Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Oracle to Compete With Red Hat for Linux Support 221

Posted by ScuttleMonkey 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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle to Compete With Red Hat for Linux Support More

Oracle to Compete With Red Hat for Linux Support

Comments Filter:

  • first step towards buying red hat? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by carlivar ( 119811 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @06:54PM (#16586458)
    Perhaps just a strategy to get RHAT stock low enough to buy them?
    • Why buy them, when they can just leach off Red Hat? The only reason I can think of is if Red Hat development severely suffers due to this move by Oracle.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by saleenS281 ( 859657 )
        IF? It's not IF, it's WHEN. How do you think Redhat is going to pay developers when Oracle undercuts their only money generator?

        • Re:first step towards buying red hat? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @09:25PM (#16587924) Homepage
          Let's see if Oracle REALLY undercuts Red Hat support prices. I have yet to see Oracle undercut ANYONE on the price of ANYTHING. They would be well advised to properly support their own products first. I've had my fair share of offshore disappointment with Oracle support -- not anxious to repeat the experience. Then again, I suppose anyone can serve patches. Hell, I run Centos at home. There is nothing going on with Oracle vs. Red Hat that Centos isn't doing already (on a smaller scale, of course).

          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.
          • They've said they're going to cut the prices in half. I'd say thats REALLY undercutting.

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by dcavanaugh ( 248349 )
              Sure, they said, "half price". Half of what and availble to whom?

              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
        • "How do you think Redhat is going to pay developers when Oracle undercuts their only money generator?"

          By this you are implicitly stating that no one uses redhat except to run oracle servers. I doubt that is the case. For the vast majority of redhat users out there, the main impact will be further penetration and inneroperability with the rest of their supply chain.
      • Oracle still wants JBoss so it needs to buy Red Hat??

  • The Linux OS (Score:5, Informative)

    by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @06:57PM (#16586498) Homepage Journal
    ``Oracle will be providing full enterprise support for Linux.''

    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.
    • Where do you draw the line? Linux distribution is a well accepted term and the practice of shortening it to Linux is well accepted. Without the GNU toolset (or one like it), the kernel would be essentially useless. But then the problem comes that for a given purpose, any number of layers can be considered vital. 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 Apach

      • Re:Yes yes, this whole debate again... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by RAMMS+EIN ( 578166 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:25PM (#16586760) Homepage Journal
        ``Where do you draw the line?''

        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.
        • Actually this is perhaps of the best non-religious, pragmatic discussions of a naming convention I've see on slashdot. Disregard the flamebait and trolls, and keep posting!

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by sydb ( 176695 )
            It's not a "naming convention", it's calling a spade a spade. The only bad argument that's regularly trotted out is the "credit where credit is due" one, because it seems petty, yet it's understandable.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by jedidiah ( 1196 )
        Where does any IT support geek draw the line?

        The support matrix.

        The support matrix typically specifies product, vendor, major version, minor version & patches.

        This thing is not going to support "linux in general" any more that it would support "solaris in general" or "aix in general". There are going to be some obvious restrictions.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by glwtta ( 532858 )
      Remember, there is no such thing as the Linux operating system.

      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

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by sydb ( 176695 )
        You're wrong. Normal people wouldn't be reading the article for a start. People with a technical background would legitimately wonder if this is support for a number of Linux distributions or one particular distro, and which.

        Your Windows analogy doesn't hold water because there are dozens of current Linux distrubutions, whereas there are only a handful of current Windows versions.

        The phrasing definitely can indicate something other than Oracle supporting a specific distribution of Linux. It can indicate mul

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by nuzak ( 959558 )
      > Linux is just the kernel

      No, Linux is a trademark, owned by one Mr Linus Torvalds. He long ago gave his okay to using the name to cover entire distributions. You going to tell Linus he's wrong?

  • I understand.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Creepy Crawler ( 680178 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @06:58PM (#16586500)
    Why they would want their own distribution (either buy Rhat or make their own)..

    But why not use established systems with guaranteed update mechanisms? Something like Debian with the stable branch comes to mind.
    • ``But why not use established systems with guaranteed update mechanisms? Something like Debian with the stable branch comes to mind.''

      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
    • But why not use established systems with guaranteed update mechanisms?

