I'm having a hard time seeing where Oracle isn't multipolar. Their absolutely core technology is a database. All their business offerings on the next layer generally support databases other than Oracle. Oracle is usable by business products that conflict with their offerings. Going to their Sun acquisition it gives them a hardware platform they can control. The ability to buy an "Oracle box" which Oracle is responsible for maintaining, top to bottom.
As for OpenOffice I'm not sure how that fits with Oracle's model at all, it is a Sun asset they can't really make use of. MySQL they seem to be protecting fine keeping it focused on the low end, along with Berkley DB, which is also theirs.
Oracle Linux is silly. I think Oracle will likely start licensing RedHat as it gets more difficult to support. Once they start writing checks their problems with RedHat will be over.
Oracle Linux is silly. I think Oracle will likely start licensing RedHat as it gets more difficult to support. Once they start writing checks their problems with RedHat will be over.
I don't agree with the author.
Their stack is: bare metal, Oracle Linux, Oracle ASM (fs/volume mgr), Oracle Cluster, then DB, app, etc.
In other words, from bare metal (which they also sell:-) to app (and they sell some giant ones - Peoplesoft, Siebel, Oracle eBusiness, etc.) they can sell you the entire stack. Everything below the DB is reasonably priced (compared to Veritas, RedHat, etc.) and exists mainly as a way to sell you the DB and up, where the real money is (because OS, cluster, etc. are commodities at this point)
I'd be really surprised if they'd yank one one layer of the stack (OEL).
They may merge in some Sun tech, though - right now that is a whole different stack.
It would still look like that to the customer. Just Oracle would be paying RedHat for 2nd or 3rd tier support on OEL. The customer gets a unified support experience by RedHat is doing the OS work. Besides they don't sell PC hardware so that' the very bottom layer of the stack easy to drop or do it 1/2 way or rebrand or...
I don't think Oracle wants to get into making an OS. Hell they don't even want to do much with Solaris.
Then you'd be wrong. Why write cheques to RHEL when they don't have to? And what does their support get you that Oracle can't also do? They have over 100k employees, some of which can read/write code. As others have tried to say owning the whole stack is the goal and selling that "piece of mind" to another large company is why. If a core piece of business software (e.g. Peoplesoft, ERP, etc.) goes down the CEO of AT&T (just as an example) doesn't want to hear: "oh we need to open a support case wit
Who cares if you have to give money to Redhat? Chances are that you are going to be giving Redhat less money for the same part of the stack. Plus Redhat is actually a Linux specialist and a pillar of the community rather than just some 3rd party that want's to exploit everyone.
You would write a check to Redhat now for the same reason you would write one to IBM or Sun before.
Oracle is just a big wannabe and their sociopathic attitude is driving all of their good talent away.
If they (or more likely, their customers) decide they really need RedHat, they can write a big check and buy the company. They could afford it. But they probably won't. As Larry said a few years ago, RedHat doesn't really own any IP. Their stuff is open source. So why pay for something you can just take?
The whole reason Oracle even rebrands RHEL is to bleed out Red Hat. Larry has been quite open about that. Giving Red Hat money isn;t bleeding them out, it's not going to happen.
Oracle and multipolar (Score:3)
I'm having a hard time seeing where Oracle isn't multipolar. Their absolutely core technology is a database. All their business offerings on the next layer generally support databases other than Oracle. Oracle is usable by business products that conflict with their offerings. Going to their Sun acquisition it gives them a hardware platform they can control. The ability to buy an "Oracle box" which Oracle is responsible for maintaining, top to bottom.
As for OpenOffice I'm not sure how that fits with Oracle's model at all, it is a Sun asset they can't really make use of. MySQL they seem to be protecting fine keeping it focused on the low end, along with Berkley DB, which is also theirs.
Oracle Linux is silly. I think Oracle will likely start licensing RedHat as it gets more difficult to support. Once they start writing checks their problems with RedHat will be over.
I don't agree with the author.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Oracle and multipolar (Score:4, Insightful)
Oracle Linux is silly. I think Oracle will likely start licensing RedHat as it gets more difficult to support. Once they start writing checks their problems with RedHat will be over.
I don't agree with the author.
Their stack is: bare metal, Oracle Linux, Oracle ASM (fs/volume mgr), Oracle Cluster, then DB, app, etc.
In other words, from bare metal (which they also sell :-) to app (and they sell some giant ones - Peoplesoft, Siebel, Oracle eBusiness, etc.) they can sell you the entire stack. Everything below the DB is reasonably priced (compared to Veritas, RedHat, etc.) and exists mainly as a way to sell you the DB and up, where the real money is (because OS, cluster, etc. are commodities at this point)
I'd be really surprised if they'd yank one one layer of the stack (OEL).
They may merge in some Sun tech, though - right now that is a whole different stack.
Re: (Score:2)
It would still look like that to the customer. Just Oracle would be paying RedHat for 2nd or 3rd tier support on OEL. The customer gets a unified support experience by RedHat is doing the OS work. Besides they don't sell PC hardware so that' the very bottom layer of the stack easy to drop or do it 1/2 way or rebrand or...
I don't think Oracle wants to get into making an OS. Hell they don't even want to do much with Solaris.
Re: (Score:0)
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares if you have to give money to Redhat? Chances are that you are going to be giving Redhat less money for the same part of the stack. Plus Redhat is actually a Linux specialist and a pillar of the community rather than just some 3rd party that want's to exploit everyone.
You would write a check to Redhat now for the same reason you would write one to IBM or Sun before.
Oracle is just a big wannabe and their sociopathic attitude is driving all of their good talent away.
Re: RedHat (Score:2)
If they (or more likely, their customers) decide they really need RedHat, they can write a big check and buy the company. They could afford it. But they probably won't. As Larry said a few years ago, RedHat doesn't really own any IP. Their stuff is open source. So why pay for something you can just take?
Re: (Score:2)
They'd aquire lots of expertize, contracts and good will.
Now, Oracle being Oracle, those would last for a week or less. But that is not because RedHat is worthless.
Re: (Score:0)
The whole reason Oracle even rebrands RHEL is to bleed out Red Hat. Larry has been quite open about that. Giving Red Hat money isn;t bleeding them out, it's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Oracle want to bleed RedHat which makes the distribution their Linux is based on?