with a few third party extensions. We're seeing some errors in our custom logs that look like our proprietary apps can't connect to your hardware. Send an engineer."

As a vendor, I will tell you "OK, we've checked out and certified that we work with these distros. Anything else, it will probably work but you're on your own if it doesn't." Seems reasonable to me.

Now, if you're concerned that vendors will use this to shut out "free" distros from being supported, maybe that's a case worth making. But some of this is market demand--if HP kept getting the question about "hey, will you support this on CentOS?" from hardware customers, and were losing customers by saying no, you can be they'd look into CentOS support. They are not vested in propping up RedHat's licensing business.

IMO, the main issue that big companies have and will continue to have with Linux is distro fragmentation. It's just not feasible anymore to test your applicaiton/server/hardware with every conceivable distro that's out there. So you pick some, and those are the ones your customers tell you they're running.

Put another way, *I* could come out with a RHEL clone distro tomorrow. Are you telling me it would be reasonable for me to expect HP to support it?

Re:CentOS too

"Good luck calling EMC or Hitachi and saying your CentOS has problems accessing your 20TB disk array with a given HBA and switch."

I do this all the time, I run CentOS in development and most of the test environment. When I see a problem on CentOS, I verify that the problem exists on one of my RHEL test boxes, and call them up. When they fix the problem on RHEL, it is either automatically fixed on CentOS, or I replicate whatever they did on RHEL on CentOS and the problem is fixed. You just have to learn how to play their game, if they say they only support "expensive X", then have as few of "expensive X" around to satisfy that requirement.

"it isn't 100% the same"

It's enough the same that I have never run into anything that broke on one that didn't break exactly the same way on the other. CentOS is so good that I have started to move some of my production systems to it, but I will always keep a fair number of RHEL boxes around, since third parties need someone to point a finger at when they determine that it isn't their stuff.

No wories

If you are not allergic to IBM, and need a powerful database, you would probably rather run db2 than Oracle anyway, especially if you are using other large IBM packages.

IMNSHO, db2 pisses on Oracle from a great height.

A definite shame

Looks to me like IBM is just looking after their own bottom line and protecting their own business by doing this. This is definitely not in the open and giving spirit of OSS and Linux.

IBM should rethink this decision if they want to hold onto the goodwill of the community.

Re:A definite shame

I don't recall any of Rick Stallman's lectures being about charity.

Oracle is trying to shift the blame from their software stack to IBM's before they've even deployed a box. In other words, if you have a problem and are running IBM software, Oracle wants IBM to foot the bill of researching the bug or issue.

Who is Oracle to dictate that problems are automatically some other vendor's fault instead of their own?

Probably not really a refusal ...

It's probably more a case of 'IBM has contracts in place with RedHat and Novell, and testing efforts in place, so that if a client buys (for example) IBM Websphere with an expectation of running on Linux, then IBM will warrant timely resolution of any defects that may threaten to get in the way of the IBM customer's use of the IBM product'.

I'm fairly sure that if someone offers enough money, they could have that assurance on Oracle, Ubuntu, or anyone else's Linux too.

Sun too

A bit of an aside but I was told that Sun won't support Oracle Apps servers with their Identity management s/w Access Manager.

Is this a case of ganging up on Oracle by it's allegedly strategic partners.

TFA is a troll

This is hardly unusual. Companies spend a lot of money to certify software distros, and put their own maintenance dollars on the line when they certify them.

A third party saying "use our stuff--it's just the same as theirs" isn't necessarily credible. Maybe they're a clone, or maybe they're a clone today and might not be tomorrow. Or maybe they'd only clone part of the distro, leaving out critical parts. Or maybe they'll add custom stuff to the distro. IBM isn't under any obligation to believe Oracle's marketing materials and automatically certify based on taking Oracle's word that "it's the same and always will be."

There are DOZENS of RHEL clones out there (CentOS is the most popular, but hardly the only one). I don't think IBM considers any of them "certified."

Actual quote from TFA: "We are going to wait and see if there is traction in the marketplace," McMahon said. "If clients want it (Oracle), then we will support it."

This is a non-issue, and someone's using the "IBM vs. Oracle!" angle to generate traffic and controversy by stirring people up. Looks like they succeeded.

I Hate Linux Distro Certification

I just hate the whole concept of Linux distribution certification, because it tells me that there's something wrong with running software on it. I doubt whether a huge amount of older software is certified to run on Windows 2003 either, but you can bet your life that many organisations are running that software on Windows 2003. Organisations generally just try it out on a newer version of an OS, and if it works OK in a trial period (even if they have to tweak things to get it to work) they go with it, and they don't fly into a massive panic. I've done this many times, including an older piece of, now totally unsupported, software written for NT 4 in C to communicate with a mainframe that needed to run on 2003.

If Oracle can say "Yes, this will run" to their customers, and their customers try it out and it does actually run, then no one will care.

In terms of backwards compatibility, and getting the software you want to work, Windows is still way ahead of Linux, and this whole concept of distributors and software vendors protecting themselves (and engineering some lock-in, incidentally) by certifying, or certifying for, certain distributions just isn't helping Linux or open source software get more widely used.

Eliminating distro. cert. is wishful thinking

I just hate the whole concept of Linux distribution certification, because it tells me that there's something wrong with running software on it.