      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)

    by Junta ( 36770 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @06:59PM (#16586508)
    Ok, in summary, Oracle will support only RHEL3 and RHEL4 distributions (per TFA). They didn't mention CentOS and said they wouldn't be packing it themselves, so the implication it is only copies purchased from RH. Best I can figure is that Oracle would be offering the equivalent of an 'extended warranty', targetting those who took the shortest support contract possible from RedHat and paying oracle with the rest, meaning either their hoping their name will carry weight or they plan to undercut RedHat for long term contracts.

    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)

      by RunzWithScissors ( 567704 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @08:44PM (#16587548)
      The goal is to not pay Red Hat a dime. Think about it, how does CentOS work? Easy, Red Hat, being an open source company, releases the sourcecode for the entire Red Hat Enterprise Linux distribution. Then CentOS takes the source code, removes all the copyrighted artwork and such, and BAM! CentOS. Oracle basically says they're going to do the same thing with their "Unbreakable Linux". So, you can get RHEL with out paying for it. Grab the source RPMs, remove the artwork, and rebuild binary RPMs.

      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

      • This assumes, of course, that the only reason previous to this point for buying RH Linux is if you wanted to run Oracle, and that's hardly the case. There's a lot of RH Linux that isn't even remotely involved with Oracle software. This will likely put a damper on RH sales, but there still is a whole lot of commercial UNIX to undercut and there's a lot more to Linux than a platform to run Oracle software.

        In fact, this could easily backfire on Oracle. Red Hat has been laying off on pushing it's own Postg

        • In fact, this could easily backfire on Oracle. Red Hat has been laying off on pushing it's own PostgreSQL based Red Hat database.

          I was wondering when someone was going to mention Postgresql. Oracle's database is essentially a legacy app -- if you're already using it you wouldn't necessarily plan on dumping it immediately, but there's no way in hell you'd start a new business based on it.

          It's actually pretty funny having Larry Ellison telling people they can save money by switching to open source soft

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jedidiah ( 1196 )
            That kind of thinking only works if you treat postgres like Oracle. If you treat postgres like mysql then you will end up with a cheap bad hack that won't have any hope of replacing that "legacy" Oracle solution. When Linux in general is used as an excuse to be excessively cheap bad things tend to happen. This is the case even when running Oracle.

            Linux is not a mythical magic freebie that suddenly makes everything else in your IT infastructure free too.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Pecisk ( 688001 )
          I think you are right. But we can extend this theory even more - RedHat propably is grewing some kinda of RHEL+JBoss+Postgresql combo, which easily can beat Oracle in price and reliability. So this is kinda Oracle answer.

          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.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by VENONA ( 902751 )
            I wouldn't be surprised if RH is going to grow some sort of "RHEL+JBoss+Postgresql combo" *now*, as a response. But the RH database is currently a defunct product. It made better business sense at the time for RH to get Oracle. I think that what's happened is that Oracle has seen an opportunity to seriously damage RH, and at a minimum keep them from moving up the application stack.

            They do love to either wack or buy competition. Sound familiar?

            RH was already struggling with a 34% drop in profit in their last

  • Yay. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by sloth jr ( 88200 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:03PM (#16586540)
    Because Oracle commits tons of code to the mainline linux kernel, unlike RedHat....

    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 /usr/src/linux
    grep -r redhat.com /usr/src/linux

    RedHat has invested in major contributors by putting them on staff. Oracle? Not so much.
    • But why should Oracle put tons of members on kernel staff?

      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)

        by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @08:19PM (#16587292) Journal
        Wrong. Oracle runs faster on Linux than Windows. And it will get faster still. The problem is that as soon as Oracle tweaks to the MS kernel, MS intrduces tweaks designed to slow Oracle. This approach is how they treat all of their competitors. The nice thing is that if Oracle sticks this out and works with redhat, ibm, sgi, etc, more software companies will port to Linux due to neutrality.
    • On my Suse distn:

      grep -ri oracle /usr/src/linux | wc
                  9 72 805
      grep -ri redhat /usr/src/linux | wc
              905 6543 84527

  • So? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by TXG1112 ( 456055 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:07PM (#16586590) Homepage Journal
    If it's anything like their support for their flagship products, Oracle and PeopleSoft don't bother. Anytime we report an issue with our multi-million dollar enterprise implementation, they spend several weeks trying to find some other party to blame. It's your hardware, no it's the network....etc.

       

    • Re:So? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ilmdba ( 84076 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:43PM (#16586880)
      i've found oracle's support for their database and financials products to be great.

      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?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by doom ( 14564 )
        ilmdba (84076) wrote:
        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.
        I've heard things like this from other people also: if you report a bug to Oracle they get a patch to you to fix it very quickly.

