Oracle Contributes Linux Code, Expands Hardware Support 45
Jaden writes "Oracle expanded the list of hardware compatible with its Linux distribution and added support for Novell's YAST administration tool. They have now certified six hardware configurations able to run Oracle Enterprise Linux. Certified products include those made by Compellent Technologies, Dell, Egenera, EMC, Hewlett-Packard, Pillar Data Systems and Unisys. Oracle also said it is releasing an open-source version of the YAST Linux installation and configuration tool for Oracle Enterprise Linux and Red Hat Enterprise Linux under the General Public License."
Who is the biggest Linux vendor? (Score:4, Informative)
There is one difference, though. Oracle is a Big Corporation; bigger than Google, for example; much bigger than Novell, and much much bigger than Red Hat. To see them offering a Linux product, and various FOSS projects (like their GPLed clustering file system and now Yast) is highly interesting; they are, to put it plainly, the biggest corporation selling a commercial Linux distro. In fact, I believe they are the 2nd-largest operating system vendor (perhaps there is a tie with Apple, though).
Of course, despite Oracle's size, their Linux business is tiny - the market is mostly Red Hat's, and to a lesser degree Novell's. But Oracle, if they take this market seriously, stand to become a significant player. And that isn't a bad thing, so long as they abide by the FOSS licenses they distribute and contribute back - which, it appears, they are in fact doing.
Re:GNU/Linux distributor publishes some code... (Score:3, Informative)
The official OS within Oracle is being transitioned to this Linux dist of them (Unbreakable Linux) and the official Windows base install in the company (for non dev people) is not even XP.
I work on Macs so none of these OSes concern me but we keep getting internal memos about Oracle's Linux.
Re:Oracle Enterprise Linux? (Score:4, Informative)
"All the proprietary RH stuff" is just some trademarked logos and occurrences of the literal string "RedHat". That's about the only difference between RHEL and CentOS [centos.org].
The Linux-Watch article you linked to doesn't make sense, either:
If they'd done even the slightest bit of research, they could have compared that to RedHat's claims of seven years of maintenance [redhat.com]. If they wanted to do actual journalism, they would have pressed Oracle for specific examples of times RedHat has fallen through on that promise and (if they'd given any) seen what RedHat has to say in their defense. As far as I've seen, RedHat's support is as good as advertised.