For most IT dept.-written apps that rely on super-common well-known library functions, no, the distribution doesn't make much of a difference. But once you start doing lower-level stuff (like the sort of stuff every software application IBM sells does), things start to not work right.

This is a big problem with Linux, and no amount of wishful thinking will make the problem go away. Apps not working on all distributions is exactly the sort of problem that the Linux Standards Base (went nowhere) and United Linux (supported by Caldera/SCO) were supposed to prevent.

Organisations generally just try it out on a newer version of an OS, and if it works OK in a trial period (even if they have to tweak things to get it to work) they go with it, and they don't fly into a massive panic.

Maybe some IT shop that doesn't care about their software actually working can do that, but actual software companies that make their living selling software MUST perform testing.

Yes, there are many organizations that do that, but those are either small and/or low-quality IT shops and/or non-critical apps.

I have several healthcare industry customers that are running OS software that is coming up on three years of ageing out of OS vendor support because their app vendor STILL hasn't certified a more recent O/S version. For them, and most customers, the app vendor support is far more important than OS vendor support, because they know that most day-to-day bugs are in their apps, not their OS. Personally, I know that I crash Mozilla (and other apps) a heck of a lot more than I have ever crashed Windows.

If Oracle can say "Yes, this will run" to their customers, and their customers try it out and it does actually run, then no one will care.

Those customers will care very much when they try and call IBM to receive assistance under their support contract for their expensive and complex application and IBM says "Sorry Mr. Customer, you are running in an extremely unsupported and untested environment." Usually this will be accompanied by some limited best-effort support to make sure that it is not an obvious bug in the product.

Now if enough customers ask for it (and are willing to pay), I am sure that IBM will be more than happy to certify their apps on Oracle Linux. Yes, Oracle is a competitor, but so is M$, and plenty of IBM software runs on Windows. But IBM is not going to go out and certify Oracle Linux just because Oracle is whining about it. I am equally sure that if IBM rolled out their own distro tomorrow, Oracle would not be falling over themselves to certify their apps for it either.

This whole concept of distributors and software vendors protecting themselves (and engineering some lock-in, incidentally) by certifying, or certifying for, certain distributions just isn't helping Linux or open source software get more widely used.

The fact of the matter is that there ARE differences between distributions, and those differences have been known to break a lot of applications. Because of this, there is no way for a software vendor to get around distribution certification. If you certified your mega-dollar application to run on any Linux distro, what do you do the first time some clown calls up with some home-grown hybrid of five different distros and wonders why it doesn't work?

Software companies are in the business of making money, not "helping Linux or open source software get more widely used." If Linux distro writers want to make the burden of application certification easier, then the onus is on the Linux folks to get their act together and make Linux distros more homogenous. Don't blame the software vendors for this sorry state of affairs.

SirWired

It's nice to see...

... IBM telling Oracle to go to hell. They are my hero.

This isn't just sabre rattling

Running a closed-source app on an otherwise open source platform has problems to start. IBM's service organization status means that the liability for apps running successfully is largely on them. DB2 isn't really competitive with Oracle, but IBM also needs any number of Oracle's famous acquisitions to run on their infrastructure. The lightweight, one-toe-in-the-water support that Oracle has for Linux (despite the PR otherwise) doesn't make for a successful relationship. It's up to Oracle to figure this one out if they really really want to play in the burgeoning FOSS marketplace. This is a good thing: I never used to believe IBM but their efforts towards FOSS have been fairly stellar, and for the right reasons, IMHO.

Why is Oracle doing a Linux distro?

Would you use it if you were not going to run an Oracle DBMS on it? All Oracle products that are not the core DBMS exist for one reason: sell the DBMS.

If you buy anything from Oracle that is not the DBMS (such as OAS) then you are buying a me too, second best product.

ORacle is a competitor

Of course they have a vested interest not to support it. IBM makes DB2.

Also IBM wants you to buy an IBM server with your DB2 database. Oracle linux can run on Sun's which also is IBM's competitor.

This is purely political and not unexpected.

Aww geez! It beginning to sound like...

the Unix Wars [wikipedia.org] all over again.

Look, guys. Interoperate, or die. Simple as that.

If your app is big enough to require Oracle...

... wouldn't it be a good idea to keep other stuff off your Oracle box, anyway?

ibm

This whole concept of distributors and software vendors protecting themselves (and engineering some lock-in, incidentally)
by certifying, or certifying for, certain distributions just isn't helping Linux or open source software get more
widely used.

ozgur uksal http://www.oracle.com/technology/ [oracle.com]

Re:history will repeat

You're confusing Linux the kernel with Linux the distribution. Each distribution contains the standard Linux kernel with a bunch of other stuff. So each distribution can be considered a different operating system as far as support is concerned.

Luniz

Linuzzz.

Weren't they the rappers that had a hit with "I got 5 on it" in the mid-nineties? ;-P

Re:Simply don't use IBM

If IBM doesn't want you as a client, you sure as hell don't want IBM as a service contractor!

Who is the nebulous "you" in this statement?

The droves of businesses falling over themselves to switch to Oracle's RHEL clone?

As the article said, if there is customer demand, IBM will certify on it. Personally, I'd be much more interested in certification on Ubuntu or Debian. That would actually offer customers real, technology-based choice, not just "I want to give my money to Larry" choice.