        What I would say, though, is given the amount of money they charge, they really should have fewer bugs.

  • It's about the value chain (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:08PM (#16586602)
    Oracle's internal organization and practices lead to expensive services. They probably can't compete with Red Hat on price.

    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)

    by CoughDropAddict ( 40792 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:13PM (#16586632) Homepage
    RMS always argued that free software is pro-capitalist, because there is a free market for support. I think it's great that we're seeing this argument validated with real-life examples.

    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)?
    • RMS always argued that free software is pro-capitalist, because there is a free market for support. I think it's great that we're seeing this argument validated with real-life examples.

      His argument has not been validated. We have yet to see revenue from this support be able to fund developement and yield a desired return. Until revenue reaches this level we do not have a potentially capitalist system. This revenue currently funds only part of Linux development, the subsidized portion but not the charity
  • Given that Red Hat licenses its trademarks in Enterprise Linux under restricted conditions (which include buying an annual contract), isn't Oracle going to be encouraging RedHat customers to violate their trademark licenses from RedHat? Isn't this something Red Hat could sue over?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 )
      isn't Oracle going to be encouraging RedHat customers to violate their trademark licenses from RedHat?
      No. Oracle will be encouraging RedHat customers to switch to Unbreakable Linux, a version of RedHat with the trademarked materials removed.

  • Good news but for unexpected reasons. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lethyos ( 408045 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:19PM (#16586698) Journal

    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)

      by Lethyos ( 408045 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @07:28PM (#16586782) Journal

      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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by CastrTroy ( 595695 )
        Your also forgetting the cost of the CALs on windows. Along with the cost of the database. Redhat includes a database (actually 2, postgres and mysql), Windows server does not include a database. There's also a lot of nice compilers and development environments that you get included when you buy Linux. With windows, none of this is included. With MS, you pretty much get a bare OS, and don't even get unlimited connections. With Linux, you get a tonne of applications, with no artificial limits on the numb

        • 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)

            by clymere ( 605769 )
            And of all of that is terrific, but none of it is supported by the vendor. You can call RH with your MySQL or PostGreSQL problems, as the primary thing they are selling you is support and updates. You can't call MS, you can scarcely get support form them on the features included in the OS without shelling out extra $$$.

            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
      • I think the days of windows base prices being high are gone. Compared to other offerings from Sun and Novell (similar type proprietary software companies), Microsoft is way cheaper. However, RedHat is a pretty good value. It comes with a alot out of the box for that price. Windows comes with almost nothing. RedHat support is pretty good. MS support is next to useless. In fact, I've never once heard of a person actually getting an issue resolved through Microsoft. It's the most frustrating process in the wor
    • ...so what you're saying is you're talking out of your ass? Have you taken a look at all the projects RHEL contributes to in the open source community? All those other "free" distro's you use would be nothing without Red Hat's contributions...

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Lethyos ( 408045 )

        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

        • You don't get the whole expert knowledge thing. What does it matter that redhat has more kernel developers on staff than anyone else? Well, if you have a problem and or what to tweak the kernel, where the hell do you go? Maybe you've got a cousin whose kids have some linux servers in the garage, and they'd like to tweak your companies kernel, sure...but I don't think so. Perhaps you just misunderstand "value".

          In terms of system administration, consider that one of the most often stated reasons unix a

  • A fundamental problem with open source (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MC68000 ( 825546 ) <brodskie AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @08:09PM (#16587154)
    In this case, we have the following scenario.
    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 was not that great. The support was through HP, which provides a support contract in partnership with Red Hat. In both cases where support was required, Red Hat developers had to be called in to acknowledge the problem and create a fix, but I was never able to talk to Red Hat directly, which IMO cost me a lot of time. It put me off from requesting support on other issues that I might have otherwise requested help with. We are looking at switching most of o
    • The fact that Oracle will compete with RH doesn't lower the probability of them fixing any problem with the OS, does it? It's not like they have to ask RH for advice on fixing an error.

      They could as well submit any customer's bug for Unbreakable Linux that they can duplicate on their official & supported copy of RHEL to RH for fixing and it RH would have to do it for them.

  • A Dream Answered (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    > Oracle to Compete Wth Red Hat for Linux Support

    Finally! Now you too can own a $30,000 version of Linux.

    * In keeping with the Oracle tradition of no GUIs, no KDE and GNOME will not be included. Larry has his fingers crossed someone else will write one.
    * In the Oracle tradition of installers written in Java, you too can have a relaxed day of installation watching those damned applet windows keep redrawing themselves... very slowly.

  • Ex-Oracle OSS strategy guy's view (Score:4, Interesting)

    by savio13 ( 995182 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @11:47PM (#16589208)
    Very interesting blog by Dave Dargo [ingres.com], who, according to Matt Assay, used to lead Oracle's open source strategy, about the Oracle Linux announcement.

    An interesting point from Dave:
    I'm mostly curious as to why Oracle's first real support network is for someone else's product. Where's the Oracle Database Network and Applications Network and PeopleSoft Network and Siebel Network? Where are the support infrastructure networks for Oracle's own products to automatically distribute fixes, patches and alerts?
    And this quote made me laugh:
    It's amazing that they can provide all that for a mere $399 for a competitor's products, but not for their own $200,000 product.

  • Consider the target market. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by billybob_jcv ( 967047 ) on Wednesday October 25, 2006 @11:49PM (#16589226)
    We aren't a full linux shop - we are a typical midmarket corp IT shop - running Oracle eBusiness Suite, Oracle DBMS, Oracle App Server, along with a variety of apps backed by either Oracle DBMS or SQLServer. Our infrastructure is a mix of RH linux and MS 2003 Server. All the Oracle products are on RH linux, and we have been paying Oracle and RH for support.

    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)

    by talksinmaths ( 199235 ) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @01:35AM (#16589866) Homepage
    Unfakeable Linux [redhat.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Macka ( 9388 )

      I don't think Redhat get it. From the article you linked to:

      Q: Does Oracle's announcement include support for the Red Hat Application Stack, JBoss, Hibernate, Red Hat GFS, Red Hat Cluster Suite, Red Hat Directory Server, or Red Hat Certificate System? No.

      They seem to conveniently ignore the fact that with Oracle 10g RAC, Red Hat GFS, Red Hat Cluster Suite are irrelevant. 10g's built in cluster software (CRS) and filesystem (ASM) do away with the need for vendor clustering. All you need is a shared SAN di

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by C_Kode ( 102755 )
        So, call Oracle to support RHEL Linux that Oracle is running on and call Redhat to support RHEL is isn't running Oracle? ...I don't like it. If I have a problem with Oracle running on RHEL then Oracle has to fix it since Oracle is certified to run on it. If their is a kernel patch to fix a problem with Oracle on RHEL, then chances are Oracle will work with Redhat or submit the patch to fix the problem.

        I will stick with Redhat supporting ALL of my RHEL servers and Oracle support my 10g RAC.
    • That Unfakeable page is act of desperation...
      Red Hat spreading FUD about another open source product, how noble! And let's not forget how they sent that cease-and-desist letter for CentOS for stating they're based on RHEL...

      Let's see what they have to say:

      Q: Does Oracle's announcement include support for the Red Hat Application Stack, JBoss, Hibernate, Red Hat GFS, Red Hat Cluster Suite, Red Hat Directory Server, or Red Hat Certificate System?
      A: No. Oracle does not support any of these leading open source p
  • From this page you can download the Enterprise Linux Operating System software. If you are interested in downloading Oracle Technology or Application software products, including those running on the Linux Operating System, click here.
    From: http://edelivery.oracle.com/linux/ [oracle.com]

    It seems a rebranded version of RHEL (a la CentOs). -- Ernest

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by henrygb ( 668225 )
      Indeed. The Financial Times [ft.com] has

      Countering warnings from some observers that its entry might fragment the fast-growing Linux world, creating multiple incompatible "distributions" of the software, Oracle promised that its version would be identical to that produced by Red Hat.

      Asked whether Oracle had the legal right to take its rival's code, strip out the trademarks and redistribute the code under its own brand, Larry Ellison, chief executive, said: "It's an open-source product, right? That is what ope

  • So Red Hat compromise on their flagship product so that they don't compete with Oracle, and Oracle turn around and compete with them. I love this!

    Now I feel better about all that time I spent debugging their commercial apps for free!

  • Oracle offers SCOmnification .. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by rs232 ( 849320 ) on Thursday October 26, 2006 @05:04AM (#16590826)
    "The vendors aren't offering indemnification [groklaw.net], Ellison said, and because of SCO, there's all this uncertainty and doubt about intellectual property. He says he will offer indemnification. In the Q&A at the end, he was asked if Oracle was planning to buy SCO to bring that uncertainty to an end. No, was the answer.

    "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"

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close